Catholic Church Denies Funeral For Local Gay Man...maybe

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='katholikkid' timestamp='1309360203' post='2260255']
As with most canon law it is up to the local ordinary in the end. So the scandal to the faithful in his diocese may not be the same for other faithful in other dioceses. To be honest I live in New England homosexuality here is not to scandalous. It might be in more rural areas of the nation. Perhaps in San Diego this is not too much of an issue which is why when the matter was appealed to the Bishop he did allow the funeral to be held at the gentleman's parish if the family wished it.
[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/pope.gif[/img]
[/quote]
All the more scandalous, I think, the more it is accepted.

[quote name='Debra Little' timestamp='1309362083' post='2260263']
They are still human beings. And people cannot help how
they born.
[/quote]
Irrelevant. We are all born broken, and we are all called to deny ourselves, deny our weaknesses, and be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. We can approve of the sins of those who identify as homosexual no more than we can approve of the sins of the murderers or the thieves or the occultists. All of them are born broken, and their brokenness manifests itself in unique ways... all of which must be denied.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Debra Little' timestamp='1309362083' post='2260263']
They are still human beings. And people cannot help how
they born.
[/quote]

There is no quantitative proof to show that this is in any way an accurate statement. It is a theory, and a shaky one at that.

[cmotherofpirl]

The rules are crystal clear, the application is not. If the first church had a legitimate reason for no public funeral, then logically the second church would have the same problem. Since he is getting a catholic funeral and I haven't seen anything posted by the good bishop one must assume something else is going on. I am not going to jump to the conclusion that one parish is liberal and the other not.

[kujo]

It seems pretty convenient to fall back on the whole "public" vs "private" sin thing. Are you telling me that a man who has gone to morning mass every day of his adult life and maintained an enormous cache of child pornography is more deserving of a Catholic funeral than a man who attended the same morning masses, with the same frequency, with his husband?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309365894' post='2260282']
It seems pretty convenient to fall back on the whole "public" vs "private" sin thing. Are you telling me that a man who has gone to morning mass every day of his adult life and maintained an enormous cache of child pornography is more deserving of a Catholic funeral than a man who attended the same morning masses, with the same frequency, with his husband?
[/quote]
in the eyes of the church [i]he[/i] has no husband...

[Cam42]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309365894' post='2260282']
It seems pretty convenient to fall back on the whole "public" vs "private" sin thing. Are you telling me that a man who has gone to morning mass every day of his adult life and maintained an enormous cache of child pornography is more deserving of a Catholic funeral than a man who attended the same morning masses, with the same frequency, with his husband?
[/quote]

No, both are sinful and both are sacrilegious. However, one is known public sinner and one is not. So, the benefit of the doubt falls on the one who is not public with his sin until such time as it is shown to be the case. Then he is bound to the legal prescriptions which fit his sin and/or judgment based upon Canon Law.

[Jesus_lol]

Is it common practice to not afford catholic sinners a proper funeral? in what other situations is this likely to happen?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1309367370' post='2260291']
Is it common practice to not afford catholic sinners a proper funeral? in what other situations is this likely to happen?
[/quote]

The requisites for denying a funeral are listed above, through Canon Law. It is up to the competent authority to make that decision.

[Lumiere]

So what about people who use birth control? Don't tell me all these one and two child families happen by chance. These people are going against the Church's teaching. Then we have divorced people, heterosexual people who live together without being married, etc. etc. All these people should be denied burial?

According to this:

"3° other manifest sinners to whom a Church funeral could not be granted without public scandal to the faithful."

Almost anybody could be excluded if enough people were scandalized. At one point women working outside the home were scandalous. At one point women who wore pantaloons were scandalous. At one point a Roman Catholic who married a protestant was scandalous. At someone who had left a religious congregation was scandalous.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Lumiere

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1309367370' post='2260291']
Is it common practice to not afford catholic sinners a proper funeral? in what other situations is this likely to happen?
[/quote]

When people keep pictures of themselves upside-down and twenty feet in the air.


Just kidding - as Father Cappie quoted above, any situation that might cause scandal to the Church (ie giving the appearance of being supportive of an immoral lifestyle) is a likely candidate for not getting a funeral. The sinner who gets the funeral may be even less deserving, but the reputation of the Church is exceedingly important, since that can mean the eternal happiness or the eternal damnation of countless other souls.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1309369046' post='2260301']
So what about people who use birth control? Don't tell me all these one and two child families happen by chance. These people are going against the Church's teaching. Then we have divorced people, heterosexual people who live together without being married, etc. etc. All these people should be denied burial?
[/quote]

The question here isn't about burial - it's about a funeral Mass/service.

This also isn't about divorced and unmarried but sexually active cases in general; each case is very specific. If it is public knowledge that the people were living in sin, and would not repent, then the Church has the obligation to the rest of the faithful, and to the world, to not do anything that *might* show support of the immorality in question, and in fact has the obligation to point out the error, as well.

Again - the Church has to think about all souls, and if someone got the idea that it didn't matter if he was living sinfully because the Church would support him anyway, that could mean the difference between heaven and hell for that person.

[Cam42]

Throwing out examples does no one any good, because we cannot interpret the CIC. We can only do what it says and assume that any given person is worthy to receive a Christian burial, unless it is stated that he is not.

What we can know for certain is what the CIC tells us. What we cannot know is how each case will be handled.

So...speculation does nobody any good. There are scenarios however, which are cut and dried...all you have to do is look to the CIC to see this. Can we please stope with the example brigade. There isn't one person here who can answer it. If you really want to know, email a Canon Lawyer.

[Santa Cruz]

Below is a link to an article in the "California Catholic Daily" that attempts to clarify the stance of the SD Diocese on the Funeral for Mr. Sanfilippo. I have also pasted the article below. As a side note, regardless, we can all pray for this deceased man and his family and the Diocese of San Diego...

[url="http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=00ffed2a-4080-4dd3-a955-277b9a5de2a1"]California Catholic Daily[/url]




[quote]

[b]Mass confusion[/b]
[i]Priest says incident at San Diego parish over funeral rites for gay bar owner was a "set-up"[/i]


A controversy over the refusal of a San Diego parish to hold a funeral Mass for the deceased owner of a gay bar was a "set-up" by homosexual activists, an associate pastor at Our Lady of the Rosary Church said at a midday Mass yesterday.

[img]http://www.calcatholic.com/newsimages/FrSolcia062911.jpg[/img]The parish's associate pastor, Fr. Louis M. Solcia, spoke about the controversy during noon daily Mass yesterday, a parish insider told [i]California Catholic Daily[/i]. Fr. Solcia minced no words in describing the uproar over a decision by priests at the parish to refuse a funeral Mass for John Sanfilippo, who owned the San Diego gay bar the SRO Lounge and had been involved in a long-term same-sex relationship before his death.

Sanfilippo died on June 24 and his family and "partner" of 30 years had sought to have a funeral Mass for him at the downtown San Diego parish. Initially, plans for the funeral Mass moved forward and it was scheduled for June 30. But when Mr. Sanfililppo's "partner" telephoned the parish to discuss further details, priests determined that a Mass would be inappropriate, the parish insider reported.

That decision prompted homosexual activist Nicole Murray Ramirez to post a letter on the church's front door addressed to San Diego Bishop Robert Brom, calling on him to clarify diocesan policy on the issue of funeral rites for homosexuals. Following a similar incident in 2005, Bishop Brom apologized to the loved ones of a man, also the owner of nightclubs catering to gays and a homosexual-rights activist, who had been refused a funeral Mass.

The parish insider said priests at the parish (the pastor is away) decided that burial services would be appropriate but not a Mass because it appeared that Mr. Sanfilippo had not received the Last Rites, had not gone to Confession and was not a practicing Catholic.

The [i]San Diego LGBT Weekly[/i] reported that Murray Ramirez, "a friend of the Sanfilippo family, talked to his partner of 30 years, Brian Galvin. 'The Sanfilippo family and Brian are, of course, devastated and are trying to get the mass in another church,' Murray Ramirez said. When the parish priests found out about the gay relationship of Sanfilippo and Galvin, the priests said they were uncomfortable with Sanfilippo and Galvin's relationship, according to Murray Ramirez, adding the church notified the family on Sunday that the Thursday funeral mass was canceled."

The story was also picked up by KGTV-Channel 10 News in San Diego, which reported yesterday that the diocese would allow "a funeral service" for Mr. Sanfilippo, suggesting that the chancery had reversed the parish's decision.

Channel 10 News reported it had received an email from San Diego diocesan chancellor Rodrigo Valdivia stating, "The Diocesan office was notified about this situation earlier today... Diocesan Authorities have concluded that the funeral as scheduled at Our Lady of the Rosary Parish may take place. Plans for the ritual are yet to be made."

But parish sources say having a funeral for Mr. Sanfilippo was never at issue. "It was the Mass only, not the burial," said the parish insider. Channel 10 also reported that no one at the parish had contacted Mr. Sanfilippo's family to clarify the situation.

The exact position of the diocese on the issue now appears to be of little import. Mr. Sanfilippo's family members no longer want to have a funeral Mass at Our Lady of the Rosary even if Bishop Brom has cleared the way, according to Channel 10 News. Sources told [i]California Catholic Daily[/i] that the funeral rites will be held at Holy Cross Cemetery instead.


[url=""][/url]

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1309368120' post='2260295']
The requisites for denying a funeral are listed above, through Canon Law. It is up to the competent authority to make that decision.
[/quote]

i read that thanks, but i wasnt asking about the law, rather how common it is for a funeral to be denied and typically for what reasons? more interested in the application of the law than the law itself.

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1309369141' post='2260303']
When people keep pictures of themselves upside-down and twenty feet in the air.


Just kidding - as Father Cappie quoted above, any situation that might cause scandal to the Church (ie giving the appearance of being supportive of an immoral lifestyle) is a likely candidate for not getting a funeral. The sinner who gets the funeral may be even less deserving, but the reputation of the Church is exceedingly important, since that can mean the eternal happiness or the eternal damnation of countless other souls.
[/quote]



It should be considered that denying this funeral is a very damaging thing to the reputation of the church, causing a scandal unto itself. I would not be surprised if every close family member and friend to the man in question stopped going to the catholic church after hearing this, and it cant be doing any good to the other people who hear about it over the internet, news etc.

[katholikkid]

The Church can't control what type of sin is going on around it. The Church ministers to sinners. If the sinners are people living a homosexual lifestyle then the Church has to address their needs and teach them to live as Christ. Subsidiarity is the name of the game when it comes to canon law. In Vatican II and Canon Law you will often find that decisions are to be left to competent local ecclesiastical authorities and offices. Consider a place of the country where drugs are an epidemic and a a person over doses and dies. Let us say he was faithful to his parish and everyone knew he was a drug addict. He overdoses in a back alley, no last rites. Funeral or no? Up to the bishop. And I would say the bishop would show great compassion. Not dying in a state of grace can happen to any of us. Should one of us die in a car accident after doing something really bad what then? We can't treat God's grace linearly. It is a mystery. Nor should we ever say who is and isn't a recipient of it.

Edited June 29, 2011 by katholikkid