FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Can my wife and I go to her gay uncle's wake/funeral?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
(10-20-2017, 12:03 PM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]I'll let you sort out the advice you were given with regard to the funeral.

Something you may want to do for this man is pray the Rosary and/or Divine Mercy Chaplet. I watched a video recently where a priest who lost a family member to suicide was told years later to pray the Chaplet for her. He was confused as to why ("But Father, she died *insert the amount of years ago here*"). He was told that with God, everything is now, and that he should go home and pray for her.

Something consoling to think about.
I still pray for Patricius, husband of St Monica and father of St Augustine, because they asked for prayers for him. Oh, and for the Anglo-Saxon poet, Cynewulf, who ended one of his poems with a request for prayers.
(10-20-2017, 12:29 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-20-2017, 12:03 PM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]I'll let you sort out the advice you were given with regard to the funeral.

Something you may want to do for this man is pray the Rosary and/or Divine Mercy Chaplet. I watched a video recently where a priest who lost a family member to suicide was told years later to pray the Chaplet for her. He was confused as to why ("But Father, she died *insert the amount of years ago here*"). He was told that with God, everything is now, and that he should go home and pray for her.

Something consoling to think about.
I still pray for Patricius, husband of St Monica and father of St Augustine, because they asked for prayers for him. Oh, and for the Anglo-Saxon poet, Cynewulf, who ended one of his poems with a request for prayers.

That's very noble of you. :thumb:
(10-20-2017, 07:35 AM)Jeeter Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-19-2017, 02:52 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]Canon Law does not permit this man any kind of "funeral" or "memorial service" from the Church, because he was objectively and publicly living in sin.

Serious question, but how is a deceased sinner who was baptized Catholic supposed to be buried?  Is there any form of memorial/service allowed?

Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to learn something.

Privately, without any religious ceremony. 

The body is taken to the grave and buried. The grave may not be in blessed ground or a blessed cemetery.

The notion behind this is that a person does not magically enjoy upon death what he publicly and constantly rejected during life. To do so would violate the clear will of the person. If the person did not wish to live the life of a Catholic why treat him as a Catholic for burial? Why force him to have what he did not want?
(10-19-2017, 04:47 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]Would it be a sin to attend? Wouldn't the business of allowing this service be the duty of the diocese?

These kinds of crises of conscience are terrible.  I DON'T WANT TO OFFEND GOD.  That includes scandalizing others.  And, in not wanting to offend God, I want to do what's just and merciful.  If we don't attend, it will be like stabbing my father in law in the heart.

The sin would be scandal if there were a sin.

The question is will your presence seem to approve of their deviant lifestyle? Will it give to others the impression that you, a good Catholic who is concerned about the souls of others, thinks this religious service at variance with Church law is a good thing? That Church teaching approves?

In short, will you be the occasion of another's sin if you were to go?

Only you can make that decision based on what you know. Whether you offend your father-in-law or not should not enter into the question at all.

Crises of conscious are difficult only when we bring in emotion and try to make a judgement which seeks to mingle Truth and emotion. If it is a needless offense to your father-in-law, that would be a sin in itself. If you would scandalize others, that would be a grave sin. If to avoid the grave sin, you would unfortunately offend your father-in-law, then that is a necessary evil to achieve the greater good.

Like having to avoid some weddings, if you want to avoid this, you do not need to be blatant about your reasoning. You can always arrange some way to conveniently be unavailable and unable to change that commitment. Perhaps your boss will help you, for instance.

Either way, I do not think you can actively participate, even if you think your attendance would not be scandalous. Clearly this service is outside of what Church law permits, and knowing that now, you would become an accomplice by actively participating.
(10-19-2017, 09:55 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: [ -> ]1.  It is not our call to make in terms of whether or not to allow a Catholic funeral.  That's up to the church authorities. 

You're right. Still when we see priests using invalid matter for Mass, or we hear him baptize "in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier" is it "not our call"?

When we see obvious and flagrant violations of Church Law, it's not our job to correct, perhaps, but it is our job to avoid.

(10-19-2017, 09:55 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: [ -> ]2.  It seems to me that even the diocese doesn't really have a good answer on what to do that is consistent with church law.  If that's the case, then your personal actions can hardly cause more scandal than the actions of the priest.  In fact, most people are so muddled on this topic that I can't see scandal being part of the equation.  If that's the case, then perhaps we should consider how one's response might be considered an act of charity toward the bereaved.

Just because another is scandalizing others doesn't me we can participate in it, just because we're not the primary mover and shaker. Any willful participation is just as forbidden.

If a public funeral for a known and public homosexual is against Church law, it doesn't matter if it is the Pope celebrating it; our participation still is evil. At best we could tolerate the evil for a higher good, but only if the evil is not the primary effect.

If the act is evil in itself, no amount of Charity can make it good.
(10-22-2017, 05:55 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-20-2017, 07:35 AM)Jeeter Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-19-2017, 02:52 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]Canon Law does not permit this man any kind of "funeral" or "memorial service" from the Church, because he was objectively and publicly living in sin.

Serious question, but how is a deceased sinner who was baptized Catholic supposed to be buried?  Is there any form of memorial/service allowed?

Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to learn something.

Privately, without any religious ceremony. 

The body is taken to the grave and buried. The grave may not be in blessed ground or a blessed cemetery.

The notion behind this is that a person does not magically enjoy upon death what he publicly and constantly rejected during life. To do so would violate the clear will of the person. If the person did not wish to live the life of a Catholic why treat him as a Catholic for burial? Why force him to have what he did not want?
Thanks for the reply, that makes a lot of sense.  Next question: who determines if the person isn't eligible for a Catholic burial?  Is there a process, or is it at the discretion of the parish priest?
(10-23-2017, 10:47 AM)Jeeter Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the reply, that makes a lot of sense.  Next question: who determines if the person isn't eligible for a Catholic burial?  Is there a process, or is it at the discretion of the parish priest?

Canon Law (1983) is pretty clear :

Quote:Can.  1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:

1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.

§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.

Can.  1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.

In canonical language "notorious" means publicly known at the place where the funeral is to take place, as does "manifest" where the latter suggests it is very clear that this man is in a state of sin by public facts.

A man can be a notorious heretic in New York City and yet in Sydney no one would know who he is. He could be given a funeral in Sydney. The who purpose of the law is two-fold :(1) To encourage sinners to repent so they can at death receive the help of the Church, (2) To prevent scandal from seeing to approve of a manifestly sinful life.

Because it does not specify who makes the judgement, this law binds all who could possibly approve of an ecclesiastical burial or funeral. That would be the clergy. Only when there is a real doubt is it the duty of the local bishop to make a decision as to what will be done.

This would apply just as easily for one of an unmarried couple living together in sin as it would a homosexual "marriage". Those facts, being widely known and contrary to Catholic morals and doctrine, such a one could not (where this is known) receive ecclesiastical burial.

In the case of people publicly known to scorn Church teachings, live in sin, etc. and where these have not given some sign of repentance they cannot be allowed a funeral or ecclesiastical burial.
(10-23-2017, 03:03 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-23-2017, 10:47 AM)Jeeter Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the reply, that makes a lot of sense.  Next question: who determines if the person isn't eligible for a Catholic burial?  Is there a process, or is it at the discretion of the parish priest?

Canon Law (1983) is pretty clear :

Quote:Can.  1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:

1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.

§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.

Can.  1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.

In canonical language "notorious" means publicly known at the place where the funeral is to take place, as does "manifest" where the latter suggests it is very clear that this man is in a state of sin by public facts.

A man can be a notorious heretic in New York City and yet in Sydney no one would know who he is. He could be given a funeral in Sydney. The who purpose of the law is two-fold :(1) To encourage sinners to repent so they can at death receive the help of the Church, (2) To prevent scandal from seeing to approve of a manifestly sinful life.

Because it does not specify who makes the judgement, this law binds all who could possibly approve of an ecclesiastical burial or funeral. That would be the clergy. Only when there is a real doubt is it the duty of the local bishop to make a decision as to what will be done.

This would apply just as easily for one of an unmarried couple living together in sin as it would a homosexual "marriage". Those facts, being widely known and contrary to Catholic morals and doctrine, such a one could not (where this is known) receive ecclesiastical burial.

In the case of people publicly known to scorn Church teachings, live in sin, etc. and where these have not given some sign of repentance they cannot be allowed a funeral or ecclesiastical burial.

So is it correct to say that the denial of a Catholic funeral and burial is not to be understood as a judgement by the Church on the status of that person's soul or eternal situation, but is only prohibited for the sake of the faithful still on earth?
(10-23-2017, 05:01 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]So is it correct to say that the denial of a Catholic funeral and burial is not to be understood as a judgement by the Church on the status of that person's soul or eternal situation, but is only prohibited for the sake of the faithful still on earth?

Yes.

The Church never pronounces judgement on the state of a soul, except when God grants, through some extraordinary miracle, proof that the person is interceding in heaven for us (thus by Canonization).

The Church can only judge external actions. God alone (and the confessor, but only thanks to what the penitent tells him) can judge the state of a soul or internal forum. Even the Church has no power to judge the soul in this situation, except, again, in so far as you have the soul itself reveal what is in there in confession.

That means while we can judge the external actions as sins, we can never judge the internal motives or assent, so we can never know the imputability of a sin to a soul (how guilt it actually is).

Thus the denial of Church burial is not such a judgement at all, but as you suggest, for that soul (to help it convert before death) and for other souls, to prevent scandal, or encourage sin, knowing that you'll get a Church burial anyway (and mistakenly thinking that makes it all okay).
Fontevrault Wrote: Wrote:1.  It is not our call to make in terms of whether or not to allow a Catholic funeral.  That's up to the church authorities. 

You're right. Still when we see priests using invalid matter for Mass, or we hear him baptize "in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier" is it "not our call"?

When we see obvious and flagrant violations of Church Law, it's not our job to correct, perhaps, but it is our job to avoid.

MM, As usual, you are spot on.  At the same time, we know nothing of this man's last moments or possible dialogue with a priest before his death.  Since we cannot speculate on the condition of his soul, shouldn't we give him the benefit of the doubt?  Even with a public life of sin, a man an repent out of fear in his last days.  

(10-19-2017, 11:55 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: Wrote:2.  It seems to me that even the diocese doesn't really have a good answer on what to do that is consistent with church law.  If that's the case, then your personal actions can hardly cause more scandal than the actions of the priest.  In fact, most people are so muddled on this topic that I can't see scandal being part of the equation.  If that's the case, then perhaps we should consider how one's response might be considered an act of charity toward the bereaved.

Just because another is scandalizing others doesn't me we can participate in it, just because we're not the primary mover and shaker. Any willful participation is just as forbidden.

If a public funeral for a known and public homosexual is against Church law, it doesn't matter if it is the Pope celebrating it; our participation still is evil. At best we could tolerate the evil for a higher good, but only if the evil is not the primary effect.

If the act is evil in itself, no amount of Charity can make it good.

And yet, the church has (for some unknown reason) given permission for this funeral to occur.  So, we must also ask ourselves if they might have good reason for doing so.  We can't know what this man said in the confessional.  We can't know if perhaps he was trying to find a way back to the church.  Shouldn't these things factor in to a decision on whether or not to attend?  I would think that the charitable thing would be to attend a wake, pray for the soul of this man, condole with family, and simply not attend the funeral. 

Since nothing the diocese is doing is consistent with church law, I suspect that there are some unknown factors.  It can happen that a rather public sinner was privately trying to come back to Christ.  Breaking away from sin is not easy for any of us . . .  

Does public sin require public penance?  I don't think it does, but maybe I'm wrong.  Heck, this whole thing is a really difficult situation from start to finish.  
Pages: 1 2 3 4