Catholic conservatism on the rise as priest refuses funeral for 'sinner'

The Times ^ | 7/22/05 | Richard Owen

[topher]

Perhaps you mean Maccabees?

Yes. I did. Most Catholics are not very good with the Bible (as this illustrates). I confused the two. I am referring to the part in the book of Maccabees where the soldiers of Israel had died with pagan ornaments on them.

But I am going to have to research, as I don't recall the passage in question is in 1 Maccabees or 2 Maccabees.

It basically refers to where something was done for those soldiers who apparently had worshipped a false by appealing to God's mercy.

Being a Catholic, it may take some time (not knowing my way around the Bible). God bless

[topher]

What will be done about them?

If they repent, they can be made into an example like the Good Thief.

If they don't, then it is a problem. Remember that Hillary Clinton did not go to Princess Diana's funeral. She instead went to Mother Theresa's funeral.

The Princess Di funeral may be an example, but Mother Theresa dying at the same time took attention away from Princess Di. Mother Theresa was not only given a huge funeral from the vantage point of the Catholic Church, she was given a formal state funeral by the Government of India (because of her work with the needy).

It is a good question. But a very bad person can get to heaven in an easy way.

Say a hardened sinner sees a child about to run over in the street, and jumps out, and saves the life of the child, but is killed.

What did Jesus say about that? "No greater gift can a person give than to lay down your life for a friend".

The Mercy of Heaven and the kindness of Earth would be on such a person -- would it not?

Jesus was making a point with the two thieves -- one went to heaven -- the other -- probably to hell. And it was clear from the cross that Jesus probably could have made them both go to heaven. But it was the Father's will that it happen that way.

[k2blader]

Interesting post, thank you. I didn't know that about Hillary.

Say a hardened sinner sees a child about to run over in the street, and jumps out, and saves the life of the child, but is killed.

Well, unless the sinner had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, he would go to hell.

That said, you are right that in the end it comes down to the Father's will. :-)

[The Grammarian]

It's II Maccabees. In II Macc. 12:43-46 is where Catholics find justification for Purgatory.

An evangelical apologist notes about that passage, however, that "If one would read verses 40 through 46, he would learn that God killed these people because of idolatry. According to Catholicism, if you die in the state of mortal sin, which idolatry is, you'll go straight to Hell when you die! Therefore, according to Catholic doctrine, Judas Machabeus was WRONG in suggesting that the people should "pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins" (verse 46)!" (http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/apocryph.htm)

[topher]

As for the previous poster not stating Catholic teaching: where did he say he was? He explained the Protestant view. Funeral services are memorials for the loved ones of the deceased, and not of any real use to the deceased him or her self.

The previous poster was saying that the dead were beyond help. This was in conflict with Catholic teaching. He was making that as a statement of fact, not an opinion his beliefs. Last Judgement is a tricky thing -- along with what one is thinking at death and how much time before the soul leaves the body for the next world. (That could be the start of a number of threads).

And the text I was trying to refer to was 2 Maccabees 38-46. Pagan amulets were found on the dead soldiers. The leader said it would be wrong to have collected the money from others for these dead soldiers and to make atonement -- if God would not allow them to rise from the dead.

[topher]

Sorry about the long reply, but I believe my short answer is that the priest was trying to save souls by not glossing over the woman's sins.

God bless, and keep the Faith!

[topher]

An evangelical apologist notes about that passage, however, that "If one would read verses 40 through 46, he would learn that God killed these people because of idolatry. According to Catholicism, if you die in the state of mortal sin, which idolatry is, you'll go straight to Hell when you die!

You are correct.

However, in the time this battle took place, dying is not necessarily an instant affair -- like Jesus on the cross and the two thieves. Jesus had time to speak, and conversed with the two thieves. One was saved and one was (probably) not saved.

Therefore, men dying on a battlefield might take hours to die, and have time to plead with God for mercy for their sins (which by Evangelical/Protestant/Catholic beliefs, all would be saved). Catholic belief is that you say you are sorry for your sins before you die (asking God's forgiveness). The Evangelical and Protestant way would be asking Jesus to forgive the sins (of those dying). Different terminology, but the same thing.

The example of the Good Thief is appropriate -- as it was someone who was dying and could do nothing about the fact he was dying. If Jesus had two very prominent conversions at His death, there must be a very good reason -- not just coincidence.

The Good Thief is very important -- as it one of the last things Jesus was able to accomplish -- from the cross.

The unknown is what happens after death. And we can debate that until we die. Can one make atonement for sins that are forgiven but requires God's just punishments?.

Some believe that God has no just punishments, only the death of Jesus on the cross. The catch is trying to understand what Jesus meant by Matthew 11:11 (11+11 = Catch 22).

[Straight Vermonter]

When New England crime boss Raymond Patriarca died in the 80s Bishop Gelineau refused to bury him so I guess this is not unprecedented.

[topher]

Interesting post, thank you. I didn't know that about Hillary.

She was First Lady at the time, and State Department protocol apparently dictated that someone be at Mother Theresa's funeral (one put on the Government of India with full Military Honors -- along with it being a Catholic funeral).

But Hillary had her problems with Mother Theresa. Hillary was once in Southeast Asia or India, and decided she would just stop in and see Mother Theresa.

Mother Theresa said "no to Hillary" because she never broke any appointments she set in advance -- for nobody. Mother Theresa, when she went to aid victims of disaster in India, would be offered a ride on a jet, but if she could get there by train, she took the train.

Mother Theresa was a person of principle, and I could never make it in her order -- she was tough. No furniture and no creature comforts (blankets, air conditioning, hot water, heating, carpeting). One just sleep on a hard floor in your clothes -- if you were a Missionary of Charity.

[topher]

When New England crime boss Raymond Patriarca died in the 80s Bishop Gelineau refused to bury him so I guess this is not unprecedented.

Pre-Vatican II, I had an uncle who passed away who was married to a non-Catholic. He was not granted a funeral because he was married to a non-Catholic. This happened in the 1950s.

[topher]

Ping

[OpusatFR]

" parish priest has refused to give an Italian woman a Christian funeral..."

"Father Mazzotta said that he had performed the liturgy of absolution for the dead. He added that he was close to the dead woman’s family and had offered them “words of comfort”"

"never refused to perform a funeral, no matter who the deceased was."

It sounds like he refused the Joyful Mass of the Resurrection which is the Mass for the dead.

He performed "the liturgy of absolution for the dead." I'm Catholic and not familiar with this, but a Liturgy is the Mass from my best understanding and it is for the deceased.

He didn't refuse. He followed his best understanding of what is Grace and what is not and how one lives has consequences within the Church and society and gave the rites appropriate to this woman's choice. And choose is what we all do in either accepting or rejecting Christ's Grace.

Priests out there feel free to correct me. This is all to my limited understanding.

[NYer]

“I decided not to celebrate an official Mass for this woman, who was not in communion with the Church.”

[markomalley]

---

Father Mazzotta said that his action carried a message: “Marriage is a sacrament. We cannot simply pretend.”

---

• The woman chose to live outside of the teachings of both Scripture and Tradition. It is extraordinarily easy to be married in the Catholic Church. She is one of a growing number of people in Europe who simply have decided to live their lives without the complication of the Church. If she chose to live her life in that fashion, then her decisions in life should be honored in her death, as well.
• The woman did not repent of her actions before she died. I see no indication that she requested absolution or extreme unction before her death. So, as was pointed out, she was an "unrepentant public sinner." Any analogy between her and the adulterous woman in the Gospels is moot for that reason itself.
• The bottom line is that actions have consequences.

It is hoped, unless they repent of their actions before they die, that many high-profile "Catholic" (cough-cough) politicians who have taken scandalous positions (Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Mikulski, etc.), will be afforded similar honors as this woman upon their passing. Unfortunately, I am not so pollyanish to assume that the USCCB will have as much chutzpah as this parish priest.

[NYer]

There is a famous story of Saint Jean-Marie Vianney (incorrupt priest). A woman came to him about a man who committed suicide. Saint Jean-Marie Vianney replied that her husband had repented before he died. (The man had leapt off a bridge, and Jean Vianney explained that before he hit the water, he had made an act of contritution).

For non-catholics, unfamiliar with this saint, here is his remarkable story.

Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney was born in 1786 as the son of a poor farmer in the village of Dardilly, France. During his childhood he worked as a shepherd and didn't get any education until he was 20 years old.

John had always felt a call to the priesthood. His eventual entry into the seminary, especially the study of Latin, however proved to be very difficult and he twice failed his examination before finally being ordained as a priest in 1815. Thought to be incompetent, John was placed under the direction of another priest in the neighboring village. After the death of this priest in 1818, John was transferred to the remote tiny village of Ars to be the parish priest.

Here he lived a very ascetic life, ate the simplest food, wore old clothing and only slept two hours each night on a hard bed. The number of parishioners grew rapidly, as the word spread that this holy man could see into people's souls. People began coming to him from other parishes, then from all parts of France, and finally from other countries. Throughout France and the Christian world he soon became known as the "cure d'Ars" (the cure of Ars).

By the year 1855, Fr. Vianney was hearing as many as 20,000 confessions a year, spending 13 to 16 hours a day in the confessional. His direction was characterized by common sense, remarkable insight, and supernatural knowledge. As the news continued to spread, the sick were brought to Ars and many were miraculously cured.

During 30 years, Fr. Vianney claimed to experience frequent attacks of the devil. Voices, strange noises, threats, furniture being thrown about and many other demonic assaults took place almost every night. Besides all this external suffering, Fr. Vianney had physical ailments such as severe headaches, rheumatism, toothaches, fever and exhaustion.

The heroic self-sacrifice of Fr. Vianney eventually led to his death. At the age of 73 he began to have fainting spells. By the end of July he could no longer rise from his bed. Four days later on August 4, 1859, Fr. Vianney died.

Fr. Vianney was declared Venerable 13 years after his death. In 1904 when his body was exhumed and found to be incorrupt although the flesh had dried up and darkened. To this day the incorrupt body can be seen, encased in glass on a marble Altar, in Ars. In 1905 Fr. Vianney was declared Blessed. And finally in 1925 he became Saint John Marie Vianney.

[Aquinasfan]

The liberal and secular Left is increasingly alarmed by the return to “Catholic values” in politics and everyday life

Imitation of Christ, bad.

[Aquinasfan]

The funeral's a ritual to comfort the living. The dead person's beyond help by that time.

You're entitled to your erroneous beliefs, but don't expect Catholics to accept them.

A Catholic funeral mass is offered for the soul of the deceased who may be in purgatory.

And when you get right down to it, NOBODY knows what might happened in the last moment before a person's death. They could very well have accepted Christ.

True. But God would obviously take that into account, with or without a funeral mass. In this case, the woman's life demonstrated a rejection of fundamental Church teaching, and hence a rejection of Christ's Church. The Church should not, and in most cases does not, force the consciences of people. By the example of her life, she wouldn't want a Catholic funeral mass any more than I'd want a bunch of New Agers to perform New Age ceremonies at my death.

[Conservative til I die]

Just another way of looking at things. I'm not Catholic,

Exactly.

The Mass serves a two-fold purpose. One is to offer prayers for the recently departed and two for the comfort of the living.

[Conservative til I die]

There is little church attendance in Europe these days. So the priest may have deny a funeral to parishioners that have never been to Sunday mass also.

You think that tourists are going to go to a stranger's funeral?

[XEHRpa]

The funeral's a ritual to comfort the living. The dead person's beyond help by that time... I don't much like what this priest did.

Just a thought... the article mentioned the priest being a close family friend and that he had been in contact with the family. Perhaps his actions were chosen precisely to bring the greatest "comfort" to the grieving family. Perhaps the parents were estranged from the wayward child and were in danger of losing a 2nd to the wages of unrepentant sin. Perhaps they thought a stern church response might serve their family's interests best.

I agree that funerals are for the living, but without knowing the family details, I would hesitate to draw conclusions.