The Burial of Suicides

  • Thread starter Thread starter XJ9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

XJ9

Guest
I have a question regarding Canon 1184.

This section of Canon Law sets out three specific instances in which a person is denied funeral rites. (Suicides fall under the third category, the manifest sin being the act of self-destruction.)

However, the canon stipulates these instances, which would include suicide, apply only if the person shows no signs of repentance prior to their demise. In other words, if a person shows signs of repentance (albeit not a sacramental confession), funeral rites are still on the table.

This stipulation leads me to my question.

I would consider a sincere expression of sorrow to God for a sin to be a sign of repentance. That said, how could anyone ever be certain of an individual’s obstinence in order to apply one of the three instances?

For example, perhaps it could be the case that at some point after Romeo ingested the apothecary’s poison, he expressed deep remorse to God as he lay dying. Thus, he would have shown a sign of repentance and, therefore, eligible for funeral rites.

But one can’t really know.

In light of this uncertainty, how can one be sure a certain suicidal person was unrepentant and deny this person funeral rites?

Perhaps this is the “doubt” referred to in Section 2, but I am unsure. Any insight would be great.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
XJ9 said:
In light of this uncertainty, how can one be sure a certain suicidal person was unrepentant and deny this person funeral rites?
Click to expand...
That is exactly why those individuals are very rarely denied a Catholic funeral today. We understand today that clinical depression is a chemical/medical issue, which may reduce culpability. Pray for them and for God’s mercy, don’t judge them.

The canon wording about “manifest sinners” and “causing public scandal” really only applies in extreme situations, such as terrorists or Mafia chiefs. The Church can give the benefit of the doubt to most deceased and their families.
 
XJ9 said:
(Suicides fall under the third category, the manifest sin being the act of self-destruction.)
Click to expand...
This doesn’t automatically apply any more. There would have to be a lot more going on than just a suicide. Perhaps if the person committed suicide by blowing himself up in the middle of a crowded shopping mall, taking two dozen innocent bystanders with him, he might be considered a “manifest sinner”, but as PaulfromIowa said, ordinary suicides are not considered “manifest sinners” because it is likely they were under mental stress or had a mental illness at the time of their act.
 
Also, I’m pretty sure that the option of a private funeral over a public funeral can be chosen, if it would seem like the deceased would be attaining a type of celebrity status for the manner they died.
 
A particularly moving scene (from Jesus of Nazareth miniseries?) twenty or thirty years ago portrayed Jesus appearing reaching out a hand to Judas even as he fell while hanging himself (I forget whether it wasn’t shown, or he didn’t take the hand).

I was shocked at first, but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense.

I also recall a tale of an american buried just outside the Catholic graveyard of the town he died defending, as a non-Catholic couldn’t be buried inside.

His buddies came back years later, and couldn’t find the grave, and finally asked.

The townsfolk had moved the fence to include his grave . . .

Never underestimate God’s Mercy . . .
hawk
 
The Canon cited does not specifically mention suicide.

The fact is that the majority of suicides are a consequence of mental illness or despair. In either case the suicide does not meet the three conditions for mortal sin:
  1. Grave matter: yes
  2. Full knowledge: maybe
  3. Full freedom of the will: unlikely, the freedom being hampered by the mental state.
Ergo, suicide is likely not a mortal sin in most cases. It is, however, a great tragedy.
 
XJ9 said:
(Suicides fall under the third category, the manifest sin being the act of self-destruction.)
Click to expand...
WIthout going into a discussion of the validity of your assertion that those who commit suicide are intended by this canon, I think your assertion fails due to a different point: you haven’t demonstrated that a funeral of a person who committed suicide creates “public scandal of the faithful.” Therefore, I would assert that your claim fails.
 
Yeah, okay. The reality is that in this day and age, suicides generally are not denied church funerals. So your entire legal analysis is kind of pointless.
 
Except for the fact that it’s explicit in the 1917 Code but not the 1983 Code. When that happens, you know what it means? 😉

Except for the fact that, if you want to hold that, along with allowing funerals, then what’s being said explicitly is that it’s venial due to a mitigating factor (either the sin is not fully understood or not chosen freely). That’s about as good of an indication of good teaching as it gets!
 
👍

No, it doesn’t … but it does mean that what has been abrogated is no longer in force. So, the prohibition against funerals for those who commit suicide is no longer applicable. That would mean, in particular, that the suggestion that it’s still in force is, on its face, mistaken.

Apples and oranges. In the 1983 code, c. 1374 still mentions secret societies in general. It’s a different situation entirely from the question of funerals for those who have committed suicide – which is no longer present in any way in the 1983 code. And, I suspect, given your obvious familiarity with canon law, you know it. 😉
 
c. 1184 doesn’t mention “objectively grave matter”, though. 😉
 
No, he doesn’t actually. The Church has already given her interpretation through her praxis. His interpretation is thus already proved, and yours refuted. Perhaps an interesting exercise in mental gymnastics, but utterly irrelevant thankfully, to the unfortunate loved ones of a suicide victim.
 
Just a short pedantic note…

Some people here talk of ‘committing’ suicide. That ‘committing’ part comes from a time when people committed a crime by attempting suicide (and could be imprisoned for attempting but failing to take their life).

I’m not saying what language people must use, but some may be interested to know that in mental health care, and care for those sufficiently distressed to consider suicide (sometimes life events, and not abnormal brain biochemistry, can push people to this point) we talk of suicide, and death by suicide, but we don’t talk of ‘committing’ suicide any more. I hope and believe we understand suicide much better now than when it was considered a criminal offence to attempt it (medical care has changed for those at risk of suicide, and also the practice of the Church for those that have taken their own lives).

Pedantic note over 🙂
 
Last edited:
It is, however, the result of interpretation by those with the authority to do so, which you do not have.

That’s not what I said.
 
The law is meant to serve man, not man serve the law. Canon lawyers are there to serve the Church, not serve the law.

My thinking is not yours to decipher. I live in a jurisdiction where Civil Law (derived from the Napoleonic Code) applies to non-criminal matters, and Common law to criminal matters. Even in direct law like the Napoleonic code, exceptions are made. We don’t, for example, hand out speeding tickets to ambulances and fire trucks. That is neither application nor interpretation, but discernment. Where I live the speed limit is 100 km/h but the police tolerate up to 119 km/h. So even if technically I am breaking the law at 119, I have very little chance of getting stopped, the police are exercising discernment in when to apply the law.

Your Canon does not specifically indicate suicide. The Church does not apply it to include suicide, she has discerned that this is for the greater good. That’s good enough for me. Why do you persist therefore, on arguing this? What axe are you trying to grind?

My schtick is liturgy and liturgical music, not canon law so I am not going to bother reading your suggestions, I will rely on the Church and her experts to do it for me… The exercise you are going through is what I consider mental gymnastics that has no practical outcome that I can discern.
 
You seem to think that exact, correct application of the law according to your interpretation is important. You are not letting the law guid you, you are trying to direct the law (or her legitimate interpreters), because clearly the Church has decided differently. You are trying to second-guess the Church and Magisterium, whom we are all bound to obey.

I’m not trying to decipher, I am asking.

But they are not yours to interpret or apply. The Church, the Magisterium, and the people she legitimately gives authority to apply the Canons, are the ones who interpret or apply. We, the laity, have no authority to do so.

Yes I don’t think any further dialogue is possible if you think my investing my time in studying the Law is absolutely essential. Because I won’t invest my time doing so.
 
Last edited:
I like the ‘New Commentary’. Lots of good stuff in there. However, there’s also a lot of stuff that runs counter to the mind of the Church. The ‘New Commentary’ is not authoritative, nor is it magisterial. 😉

Until they’re explicitly abrogated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top