Stephen Gately's Funeral Mass

[Soutane]

The Order of Christian Funerals allows for someone to speak in remembrance of the deceased.

Someone speaking in remembrance of the deceased is permitted in the OCF after the prayer after communion.

Odds are that the priest is going to claim he didn’t know they were going to say those things and that he was caught off guard. The bishop isn’t going to come down heavy on him for that. And the Vatican isn’t going to get involved over such a local pastoral issue.

Perhaps in YOUR country,NOT in mine.I thought the prohibition on eulogies during Funeral Masses was universal.It is after all a MASS.Any sermonizing that is done should be done by the priest or deacon.No one is saying that this poor soul should not have received a Catholic Funeral Mass-a private one sans eulogies.Please do not equate practising homosexuality with the chastity practised by involuntarily divorced Catholics such as myself.It is a bogus comparison and you SHOULD know that.

“Odds are that the priest is going to claim he didn’t know they were going to say those things and that he was caught off guard. The bishop isn’t going to come down heavy on him for that. And the Vatican isn’t going to get involved over such a local pastoral issue.”

It must be nice to be all-knowing

 

[stuart12]

The homily may make mention of the deceased but it should be entirely Christ centered. The Mass is His Sacrifice, not a celebration of fallen humanity. There is to be no eulogy at the funeral Mass, but I believe someone may speak a few words at the end after the Communion prayer.

One of the great things about Catholicism is that it is theocentric, especially the Church’s beautiful liturgies. This fiasco was an insult to our Lord and the whole Church. What do our bishops actually do? They are meant to be shephards, shephards that Christ has appointedd for the good of the faithful. Hell does exist, and it their job as Fathers (who must advise, warn, chastise, correct etc) to lead us onto Christ. Our Lord told the woman to ‘go and sin no more’, however the only part of that event that is retold is ‘whoever is without sin, let him cast the first stone’, which is erroneously interpretated that we must not even judge an act to be evil.

His Grace Archbishop Lefevbre wrote about how Catholics were ‘confused’ and it through their negligence that we are in this state that we are in. Only a few will be saved, however it could be a bit more, if these bishops responded to the Lord’s call to lead the flock. I am not saying that all bishops are apathetic, there are many who work tirelessly for the Faith, but they may be the minority…

In this time of great evil, where many Catholics are going astray because of secularisation, it is the grave duty of our bishops to lead them back home. However, because of their lack of attentiveness, the Church looks like a joke.

 

[distracted]

This makes a mockery of the Catholic Church. What is the point of saying something is wrong, but then dont take that seriously? I wonder how many Catholics there today and through Ireland and the U.K accept homosexuality as normal and fine, and this lack of attention from our bishops is greatly worrying.

I pray for his soul, but nothing was said about his choice of lifestyle, while the priest was falling over himself to say how wonderful Stephen was. The Church is clear on these matters of morality, and this man obstinately rejected the Church’s teaching.

obviously, i totally agree…

 

[distracted]

T

In this time of great evil, where many Catholics are going astray because of secularisation, it is the grave duty of our bishops to lead them back home. However, because of their lack of attentiveness, the Church looks like a joke.

yes, no one takes the Catholic Church seriously anymore, even so called Catholics.

Satan is doing quite a lovely job isn’t he???

 

[distracted]

.A low profile funeral mass should have sufficed.Why were any eulogies at all allowed at the Funeral Mass?o.

not from what i’ve heard. I always believed that if a person was committing mortal sin, he was NOT to have a Cathlic funeral Mass

 

[distracted]

As a devout Catholic I find this,as well as the PUBLIC Funeral Mass for the late Ted Kennedy a persistent supporter of abortion and thusly self-excommunicated,shameful,embarrassing and a slap in the face to the FAITHFUL.Don’t deny these people private Funeral Masses but to do so publicly merely celebrates their obstinacy in sin.And I don’t care IF they repented at the last second(i hope they did)Their public behaviour brought scandal to the Church and hurt the ordinary Faithful,and set a horrible example and thusly they should have forfeited a public eulogized Mass which should have been celebrated in private.

.

i totally agree… Catholicism seems to be dying out because of this kind of thing… you cna’t distinguish the Ctholic Church from any other institution anymore which is just what the &^^%$$ devil wants. l sometimes wish the Church would allow women priests just so i coiuld become one and give the whole sinning world… well… hell…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Perhaps in YOUR country,NOT in mine.I thought the prohibition on eulogies during Funeral Masses was universal.It is after all a MASS.

Please do not equate practising homosexuality with the chastity practised by involuntarily divorced Catholics such as myself.It is a bogus comparison and you SHOULD know that.
Excuse me, please read what I actually wrote. I stated divorced and remarried. Perhaps I should have clarified divorced and remarried with an annulment but I thought that context was implied.

It must be nice to be all-knowing

Well I actually am a priest and have friends who have worked in bishops’ offices, so yes, I do know a little of how complaints are handled in such cases.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I stated divorced and remarried. Perhaps I should have clarified divorced and remarried with an annulment but I thought that context was implied.

that should read: divorced and remarried without an annulment.

Originally Posted by Soutane
Perhaps in YOUR country,NOT in mine.I thought the prohibition on eulogies during Funeral Masses was universal.

OK, I found the Irish Church’s National Centre For Liturgy and this is what it states about people speaking at a funeral mass:

There are occasions when a member of the family may choose to speak to the mourners. When and how this is done can vary according to local custom, and the local practice of a diocese or parish should be respected…If it is the local custom that a member of the family generally does speak during the funeral rites in the church then certain conventions should be respected.

Where things get confusing is that while “eulogies” are not allowed to take place during the funeral mass, someone can get up and speak in remembrance of the person. So by allowing someone to get up and speak during the funeral mass the priest was not in error. He should have reviewed what was going to be said ahead of time, or perhaps he did and then the speaker said something else.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Perhaps in YOUR country,NOT in mine.I thought the prohibition on eulogies during Funeral Masses was universal.

OK, I found the Irish Church’s National Centre For Liturgy and this is what it states about people speaking at a funeral mass:

There are occasions when a member of the family may choose to speak to the mourners. When and how this is done can vary according to local custom, and the local practice of a diocese or parish should be respected…If it is the local custom that a member of the family generally does speak during the funeral rites in the church then certain conventions should be respected.

Where things get confusing is that while “eulogies” are not allowed to take place during the funeral mass, someone can get up and speak in remembrance of the person. So by allowing someone to get up and speak during the funeral mass the priest was not in error. He should have reviewed what was going to be said ahead of time, or perhaps he did and then the speaker said something else.

 

[Ender]

So by allowing someone to get up and speak during the funeral mass the priest was not in error.

The error was in permitting the funeral in the first place and for exactly the same reason that allowing the Kennedy funeral was in error. The scandal in both cases was significant; basically these events imply that the bishops don’t accept what the Church teaches, so maybe we all get to pick and choose what we want to believe.

Ender

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The error was in permitting the funeral in the first place and for exactly the same reason that allowing the Kennedy funeral was in error. The scandal in both cases was significant; basically these events imply that the bishops don’t accept what the Church teaches, so maybe we all get to pick and choose what we want to believe.

Why is it an error to entrust someone to God’s mercy?

 

[Layman]

Wow, that’s news to me. So laymen are allow to orate at a funeral mass? And if they go a little off-topic or start preaching, blubbering or blathering, what can the priest then do about it without causing a scene?

I perceive a trend of giving people the idea, by saccharin Masses and by (lay) statements from the sanctuary, that the deceased is already in Heaven. I undertand that the proper function of a funeral Mass is to help the deceased get there. I understand that Catholic doctrine states that most of us will likely end up in purgatory, first, if we’re lucky and that we need Masses on Earth to help gain remission of this punishment.

Mr. Gately was a public figurehead for homosexuality, a grave sin. He should not have been given a Mass which effectively validated his lifestyle.

One more reason to run, don’t walk, to the TLM.

 

[Ender]

Why is it an error to entrust someone to God’s mercy?

That question is a bit disingenuous and has nothing whatever to do with my comment.

The issue is solely about whether someone who has flaunted a major teaching of the Church should be given an ecclesiastical funeral because of the scandal involved. In the cases of Messrs. Gately and Kennedy they were notorious for their outspoken support of, respectively, homosexuality and abortion. That they were given public, laudatory funerals despite such disqualifying behavior seems the very definition of scandal: “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil.” What of those who, while aware of the Church’s position, are nevertheless inclined to disagree? After seeing the Church send Gately and Kennedy off with nary a word about their behavior - and in fact with many a word about them being already in heaven - why would other people believe it’s all that wrong to do as they did?

Ender

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

That question is a bit disingenuous and has nothing whatever to do with my comment.

I disagree.

The issue is solely about whether someone who has flaunted a major teaching of the Church should be given an ecclesiastical funeral because of the scandal involved.

Well people who are divorced and remarried without an annulment are publicly in grave sin and yet they are never denied a funeral.

After seeing the Church send Gately and Kennedy off with nary a word about their behavior - and in fact with many a word about them being already in heaven - why would other people believe it’s all that wrong to do as they did?

I’ve seen funerals for people who were drug addicts yet no one thought the funeral was an encouragement for anyone else to do drugs.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

One more reason to run, don’t walk, to the TLM.

So if the funeral mass was in latin you would have been happy?

 

[Sebastien]

RE: Some of the comments made by NewEnglandPries

It might not be obvious to you, not being a citizen of Britain or Ireland, how famous Stephen Gately was - he wasn’t just another member of Joe Public. Therefore, unlike all the other funerals you are probably personally familiar with (the divorced and remarried, the drug addicts, etc) this one was for a PUBLIC person living a lifestyle contrary to the faith and morals of our Church. A notorious public sinner (we’re all sinners in one way or another - but we’re not all celebrities, politicians, etc) is to be denyed a public (or otherwise, I guess) requiem Mass - lest it cause grave scandal, i.e that others in similar situations think “well, if it’s ok for him to have a “gay wedding” and remai a Catholic, then it must be ok for me to do the same and remain a faithful to the Church”. It gives out the wrong message. Not only was this a public funeral, but it was broadcast live in parts of the media here in the UK (and probably Ireland). I saw it on BBC News, otherwise I wouldn’t have known anything about it. Obviously, a priest, especially one who was the pastor to the dead person, can make allowances for pastoral reasons…but most parish priests would not be dealing with famous celebrities, but with relatively anonymous souls. I still doubt that many priests would allow a Funeral Mass to be hijacked and be turned into a “gay” Mass though - even for ordinary people? I doubt that people at a Mass for a drug addict would be saying thing s like “he was so good at being able to score”!? As for drug addicts, the divorced and remarried, etc, you know every case goes on its own individual merits, and the pastor, and sometimes the local ordinary, has to decide on a case by case basis. One of the greatest factors in favour of allowing a requiem for people would be “were they Catholic?”. In other words, if a divorced and remarried, openly homosexual (and in a relationship), or addicted person used to come to Mass every Sunday and was trying live according to the faith, within the situation they found themselves, then of course they should be given the funeral rites of their Church. Stephen Gately, as far as anyone knows, and from what was discussed in the press, did not go to Church and had abandoned his faith for Eastern type mystical spiritualities. He was not someone who struggled with his sexuality and his Catholicism, as he’d left the latter and embraced the former. Therefore, I would have thought that this young man, given that he was openly gay and into forms of spirituality contrary to Catholic teaching, etc, would rather have been buried elsewhere himself! Maybe this was an example of the Church hjacking a celebrity in order to look cool!? If so then that would be just as wrong as seeming to approve (in a very public way) of a sinful way of life.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

It might not be obvious to you, not being a citizen of Britain or Ireland, how famous Stephen Gately was - he wasn’t just another member of Joe Public. Therefore, unlike all the other funerals you are probably personally familiar with (the divorced and remarried, the drug addicts, etc) this one was for a PUBLIC person living a lifestyle contrary to the faith and morals of our Church.

Well, the code of canon law doesn’t make separate laws for famous people. Notorious applies to apostates, heretics and schismatics. Sinners fall under canon 1184 §1 3° which says a funeral is to be denied: “other manifest sinners to whom a Church funeral could not be granted without public scandal to the faithful.”

So the question, according to the commentary on the canon, becomes which is the “greater” scandal: to have the funeral or not have one.
And when that is unknown, Can. 1184 §2 states: “If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.”

A notorious public sinner (we’re all sinners in one way or another - but we’re not all celebrities, politicians, etc) is to be denyed a public (or otherwise, I guess) requiem Mass - lest it cause grave scandal, i.e that others in similar situations think “well, if it’s ok for him to have a “gay wedding” and remai a Catholic, then it must be ok for me to do the same and remain a faithful to the Church”

Well technically speaking grave sin doesn’t mean that you are no longer Catholic.
Secondly, as previously stated, people in irregular marriages are “manifest sinners” and yet they are not denied a funeral because it is perceived as a greater scandal to deny them a funeral.

Therefore, I would have thought that this young man, given that he was openly gay and into forms of spirituality contrary to Catholic teaching, etc, would rather have been buried elsewhere himself! Maybe this was an example of the Church hjacking a celebrity in order to look cool!? If so then that would be just as wrong as seeming to approve (in a very public way) of a sinful way of life.

My guess, not knowing all the facts but based on experience, would be that the funeral was held because his mother/family wanted it.

 

[tzarno1]

A Funeral Mass is not a sacrament, although it can be a cause of scandal as so many have been in the past.

Also, ’ hate the sin, love the sinner’ is not of Catholic Orthodoxy. You can’t possibly have one without the other; they are inexorably linked. Sin doesn’t exist in a vacumn.

 

[Layman]

So if the funeral mass was in latin you would have been happy?

That would be good. I’d like if it was conducted with due solemnity, also.

 

[Ender]

Well, the code of canon law doesn’t make separate laws for famous people. Notorious applies to apostates, heretics and schismatics.

The relevant words used in 1184 are “notorious” and “manifest”, both of which are overwhelmingly more applicable to public figures - e.g. the famous - than the local divorcee and clearly the reason for “separate laws for famous people” is the degree of scandal involved. The fact that notorious applies to apostates et al hardly changes the fact that it belies your claim that canon law doesn’t have separate provisions for famous people.

So the question, according to the commentary on the canon, becomes which is the “greater” scandal: to have the funeral or not have one.

If what Sebastian said about Gately is correct then either the funeral should have been denied under 1184-3 or the entire section should be removed because it is essentially meaningless. The whole concept that the Church might give scandal by acting in accord with what she teaches seems somewhat bizarre. Who, exactly, would be scandalized? Certainly not the faithful.

Well people who are divorced and remarried without an annulment are publicly in grave sin and yet they are never denied a funeral.

Whether such people are given a funeral or not has no bearing on whether Gately should have received one.

I’ve seen funerals for people who were drug addicts yet no one thought the funeral was an encouragement for anyone else to do drugs.

I would have expected you to see the difference between the situations of a person who cannot break free from his destructive addiction and a person who freely chooses a lifestyle the Church has condemned.

Ender