What I don't understand is Peters' prior defense of the disgraceful funeral Mass, but one fit for Catholic royalty, offered for the baby butcher, Ted Kennedy; and I noticed Peters, although he provided many links, did not link to his own article defending that funeral.
P.S. Obama gave a eulogy at that funeral Mass for Kennedy.
I found the above article of Peter's. He states the following reason that Kennedy's funeral was licit:
Mark Leibovich of the New York Times notes that, among things, “The Rev. Mark Hession, the priest at the Kennedys’ parish on the Cape, made regular visits to the Kennedy home this summer and held a private family Mass in the living room every Sunday. Even in his final days, Mr. Kennedy led the family in prayer after the death of his sister Eunice . . . [and when] the senator’s condition took a turn Tuesday night a priest, the Rev. Patrick Tarrant of Our Lady of Victory Church in Centerville, was called to his bedside.”
My contention is that a notorius public sinner needs to make public repentance for his notorius sins; e.g., a public pronouncement that abortion is evil, it is murder, I repent of having voted for abortion, for my 100% approval rating by NARAL, and I now encourage all citizens to vote pro-life to protect the unborn.
But he noted that, according to Canon Law, a funeral Mass is to be denied to a notorious public grave sinner, only when there is no sign of repentance.
Apparently Kennedy received the Last Rites before he died, which ---= being a manifest outward sign of faith, and which entails absolution from sins --- requires us to hope in charity that he was repentant.
And so, on the narrowest grounds (Canon Law) Kennedy was entitled to a funeral Mass.
But there's much to object to concerning the size, scope and style of Mass he had. Peters does not neglect to note that this was flagrantly hypocritical and disgusting.
How do we know if Kennedy did or did not repent.
It is not for us to know, thus we cannot judge.