Non-Catholic Memorial in Catholic parish

[Gethsemane]

So I read this in an obituary today. Identifiers are redacted.
“A celebration of …] life will be held …] at St. Paul’s Catholic Church … with [Reverend] of the United Church of Canada officiating.”

I suspect this is an abuse. The person in question is, or was, married to a Catholic at St. Paul’s and was presumably baptized. They were Presbyterian. Now, I’m aware that they would qualify for a Catholic funeral 1) if baptized, 2) if their regular church was unable to have the services, 3) with the Bishop’s permission, and 4) if the person wouldn’t be opposed.

However, there is a pretty decent United Church in town, and one down the road too, so to me sounds like an abuse to have a Protestant service in the Catholic Church when there isn’t a necessary need on part of the Protestants.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

No, this is not an abuse. A bishop can allow a non-Catholic funeral in a Catholic church for various reasons. For example, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s Lutheran funeral was held at St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington, DC.

See:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

1. Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries.

 

[QuestLove]

So I read this in an obituary today. Identifiers are redacted.
“A celebration of …] life will be held …] at St. Paul’s Catholic Church … with [Reverend] of the United Church of Canada officiating.”

I suspect this is an abuse. The person in question is, or was, married to a Catholic at St. Paul’s and was presumably baptized. They were Presbyterian. Now, I’m aware that they would qualify for a Catholic funeral 1) if baptized, 2) if their regular church was unable to have the services, 3) with the Bishop’s permission, and 4) if the person wouldn’t be opposed.

However, there is a pretty decent United Church in town, and one down the road too, so to me sounds like an abuse to have a Protestant service in the Catholic Church when there isn’t a necessary need on part of the Protestants.

Are you sure you know all the details? Maybe there is an issue you are not privy to.

 

[otjm]

As from your post it appears that the surviving spouse is a Catholic, it may well be that they were instrumental in asking that the service be held at the Catholic church; and as noted, there are circumstances in which it is permissible.

As noted, in circumstances, it is permitted, and this is an issue that is private to the surviving spouse, which is another way of saying that not only is it likely that there is no abuse, but also that no one else needs to know the details.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

So I read this in an obituary today. Identifiers are redacted.
“A celebration of …] life will be held …] at St. Paul’s Catholic Church … with [Reverend] of the United Church of Canada officiating.”

I suspect this is an abuse. The person in question is, or was, married to a Catholic at St. Paul’s and was presumably baptized. They were Presbyterian. Now, I’m aware that they would qualify for a Catholic funeral 1) if baptized, 2) if their regular church was unable to have the services, 3) with the Bishop’s permission, and 4) if the person wouldn’t be opposed.

However, there is a pretty decent United Church in town, and one down the road too, so to me sounds like an abuse to have a Protestant service in the Catholic Church when there isn’t a necessary need on part of the Protestants.

PaulfromIowa is quite correct in the answer that he gave and in the memorable example involving the hospitality extended to Lutherans for the celebration of the funeral of the late Chief Justice of the United States in the very cathedral that also hosted, memorably and poignantly for those of us of a certain age, the funeral of the only Catholic president of the United States…and that in the most tragic and horrific of circumstances.

I confess, as a priest, being perplexed as to why someone who is in the process of becoming Catholic would default in such a situation as you present to assuming that this occurrence would constitute “abuse”. I am even less sure why someone who is not yet even a parishioner would seek to insert oneself into what is the legitimate prerogative of the parish priest, who would have assuredly acted in concert with his chancery, and who moreover possesses the knowledge that he alone would have of the people and circumstances of this situation.

Rather than assuming that the pastor of the parish and the bishop of the diocese are acting against the mind of the Church, why not use the moment as a learning opportunity, for one coming into the Church, to understand the Church’s practice from those who would not only have long studied but also actually applied it for years? Pope Saint John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint, lauded this sort of sharing of facilities as a very practical way to advance the hoped for goal of Christian unity.

I offer a friendly caution that to presume “abuse” (which is not synonymous with acting mistakenly) where abuse is not only not present but where the priest or bishop has acted in a perfectly legitimate, if not routine, fashion – and to presume that one who is but at the beginning of a learning process is better qualified to assess issues of canon law than the priest who has been entrusted with the cura animarum by his bishop after many years of study and even more years of practice – is to put oneself in a very awkward position that can ultimately harm your own ability to relate both to your parish priest and to your bishop…and, actually even more importantly, they with you. An approach that sees and accuses abuse where there is none is not an endearing quality for the one who must contend with such allegations…but it is one which priests and bishops encounter with too much frequency today, regrettably.

In any event, I wish you well in your journey to full communion with the Church. May God bless you.

 

[Gethsemane]

PaulfromIowa is quite correct in the answer that he gave and in the memorable example involving the hospitality extended to Lutherans for the celebration of the funeral of the late Chief Justice of the United States in the very cathedral that also hosted, memorably and poignantly for those of us of a certain age, the funeral of the only Catholic president of the United States…and that in the most tragic and horrific of circumstances.

I confess, as a priest, being perplexed as to why someone who is in the process of becoming Catholic would default in such a situation as you present to assuming that this occurrence would constitute “abuse”. I am even less sure why someone who is not yet even a parishioner would seek to insert oneself into what is the legitimate prerogative of the parish priest, who would have assuredly acted in concert with his chancery, and who moreover possesses the knowledge that he alone would have of the people and circumstances of this situation.

Rather than assuming that the pastor of the parish and the bishop of the diocese are acting against the mind of the Church, why not use the moment as a learning opportunity, for one coming into the Church, to understand the Church’s practice from those who would not only have long studied but also actually applied it for years? Pope Saint John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint, lauded this sort of sharing of facilities as a very practical way to advance the hoped for goal of Christian unity.

I offer a friendly caution that to presume “abuse” (which is not synonymous with acting mistakenly) where abuse is not only not present but where the priest or bishop has acted in a perfectly legitimate, if not routine, fashion – and to presume that one who is but at the beginning of a learning process is better qualified to assess issues of canon law than the priest who has been entrusted with the cura animarum by his bishop after many years of study and even more years of practice – is to put oneself in a very awkward position that can ultimately harm your own ability to relate both to your parish priest and to your bishop…and, actually even more importantly, they with you. An approach that sees and accuses abuse where there is none is not an endearing quality for the one who must contend with such allegations…but it is one which priests and bishops encounter with too much frequency today, regrettably.

In any event, I wish you well in your journey to full communion with the Church. May God bless you.

I don’t know how you expect me to learn Father if I’m not allowed to ask questions. Questions I’m asking precisely because I have reviewed Canon Law and Ut Unam Sint and found neither resolved this particular situation. Therefore I put the question to those who might know better how to understand the issue. Being told to turn a blind eye isn’t helpful whether there is something awry or not. And if removing details wasn’t sufficient to indicate that I have no interest in starting anything, Father, I’ve declined participation in the funeral on grounds of conscience. That’s it. That’s all that was about Father. Properly forming the conscience, which requires information.

 

[Phemie]

In our community the largest church, by far, is the Pentecostal church. Funerals have been celebrated in that church for Catholics (at least once by the Bishop), Anglicans, UCC members, Moravians, etc. The Pentecostals are generous enough to never say “no” when they know the other churches can’t accommodate the probable number of mourners. It may be the same thing in reverse in the case you describe.

My own husband was baptized in the United Church of Canada. He hasn’t gone there in years but he hasn’t converted either. For a few years he was a member of our parish choir. I’m not sure what I’ll do if he dies before I do. I’d certainly feel weird turning to the local UCC minister. All hubby has ever said to me is that, although he spent 25 years in the military and another 15 working for the military, he doesn’t want to be buried in the local Commonwealth cemetery. Probably because he knows once I’m gone nobody in the family will ever return to this relatively isolated community. I suspect he wants to be buried back home with his parents.

 

[Gethsemane]

My own husband was baptized in the United Church of Canada. He hasn’t gone there in years but he hasn’t converted either. For a few years he was a member of our parish choir. I’m not sure what I’ll do if he dies before I do. I’d certainly feel weird turning to the local UCC minister. All hubby has ever said to me is that, although he spent 25 years in the military and another 15 working for the military, he doesn’t want to be buried in the local Commonwealth cemetery. Probably because he knows once I’m gone nobody in the family will ever return to this relatively isolated community. I suspect he wants to be buried back home with his parents.

If he’s validly baptized, he’d qualify for a Catholic funeral since he’s essentially without a pastor, so long as the Bishop and he are fine with it. I would ask him what he thinks of that.

 

[otjm]

I don’t know how you expect me to learn Father if I’m not allowed to ask questions. Questions I’m asking precisely because I have reviewed Canon Law and Ut Unam Sint and found neither resolved this particular situation. Therefore I put the question to those who might know better how to understand the issue. Being told to turn a blind eye isn’t helpful whether there is something awry or not. And if removing details wasn’t sufficient to indicate that I have no interest in starting anything, Father, I’ve declined participation in the funeral on grounds of conscience. That’s it. That’s all that was about Father. Properly forming the conscience, which requires information.

I don’t think Don Ruggero suggested that you not ask questions.

It is not necessarily an issue that one should not ask questions; it is much more about how the questions are asked. The initial questions seemed to presuppose that the matter was an abuse. Starting from that point is a bit different than starting from a point of curiosity, without the overlay of any presumption.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

No, this is not an abuse. A bishop can allow a non-Catholic funeral in a Catholic church for various reasons. For example, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s Lutheran funeral was held at St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington, DC.

See:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

The OP pointed out that in this case there is a United Church nearby.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I don’t know how you expect me to learn Father if I’m not allowed to ask questions. Questions I’m asking precisely because I have reviewed Canon Law and Ut Unam Sint and found neither resolved this particular situation. Therefore I put the question to those who might know better how to understand the issue. Being told to turn a blind eye isn’t helpful whether there is something awry or not. And if removing details wasn’t sufficient to indicate that I have no interest in starting anything, Father, I’ve declined participation in the funeral on grounds of conscience. That’s it. That’s all that was about Father. Properly forming the conscience, which requires information.

Keep asking questions Gethsemane. It’s the only way to learn and no Priest or Bishop is above questioning as long as it is done respectfully and not accusingly. Most will answer genuine concerns raised.

Priests and Bishops have been known to make the wrong decisions. I tend to error on the side of benefit of the doubt as I do not have access to all the facts. If there were other incidents of questionable behaviour then I would start asking questions.

My first full year as a Catholic our Bishop was reported by parishioners and eventually sacked by Pope Benedict after investigation, the Pope was supported by all Australian bishops. During the lengthy investigation it was a emotional and heated introduction to the region and the faith for me. It was also a introductory lesson to the real divisions between conservatives and traditionalists. We had a terrible fight in the town. Battle lines were drawn between conservatives and traditionalists because someone reported the Bishop. We as a community of faith still haven’t fully recovered.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The OP pointed out that in this case there is a United Church nearby.

There are no shortage of Lutheran churches throughout Washington, DC. It was a gracious act of His Eminence, the Cardinal, to permit the funeral to take place at the archdiocese’s cathedral…as His Eminence had the prerogative to do.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I don’t know how you expect me to learn Father if I’m not allowed to ask questions. Questions I’m asking precisely because I have reviewed Canon Law and Ut Unam Sint and found neither resolved this particular situation. Therefore I put the question to those who might know better how to understand the issue. Being told to turn a blind eye isn’t helpful whether there is something awry or not. And if removing details wasn’t sufficient to indicate that I have no interest in starting anything, Father, I’ve declined participation in the funeral on grounds of conscience. That’s it. That’s all that was about Father. Properly forming the conscience, which requires information.

I did not say you should not ask a question. Indeed, it is a most beneficial way to learn, especially on a topic like this where, actually, the answer you sought would not be one you could readily reach by independent reading and research, given its nature.

In any event, the asking of a question is not the situation here by what you yourself have written.

“I suspect this is an abuse.” “I have reviewed Canon Law.” “I’ve declined participation in the funeral on grounds of conscience.”

Personally, I always welcomed questions, provided they were asked in a sincere as well as a timely manner…either in the classroom or in the parish…and I found that to be the case with most of my brother priests. It is another matter, however, if a person were to present themselves as better positioned to already know the answer despite not actually even knowing either the academic subject or the extent of what they did not know about said academic subject and then proceeding to arrive at conclusions not founded on a grounded basis.

In this case, the responsibility for the application of the Church’s norms for this situation rests with the bishop of the diocese and the pastor of the parish – not others who do not have the cura animarum – as they take actual stock of the concrete situation as it really is and not as could be supposed it might be…as well as the desires of the family, in so far as they can be accommodated. Deliberations of this type may not only be deeply personal, they may also be completely inappropriate for them to share publicly.

My suggestion to you though was a friendly one: I believe you will find that an adversarial approach will only create hostility. It will certainly not facilitate an open and cordial relationship between yourself and the priest who has the care of your soul.