Stephen Gately's Funeral Mass

[Soutane]

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

What he said.

 

[canadianguy1143]

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

A Funeral Mass is most certainly a sacrament as the Mass is a sacrament!

 

[distracted]

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

i rarely feel like leaving the Church… but reading your post made me have this desire to run… it was a fleeting desire but strange that it occurred at all…

its almost like i wanted to run to another Church… Luther Syndrome…

but i guess there’s no need for that… The Real Presence is still with us no matter w hat these luny so-called Catholics do…

 

[distracted]

A Funeral Mass is most certainly a sacrament as the Mass is a sacrament!

whatever it is … it is NOT going to help if a soul is in Hell… and it sounds like there is good reason to believe this person was… if he did not repent… True, we don’t KNOW… but that’s just another reason not to have the funeral mass… we don’t KNOW… andto have one presumes that… well, that you can sin grievously and still … get to Heaven… Yikes…

causes scandal…

confusion…

and who is the author of confusion??

 

[Sebastien]

The words “notorious” and “manifest” imply apostasy and sin which is commonly known amongst people. The ordinary man or woman of no “note” (cf. notoriety, etc) cannot really cause much scandal (a trap, a temptation, a stumbling block…if I still remember my Greek!?) amongst the faithful, as they are not known widely (except, maybe, amonst a few locals, the immediate family, etc). To make something manifest is to reveal something, or to make it well-known. Canon 1184, therefore applies more so to a) Churchmen of high rank and / or b) famous people / politicians. It is they, by their actions, that can have detrimental effects upon Christ’s faithful. It is by our standards that we shall be judged - the mighty and the in/famous have a greater deal to account for that the lowly and discreet.

From what I have read Stephen Gately had not spoken to his parents (who are always referred to as “Roman Catholic” in the press - as if to expose a difference between him and them) for many years (because of his homosexuality). They did not even know that he had entered into a “Civil Partnership”. It does seem, though, that he was reconciled to them recently, but probably not to their faith - seeing he was still in a highly irregular relationship contrary to the faith and morals of the Church. I have also read that Stephen Gately was a follower of “Chakra” (whatever that is) and it’s connected eastern mysticism. If I were ever to take up eastern mysticism, fall out with my family (as they could not accept a lifestyle of mine because of their Catholic faith), and entered into a situation that effectively excommunicated me (by entering a mockery of married life - well abouve and beyond any mockery which the divorced and remarried might be responsible for) then in all conscience I would be, and would consider myslef to be, apostate.

So this case has the notoriety which fame can amplify, coupled with apostasy and manifest sin.

It is plain and simple - the Church should not have condoned or sanctioned this requiem. In doing so it is my opinion that some scandal (trap / stumbling block) has been put before the People of God - some of whom now might think that the hierarchy approve of gay lifestyles. We Catholics believe in the sacred nature of our conscience (“The Aboriginal Vicar of Christ”, as Newman put it) - if someone, in all conscience, decided to live a life contrary to the Church’s teaching then we may, with some delicate confidence, assume that the man / woman in question would not have wanted to be buried according to the rites and rituals of the Church. To bury someone in such a state, let’s say to keep religious relatives happy, would be to denigrate his / her conscience - thus scandalising the Church’s own teaching that we have free will, and we must (above all else) live according to our conscience.

I wonder whether the Holy Father would have sanctioned this requiem? If there is any scandal involved in this case - it is not Stephen Gately who caused it, but the hierarchs of the Church.

 

[Sebastien]

PS - please excuse my manifold and notorious typing errors in the last post! Mea cupla.

 

[distracted]

I wonder whether the Holy Father would have sanctioned this requiem? If there is any scandal involved in this case - it is not Stephen Gately who caused it, but the hierarchs of the Church.

*yes… and i can’t figure out why there are so many hierarchs these days who do not conform to the teaching of the Church…

If you work for a company selling things it makes… and you tell people that you don’t believe in the product…

you get fired…*

 

[distracted]

so i can see why priests don’t get fired… .kind of … but aren’t they ever even disciplined for doing such outrageous thinggs???

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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.

I don’t believe you are interpreting the canons correctly. The term “notorious” is only used in connection with apostates, heretics, and schismatics. Essentially the canon states that anyone who is known to have repudiated the Catholic faith, but to be a sinner (even a grave one) is not a repudiation of the faith.
A “manifest” sinner is anyone whose sin is public and that would include divorced and remarried sans annulment people.

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.

So you would have no problem denying funerals to people who died in irregular marriages? Or a doctor who died but during his working years distributed condoms?

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.

The point was about “manifest sinners.”

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I wonder whether the Holy Father would have sanctioned this requiem? If there is any scandal involved in this case - it is not Stephen Gately who caused it, but the hierarchs of the Church.

Well, I don’t recall the Vatican speaking against Versace’s very public memorial mass in the Milan cathedral.

 

[Ender]

A “manifest” sinner is anyone whose sin is public and that would include divorced and remarried sans annulment people.

If ten people know that someone has been divorced and remarried without an annulment then those people could be scandalized. If ten million people know that someone aggressively promotes abortion or lives a flagrantly homosexual lifestyle and still receives an ecclesiastical funeral, the scandal is enormous. I had a neighbor who is a divorced and remarried Catholic and I have no idea whether her first marriage was annulled; this situation is not nearly as manifest as you make out nor is the damage done in any way comparable to Gately’s example.

So you would have no problem denying funerals to people who died in irregular marriages?

Why do you keep returning to this? The issue is whether Gately should have received a Catholic funeral and no decision about people living in irregular marriages is relevant. This is an evasion of the issue being raised.

The term “notorious” is only used in connection with apostates, heretics, and schismatics. Essentially the canon states that anyone who is known to have repudiated the Catholic faith…

Your explanation makes no distinction between “heretic” and “notorious heretic”; after all, someone would hardly be called a heretic if the fact were unknown. Notorious means more than “known”; it means widely known, generally known, unfavorably known and the point of the observation was not about whether this section applied to Gately but was to rebut your claim that Canon Law didn’t have separate conditions for famous people. You are eviscerating the meanings of the words manifest and notorious.

Ender

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

If ten people know that someone has been divorced and remarried without an annulment then those people could be scandalized. If ten million people know that someone aggressively promotes abortion or lives a flagrantly homosexual lifestyle and still receives an ecclesiastical funeral, the scandal is enormous. I had a neighbor who is a divorced and remarried Catholic and I have no idea whether her first marriage was annulled; this situation is not nearly as manifest as you make out nor is the damage done in any way comparable to Gately’s example.

You’re missing the point. Anyone in an irregular marriage is technically a “manifest sinner.” So now we end up with why is one situation causing scandal and another not causing scandal?

Notorious means more than “known”; it means widely known, generally known, unfavorably known and the point of the observation was not about whether this section applied to Gately but was to rebut your claim that Canon Law didn’t have separate conditions for famous people.

Notorious in this canon is taken to mean publicly known. Even if its just publicly known within the local community it is still publicly known. You don’t have to be famous for the canon to apply to you.

 

[Layman]

Well, I don’t recall the Vatican speaking against Versace’s very public memorial mass in the Milan cathedral.

Would Rome get involved if a Bishop authorises a public Mass where a famous, unrepentant sinner, who is an icon for his particular degeneracy, is lauded, by laymen, from the pulpit?

Hopefully, the existence of the TLM means that people can now specify in their wills a Mass where such innovations do not exist. Two relatives of mine said to me, after attending/hearing about what happened at the funeral of a third relative, that we [the next generation] were not to do likewise at their funerals.

The option is there for your relatives to bowdlerise your last sacrament on Earth. “He reely luvved his bacon butties” (shows sandwich), says a brother the deceased hadn’t said a kind word about in ten years.

*“And now little Jacinta” (6 y.o.) will sing a song"
“Awwww”. *

Meanwhile, the deceased is suffering the pangs of Purgatory.

 

[Ender]

You’re missing the point. Anyone in an irregular marriage is technically a “manifest sinner.”

First, this isn’t true and second, it isn’t relevant. We are all manifest sinners according to your definition, which, as I said before, empties the word of any useful meaning. Also, as I said before, the issue raised by this thread is about the scandal given by Gately’s funeral, a point you persistently avoid dealing with. Whether a funeral given for someone in an irregular marriage is scandalous or not has nothing whatever to do with the question of whether a funeral for Gately was scandalous. How about giving your opinion on that point?

Notorious in this canon is taken to mean publicly known. Even if its just publicly known within the local community it is still publicly known. You don’t have to be famous for the canon to apply to you.

You’ve expanded your definition of notorious from known (post 48) to publicly known but it is still too narrow and still misses the full meaning of the word. Elizabeth Taylor, who married and divorced six or seven times, was a notorious divorcee; my neighbor is not. Gately was a notorious homosexual; the homosexuals most of us know and work with are not. Whether the restriction should or should not apply to the non-notorious is a position I’m not willing to take. Whether the restriction should apply to the unquestionably notorious, the answer is: obviously, that is undeniably what the Church demands.

Ender

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Would Rome get involved if a Bishop authorises a public Mass where a famous, unrepentant sinner, who is an icon for his particular degeneracy, is lauded, by laymen, from the pulpit?

Justice William Brennan, the “driving force” behind Roe v. Wade, was given a Catholic funeral at St. Matthew’s Cathedral during which Bill Clinton gave a eulogy in the church.
I don’t recall Rome getting involved in that situation.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

First, this isn’t true and second, it isn’t relevant. We are all manifest sinners according to your definition, which, as I said before, empties the word of any useful meaning.

A manifest sinner, according to canonical commentary, is someone who is “publicly known to be living in a state of grave sin.” An irregular marriage meets that definition. However a funeral is not denied because in order to deny a funeral not only must the individual be a publicly known grave sinner but also their funeral would be a cause of scandal. But notice, its rather subjective: what is a scandal (leading others to sin) in one place and time is not necessarily a scandal in another.

And so my simple question is: how does this funeral cause scandal and yet other manifest sinners do not?

Also, as I said before, the issue raised by this thread is about the scandal given by Gately’s funeral, a point you persistently avoid dealing with…How about giving your opinion on that point?

The “eulogy” was probably scandalous. However, I would not view the funeral itself to be scandalous.

You’ve expanded your definition of notorious from known (post 48) to publicly known but it is still too narrow and still misses the full meaning of the word.

The canonical commentary reads: “the word ‘notorious’ should be understood in the ordinary sense of the word, namely, publicly known. Those who are publicly known in the parish to be apostates, heretics, schismatics…”

 

[Ender]

… in order to deny a funeral not only must the individual be a publicly known grave sinner but also their funeral would be a cause of scandal.

And so my simple question is: how does this funeral cause scandal and yet other manifest sinners do not?

You have answered this question yourself with your comments acknowledging that not all funerals for manifest sinners cause scandal; that merely being “manifest” is insufficient. Also, it is clear that many Catholics no longer believe that irregular marriages are even sinful, let alone gravely sinful, and it appears that the Church no longer feels they are gravely sinful either, at least I see little indication of it, so we are long past the point where such funerals cause eyebrows to rise - let alone cause the creation of new Christian sects.

I would not view the funeral itself to be scandalous.

Well, that’s certainly a clear answer and I appreciate that. Can you suggest someone for whom a funeral would be scandalous? From my perspective, if Gately’s funeral did not cause scandal then the term and the applicable canon are meaningless; it would be hard to invent a clearer example of someone to whom the restriction should apply.

The canonical commentary reads: “the word ‘notorious’ should be understood in the ordinary sense of the word, namely, publicly known. Those who are publicly known in the parish to be apostates, heretics, schismatics…”

It may be a minor point but this still leaves open the definition of “publicly known.” Is my neighbor’s marriage publicly known to be irregular? I don’t know that it is in fact irregular, so the state of her marriage is certainly not public as I understand the term, but if it is irregular and this is known by some of her friends, does that make it public? I would still think that it does not. If you accept that publicly known means widely known (at least within the parish) and not simply known by acquaintances then we are in agreement.

Ender

 

[stuart12]

Whether Rome actually gets involved or not is not revelant to the fact that funeral Masses are to be denied to those who have commited grave scandal, and have died seemingly unrepetent. Rome SHOULD get directly involved however, to stop these great evils being committed. The Holy Father and the bishops are meant to be shephards. A shepherd who allows his flock to be devoured by wolves, is not a shepherd at all.

 

[Ender]

But notice, its rather subjective: what is a scandal (leading others to sin) in one place and time is not necessarily a scandal in another

This comment is worth discussing separate from the specific concern about Gately’s funeral. I believe that the question of whether a particular action gives scandal can be subjective but I do not believe that the answer depends on local conditions except in very narrow circumstances. What is considered modest dress, for example, is different over time and place, but I suspect few such examples exist. As for things like homosexuality and irregular marriages, indifference to such behaviors are scandalous regardless of current attitudes. That the common view of irregular marriages has become one of acceptance rather than of being gravely sinful is simply to acknowledge the harmful effect of scandal; it doesn’t mean that acceptance is no longer scandalous. I would certainly hate to think that St. Thomas More wasted his life over a subjective difference of opinion.

Ender

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

You have answered this question yourself with your comments acknowledging that not all funerals for manifest sinners cause scandal; that merely being “manifest” is insufficient. Also, it is clear that many Catholics no longer believe that irregular marriages are even sinful, let alone gravely sinful, and it appears that the Church no longer feels they are gravely sinful either, at least I see little indication of it, so we are long past the point where such funerals cause eyebrows to rise - let alone cause the creation of new Christian sects.

But isn’t that the point of scandal: something that leads others into sin. If by giving a funeral to someone who was in an irregular marriage we further the notion that its not sinful and thus lead others into sin.
As for the Church, she indeed sees it as gravely sinful otherwise she would not bar such individuals from the Eucharist.
But once again, we’re back at the very subjective nature of what is considered a scandal.

Can you suggest someone for whom a funeral would be scandalous? From my perspective, if Gately’s funeral did not cause scandal then the term and the applicable canon are meaningless; it would be hard to invent a clearer example of someone to whom the restriction should apply.

Abortionists and unrepentant mob figures strike me as clear examples of individuals that the Church would not want to publicly appear to be condoning.

It may be a minor point but this still leaves open the definition of “publicly known.” Is my neighbor’s marriage publicly known to be irregular? I don’t know that it is in fact irregular, so the state of her marriage is certainly not public as I understand the term, but if it is irregular and this is known by some of her friends, does that make it public? I would still think that it does not. If you accept that publicly known means widely known (at least within the parish) and not simply known by acquaintances then we are in agreement.

Well the commentary on the canon states being known in the parish as sufficient. However, we once again come back to my original point: its all very subjective. The canons state that if there is doubt it is the local ordinary who makes the decision and that his decision “must” be followed. But it is not a rare occasion when bishops disagree so, once again, we’re on subjective grounds here.

My main point is that I don’t think refusal of a funeral is as clear cut as many would like to think.