That would depend upon their convictions. We do not judge Protestants on principles they do not hold. If they think one religion as good as any other, I suppose they could attend almost any religion with a good conscience. But if an Anglican, for example, thought his to be the only true Church, and that all others were wrong, he would sin by attending other forms of worship. Objectively, of course, a Protestant does not sin by attending Catholic services. One who has the wrong religion may attend services of the right religion. But he who has the right religion certainly cannot attend the services of a wrong religion. Catholics may not assist at any but Catholic services.
"The 70, 80 and 90 year olds in my family are all Catholics and my young Presbyterian cousins and I are sick of being pall bearers. We will let them hire some next time."
Your elderly relatives are old enough that they might have heard these radio broadcasts. Remind them what these lectures say about your Presbyterianism, and tell them that the Catholic Church of their day considered you a fiendish heretic. Ask them if they trust a heretic to handle their casket.
Then buy them a DVD of Kennedy's funeral, and teach them the meaning of "irony".
I assure you my Catholic family have no idea what a DVD is.
Unlikely, unless they're Australians.
Oh, c'mon, Alex. Maybe they should read-up on needlessly divisive, hyperventilating hyperbole first.
You can be sure that no one is more outraged than I am by the gigantic send off Teddy-Boy got. I was both a violation of canon 1184 in the current D+code of canon Law, and a massive miscalculation in "prudential judgment" from a pastoral perspective. Cardianl O'Malley and a few other clerics should be ashamed of themselves for that debacle. I live in the Boston area, and the screeching about hypocrisy around here is still deafening. And, to a great extent, I agree with its bottom-line. But the screeching should direct itself at the hypocrisy of the individuals involved, not with the Church as a whole. Here is what canon law has to say about circumstances related to the Kennedy scenario, including canon 1184 which I already cited:
"THOSE TO WHOM ECCLESIASTICAL FUNERALS MUST BE GRANTED OR DENIED Can. 1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted among the Christian faithful. §2. The local ordinary can permit children whom the parents intended to baptize but who died before baptism to be given ecclesiastical funerals. §3. In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available. 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."
Section "c" of canon 1184 applies here. It is objectively relevant to Kennedy's circumstances. The stuff about heresy and apostasy might apply, too, but that is far more subjective. He never explicitly disavowed the Catholic Faith, even while many of his public actions in life did not seem to be particularly "informed" by that faith. So we'll give him the benefit of the doubt about heresy and apostasy, as the Church itself would wish.
However, it is certain that Teddy K. should have been dealt with pursuant to the intent of subsection "c" of section 1 of canon 1184. Just on the abortion issue alone. Here are some scenarios:
Scenario 1: Kennedy repents and confesses on his deathbed. Great! Though such an action might be derisively dismissed as "too convenient," the fact remains that no one is beyond the forgiveness of God provided he accepts the grace of repentance while still in this life. Now, confession in the Catholic Church often can entail a post-confession attempt to "make good the harm" that certain sins may have caused others. Surely, if at all possible, Kennedy, in this scenario, should have issued a public statement to the effect that he repented of the wrong he helped bring about with his voting record on certain issues. Since he would be dealing with mere moments to live, little more could be expected. Did this happen? Well, we don't even know if he confessed to the attending priest at all. The priest himself said that, in his final lucid hours, Kennedy was just talking up conversations about old times with him. But, even if he made a confession, there is no record about any statement that could help defuse the wrong he had done. And the priest would be forbidden to discuss the matters brought up in the sacrament. So the public would be prone to taking the very scandal canon 1184 warns against creating. It is equally wrong to give scandal as to take scandal. The Church would be ill-served giving Kennedy a funeral Mass under the circumstances of subsection "c." Therefore, there should not have been such a funeral.
Scenario 2: Kennedy repents without sacramental confession. This one's a lot more subjective for those of us still metabolizing. Right to his last moment, Kennedy could have repented, even beyond the time where he might have asked to confess. But, by definition almost, only God would know about this. And the repentance of his sins, in these circumstances, must involve what is known as "perfect contrition." "Imperfect contrition," where at least some of the motives involves fear of hell and its punishments, might suffice when a regular confession is made, provided at least some of the motivation is, in fact, sorrow that an all-good God was offended. But, barring that ability to engage in the "ordinary means" of forgiveness that Jesus entrusted to the Church in John 20, one's contrition for mortal sin must be "perfect contrition," sorrow for sins motivated through considerations that focus on the fact that God was offended by them. Certainly, it is possible that this was Kennedy's situation, but we have no way of knowing this in this life. Therefore, again considering canon 1184, there is none of the required evidence about "repentance," and the part about avoiding scandal doubly applies. No funeral Mass.
Scenario 3: Kennedy gets it right. Okay. Teddy repents, confesses and tries to do what he can to right the wrongs. Outstanding! Yup. He can have his funeral. But there is still the stuff about scandal. Inevitably, people will have a very jaundiced view of a Catholic funeral for a man like Kennedy. The Church says "Too bad!" up to a point. Again, it is a sin to take scandal, just as it is to give scandal. People will have to answer to God for the scandal they take over the funeral of notorious sinners who appear to have sincerely repented. But the Church also has enough common sense to see the inevitability of such scandalmongering, and some common sense remedies are at hand. Kennedy could have been given a simple funeral in his own parish in Hyannis, MA, without all of the bombastic display. Certainly, it only fuels scandalmongering to give him a huge send-off in the largest, most ornate church in the Archdiocese of Boston (I believe the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, where the funeral took place, is even larger than the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston). And it only makes things worse to consider that Kennedy was a resident of Hyannis, which is part of the Diocese of Fall River, and not even a part of the Archdiocese of Boston! He had no particular claim on securing the Basilica at all!
Yes. The Cardinal blew it. He violated canon law's intent if not its actual letter (unfortunately, section 2 of 1184 sort of gives him an "out"), and seems to this day to be oblivious to the scandal caused throughout the whole sordid affair. But you seem to paint the whole Church with a pretty broad brush of condemnation. Kennedy was a manifest, objective sinner. But he might have repented. We are all sinners, and the Church is supposed to be here to heal sinners and bring them to repentance and God's grace. The clerics involved seem to have blown their pastoral responsibilities, even to the point, perhaps, of sinful culpability. But they did so as individuals.
I love the reaction of so many non-Catholic folks involving this Kennedy business! On the one hand, there will be no Popery, no yielding to the authority of Rome! Yet, on the other hand, there have been endless cries from the same quarters calling for the pope himself to have intervened in what is essentially a local matter of a diocese 4000 miles from Rome. The pope should have micromanaged the authority of the local ordinary (the local bishop)! Doubtless, if he really had, there would have been cries about poor Cardinal O'Malley having his authority crushed under the boot of mean old Rome! Ya can't win!
Some folks love to equate the sins of individuals with a condemnation of the entire Church! Unchurched people love to do this with respect to individual Christians and all denominations lumped together ("I will never be a Christian; Christianity is full of hypocrisy!"). Non-Catholics often make the same lapse of logic, just a rung or two further down ("So-and-so the alleged Catholic did such-and-such; Catholicism is full of hypocrisy!"). The Church is chock-full of hypocrites, as the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares should inform you. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church has no gigantic monopoly on hypocrisy. Hypocrisy seems to run pretty evenly through all denominational lines. I guess that's par for the course for churches, whose mission is akin to being spiritual hospitals for sinners.