Posted on 03/19/2005 7:33:29 AM PST by TheRedSoxWinThePennant
Intolerant bishop
Denial of funeral contradicts human dignity
March 19, 2005
Whatever happened to the age-old Christian
precept, "Hate the sin and love the sinner."?
San Diego Bishop Robert Brom apparently rejects this maxim of charity and tolerance. His highly rare decision to deny a Catholic burial to a gay businessman who owned a gay-oriented nightclub sends a message that is the sheer antithesis of charity and tolerance.
To the bishop, a Catholic funeral for John McCusker, who died Sunday of congestive heart failure, would be a "public scandal" because the business he owned, Club Montage, was "inconsistent with Catholic moral teaching."
In our view, the real scandal is Bishop Brom's narrow-minded ostracism of McCusker after the family arranged for his funeral at the Immaculata Catholic Church at the University of San Diego, which McCusker had attended. Brom rescinded the arrangements and decreed that McCusker's funeral could not be held in any of the 98 Catholic churches in the diocese of San Diego and Imperial counties.
To our knowledge, McCusker never has been accused of doing anything illegal. If Bishop Brom has information to the contrary, he should step forward with it.
We respect the Catholic Church's denunciation of homosexual acts on moral grounds, just as we respect the church's denunciation of abortion on moral grounds. At the same time, we respect the many morally upright individuals who do not share the church's views on homosexuality and abortion. What should bind people on both sides of these divisive issues is a shared respect for the dignity of every human being. Bishop Brom's decree runs counter to the wisdom of St. Augustine, the 5th century bishop of Hippo, who wrote, Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum: "With love for mankind and hatred for sins
Quite frankly, if he was taking the man's money when he attended Mass he should provide the funeral now. If he wasn't willing to confront him in life, it is very small to shun him in death.
Honestly, with the number of recent events concerning "behavioural choices" I think that we would all be better off with a little less "tolerance" and a little more accountablility.
Were this to be the case, I imagine that there would be less innocent children sexually assaulted and murdered, fewer numbers of "activist judges" whizzing on our Constitution, and so-called "celebrities" killing their spouses.
Just a thought on this..................
It is not a question of taking the man;s money but of dealing with an unrepentant sinner. The pervert could have made mass and confession daily, but without repentance, no brass ring so to speak. I like this bishop.
There was a time - and not a long time back - when plenty of people who attended mass regularly were "denied" church burial. In fact, their families would never even have asked. Then we got the Church of Feeling Good, put away the black robes and the Dies Irae, and started pretending Jesus had never mentioned the possibiity that sinners would go to hell. Next thing you know, church burial became an entitlement. I'd say this is just one small step back in the right direction.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The Bishop would perhaps be wise to perform the funeral and, having the undivided attention of those in attendance, use the opportunity to unequivocally denounce the homosexual lifestyle.
This matter involves moral scandal, not legal scandal, and a man who publicly disobeyed his bishop. Actions have consequences, and McCusker's public, objective moral behavior was objectively wrong. The consequences: no mass, nor burial service, in the Church McCusker objectively rejected.
We respect the Catholic Church's denunciation of homosexual acts on moral grounds, just as we respect the church's denunciation of abortion on moral grounds. At the same time, we respect the many morally upright individuals who do not share the church's views on homosexuality and abortion
One cannot be a morally upright Catholic if one publicly contradicts Catholic moral teachings.
No one has a right to a church funeral unless that church agrees.
This Bishop did not agree.
So too bad.
Nice perspective. Had really thought about it that way.
Hey Sodomites - church isn't a building. You don't get be have a blasphemous and unrepentant life and system of belief without consequences. Go make your own religion, but don't dare call it Christianity.
If McCusker had been publicly condemned by the Archbishop for McCusker's public, objectively immoral behavior, and so "refused his money", would you have condemned the Archbishop for being self-righteous and perhaps bigoted, maybe homophobic? I'm sure the press would have.
As it was, McCusker was given opportunity to repent of his public disobedience to Catholic moral authority, to repent of his grievous public sin. The Church does not physically prevent sinners from attending mass, in the hope that the sinner will repent. If the sinner does not repent and return to public obedience to its authority, the Church must enforce its law regarding contumacious individuals, even if it may do so only after death. Then, at the very least, living individuals may gain a sense of the immorality that attaches to homosexual behavior and some may even repent as a result.
Kudos to Bishop Brom for not worshipping at the altar of Political Correctness in this matter.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
People talk about the radicals that hijack Islam. The same thing applies to these radical homosexuals(I know thats redundant) who hijack Christianity's tolerance standard to use for their own vile purposes.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Mr. McCusker was not merely a private sinner. He was not one who sinned and regretted his sin, covered up his sin out of proper shame, perhaps even tryed to change his ways.
He was a man who ran a business the purpose of which was to encourage and enable others to commit mortal sin. He was publicly defiant in his promotion of damning sin. He loudly proclaimed the goodness and morality of his sin.
He made money from leading others, quite publicly, to damnable sin.
In life, if he still wished to call himself a Catholic, and if he attended Mass regularly, then to ask him to stop coming to Mass would have been to ask him to stop coming to the one place that might have pricked his heart and his conscience in a way that might have led to repentance.
But in death, there is no evidence that he ever afforded himself of that opportunity. One might speculate that in his dying moments, he repented of his crimes. Unfortunately, the Church can only act according to what is shown externally.
To afford this publicly-unrepentant pied piper of damnation a church funeral would have been a hypocritical scandal.
it seems to be a whole lot more to this. read this:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050319-9999-2m19funeral.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.