Showing posts with label Scandalization of the Faithful. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scandalization of the Faithful. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

When charity becomes uncharitable: A commentary by Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro Carámbula - Rome Office of HLI

This needs no further commentary. Thanks to Life Site News for carrying it, and to Fr. K for alerting me to it.

EDIT: After reading the commentary and giving it some thought, I would like to state that I felt there should have been a Catholic funeral because we cannot know to what depth and scope he may have repented, even after he was unable to speak. However, I did not feel his funeral should have been public. That having been said, I believe much of what Msgr. Ignacio has to say is worthy of pondering. Further, I don't want to suggest that Cardinal O'Malley was uncharitable by the heading of this post. Rather, my thought was that in general, charity for some can be carried to a point that it becomes uncharitable for others, or even for those whom charity is supposedly directed. Mercy can become merciless, if it does not put at the forefront the salvation of one's soul.

Truth, Charity and Mercy: On Satisfying the Requirements for a Catholic Funeral

Commentary by Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro Carámbula, Doctor of Dogmatic Theology and head of the Rome office of Human Life International

Author's Note: The Catholic Church has taught on many occasions on the important duties of Catholic political leaders. A recent event in Boston makes it necessary to reflect again on those teachings. "John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear obligation to oppose' any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them." (Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholic in Political, CDF, n. 4.)

September 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - True love consists in presenting the saving truths that the Lord has entrusted to His Church with clarity and precision, without any concessions to the spirit of the world. This duty is not only incumbent to the Hierarchy, but to all Catholics and in particular to the persons who have a position of social and political leadership; they have to manifest these teachings and, more importantly, their lives have to be lead in coherence with those teachings.

There is no doubt that example and coherence of life are much more eloquent than a thousand words. This applies especially to the example of those who have a position of public authority. Such as these cannot be selective in the way that they adhere to the teachings of the Church: all teachings are important and they have an inner coherence that is necessary to respect.

At the same time, the teachings of the Church with regards to life and family have a central position because if the right to life from conception through natural death, and the protection the origin of life which is the family, are not respected, all the other rights that a human person might have become illusory.

If a Catholic is engaged in politics, the Church has a right and a duty to request coherence from this person. If, regrettably, this Catholic refuses to be coherent, the Church has the right and the duty to refuse him the reception of the Holy Eucharist as it is established in Canon 915: "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion."

Archbishop Raymond Burke, commenting on this canon points out that, "The application [of the canon], therefore, is more necessary than ever, lest the faithful, led astray by the strong cultural trends of relativism, be deceived concerning the supreme good of the Holy Eucharist and the gravity of supporting publicly the commission of intrinsically evil acts. Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenceless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenceless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family." (The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin, Periodica, Vol. 96 (2007), pp 57-58.)

In the same way that publicly incoherent Catholics might be denied communion, these persons can also be denied ecclesiastical funeral rites. The Code of Canon Law establishes, Can. "1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals: 3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful."

The Code establishes two cumulative requirements to permit the ecclesiastical funeral of public sinners: some signs of repentance and the avoidance of public scandal of the faithful.

We are informed by the press that the person who received the recent funeral in Boston gave some signs of repentance; but those signs were not specific at all with regards to the many grave and public violations that he committed against the teachings of the Church. Even if the signs of repentance would have been judged sufficient by competent local ecclesiastical authority, the problem of the scandal remains because the ordinary of the place where the funeral was officiated could not have been ignorant that the funeral was going to be turned into a celebration of the life of that particular person.

Here we should also remember the norm of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal that establishes: "382. At the Funeral Mass there should, as a rule, be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind." There is ample public evidence provided by the press that this norm was not respected in a recent Boston funeral and that fact is in itself a reasonable source of scandal.

We should also remember that Catholics that are scandalized by this recent funeral in Boston have a right to express their complaints to competent Church authorities in accordance with the instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum" of the Congregation for Divine Worship of March 25, 2004, that establishes: "184. Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ's faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity."

To uphold the teachings of the Church with regards to the responsibility of Catholic political leaders is a two-fold exercise of mercy. First, it is for the good of the soul of the politician. A politician that is acting contrary to fundamental teachings of the Church in his public life is risking his eternal salvation. So to warn this person in due canonical fashion and then, if he persists, to apply to him canonical sanctions will help him to repent and change his life. The Church, sharing the infinite love of Jesus Christ, does not want that any of its members should perish and be deprived of eternal life.

Second, it is an act of mercy towards society, because any thing that tends to confuse or blur the Christian message of salvation damages the ability of the Church to fulfil her saving mission. As a consequence in this particular case it would have been an act of mercy towards all Catholics and to many other persons of good will who suffered scandal by this recent funeral to deny it.

In conclusion, the Church should examine with attention the recent funeral in Boston and determine in an official and authoritative way if corrective action is necessary to avoid the furtherance of this type of scandal in the future.
Original source article at Life Site News: Truth, Charity and Mercy: On Satisfying the Requirements for a Catholic Funeral

If you decide to write to the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS)


His Eminence
Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera
Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship
and Discipline of the Sacraments
Palazzo delle Congregazioni
P.zza Pio XII00120
VATICAN CITY


Scroll down here for Fr. Z's practical advice for use when writing to the Holy See. Please note that some of the names have changed. Above, I have the correct name for the new Prefect. His guidelines apply well for writing to any member of the hierarchy, including your own bishop.


Te Deum Laudamus! Home



The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Thursday, September 3, 2009

My Response to Cardinal Sean O'Malley's blogpost on Senator Kennedy's Funeral

I have been a big supporter of church hierarchy making use of various media to connect with the people. When Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston started his blog, I thought it was an awesome thing. I have not really offered comments there, until today. His Eminence broke with his usual Friday post, to talk about Senator Ted Kennedy's funeral.

For the record, I understand how upset some people were with the public funeral. However, there are some people - orthodox Catholics among them - who communicate their frustrations with all the tact of a neanderthal.

We all have a right, and sometimes a duty, to communicate to the Sacred Pastors, our concerns. But, those concerns and frustrations must be conveyed with love and respect, ever mindful of the dignity of the person to whom it is directed.

How something is communicated is important. Around the time of his installation, I posted Archbishop Allen Vigneron's "10 Rules for Handling Disagreement Like a Christian". I think it is a good time to revisit those rules. In this case, #1 applies: Rule of Charity: Charity is Primary.

I don't doubt that some people communicated their disapproval of things that took place with the Kennedy funeral in a less than tactful manner, and perhaps even with "vitriol". However, I hope that legitimate points made charitably are not considered vitriol by virtue of the fact that they are being raised.

I did offer my thoughts after reading his full entry. It was made early this morning and is still awaiting moderation as of 5:30pm, while others posted later appear to have been approved. I don't think my comment was uncharitable, and I am glad to have copied it to share here. Hopefully, it will be approved in the Cardinal's combox soon.

You may first want to read Cardinal O'Malley's position: On Senator Kennedy's Funeral

Here is my still unpublished response entered at 7:27am, September 3, 2009. I believe it was charitable, and therefore worthy of being approved by moderators. I have clarified one thing below, bracketed in red:

Your Eminence:

Peace and grace of Jesus Christ be with you!

As a Catholic blogger, and one who spends considerable time reading other Catholic blogs and websites, I did not see the kind of objection you perhaps perceived about Sen. Kennedy having a Catholic funeral. Orthodox Catholics do understand that we do not, and cannot know, the depth and scope of forgiveness he may have sought in his final moments. Therefore, I didn’t really see people objecting to his having a Catholic funeral.

What I did see, and I share this objection, was a public display of the funeral and the manner in which elements of the Mass publicly went against norms – universal – for Catholic funeral Masses.

The funeral should not have been televised, in my humble opinion. It should have been private. By giving it the public show that it had, it not only led people into scandal seemingly justifying that one can promote abortion and gay marriage, and still be a “good Catholic”.

You said, “the Senator’s wake and Catholic funeral were controversial because of the fact that he did not publically support Catholic teaching and advocacy on behalf of the unborn”

This statement lightens reality. It wasn’t that he did not publicly support Catholic teaching and advocate on behalf of the unborn. He worked effectively against Catholic teaching and against the unborn.

I was dismayed not only at how Sen. Kennedy was indeed “canonized” throughout the Mass. Is this common practice in the Archdiocese of Boston? The focus of the funeral Mass was not for the respose of the soul of Sen. Kennedy, but rather a “celebration of his life”.

Some of the intercessions and eulogies were entirely scandalous, including the use of a young boy to plug “health care”, and the subtle dig on homosexuality.
[not really a dig on it, but a plug of it - indirect inferences, so to speak]

Would not the content of those lengthy eulogies have been more appropriate the night before, or at a luncheon afterwards? I was shocked at the vulgarity and unvirtuous references in some of the comments – in the sanctuary no less.

Your Eminence: The Kennedy family, and by extension many politicians, have been led astray by “all sorts of strange teachings” by malformed and disingenous Catholic priests and bishops. When will the scandal end and corrections be made for these things?

The scandal continues. I pray you will work to bring it to an end.

Be assured of my continuing prayers for prudence and holy boldness.



EDIT: Phil Lawler has a great commentary up on this, as well: The Kennedy Funeral - Boston's Latest Scandal


Te Deum Laudamus! Home


The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!