|
Web Exclusive
Do canonical requirements for church funerals clear up misconceptions or foster more confusion about Church teaching on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage?
By Mark Brumley
 A canon lawyer friend of mine says Senator Edward Kennedy had a canonical right to a Church funeral. Not that my friend is a Kennedy fan: he just thinks Church law reads that way. I think he is right, though whether it should read that way is another matter. Toward the end of his life Mr. Kennedy attended Mass, led family prayers, and met with priests. These activities, my canon lawyer friend contends, are canonically acceptable “signs of repentance.”
“Signs of repentance?” you may wonder. Why are these needed? Senator Kennedy was well-known for stances at odds with Catholic teaching. For instance, he supported abortion rights—including partial-birth abortion—when he should have defended the right to life for unborn babies. He advocated experimentation on embryonic human beings when he should have stood up for their rights not to be manipulated and killed. And he also supported same-sex marriage when he should have upheld marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The positions Senator Kennedy took on those issues are, according to Catholic teaching, objectively gravely sinful. Indeed, they are so sinful that someone who advocates them should refrain from receiving Holy Communion (Canon 916). If he does not, and if he manifestly and obstinately persists in them, then he should not be admitted to Holy Communion (Canon 915). This is not a question of judging a man’s soul but of his public actions. Such actions are, in themselves, contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. A Catholic who publicly supports abortion rights, embryonic experimentation, and same-sex marriage misrepresents to others the incompatibility of such things with Catholicism. Whatever a politician’s personal culpability before God, he is a “manifest sinner” in terms of his public actions when he supports such evils.
When pastors and other Catholic leaders fail publicly to correct politicians who support those things, pastors and others risk allowing other Catholics to be misled by the sinful positions of the politicians. Catholics can easily infer that the issues cannot be as bad or as contrary to Catholic teaching as some Catholics claim. Those misled Catholics in turn wind up supporting laws and policies that directly harm unborn children, in the cases of abortion and embryonic experimentation.
Canon 1184 says that church funeral rights are to be denied certain groups of people, including “manifest sinners,” “unless they gave some signs of repentance before death.” The argument that justifies Senator Kennedy’s church funeral says that as he prepared to die, Senator Kennedy participated in Mass, led family prayers, and was visited by priests. These activities are interpreted by canonists, including my canon lawyer friend, as “signs of repentance.” So Senator Kennedy got his church funeral.
As far as Mr. Kennedy is concerned, I pray for the repose of his soul. Since I have more interest here in the general question of what ought to be than I do the particular question of whether Ted Kennedy met the current requirements for a church funeral, I will recast the discussion in general terms.
Suppose a politician is well-known for his support of abortion rights, experimentation on embryonic human beings, and same-sex marriage. Suppose he is a Catholic, and suppose he has been told repeatedly by bishops and others what the Church teaches and of his grave responsibility to promote laws consistent with that teaching, including laws regarding the rights of the unborn and the defense of marriage. Suppose—despite all the politician has been told by the Church—he continues to support abortion, embryonic experimentation, and same-sex marriage. Furthermore, he denies that his support of these evils is incompatible with his faith, so he receives Holy Communion at Mass, leads family prayers, and visits with priest friends.
Now suppose the Catholic politician becomes terminally ill and takes to his deathbed. He has Mass in his home and receives Holy Communion, leads the family prayers, and visits with priest friends. He writes a letter to his bishop admitting that he is a fallible human being, mentions the good things he did as a politician, and asks for the bishop’s prayers. He says nothing in the letter about his public abortion-rights activities, embryonic experimentation, or his public support for same-sex marriage. Instead, he insists that despite his human failings he has never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of his faith.
Under those circumstances, do the activities of receiving Holy Communion, leading family prayers, and visiting with priests amount to “signs of repentance”? Canonists may count them as such, but in the situation I just outlined, we can’t say that they really are. Why not? Because the politician received Holy Communion, led prayers, etc., before he was on his deathbed and all the time maintained that his manifestly, objectively sinful activities were compatible with his Catholicism. How, then, can we suppose his deathbed actions show he has repudiated his earlier actions?
As I say, I prefer not argue over whether Senator Kennedy met the canonical criteria for a church funeral, although I admit that I have taken elements of my example from his case. Unfortunately, my example could apply to many Catholic politicians. That leads me to wonder whether Canon 1184 is helpful if it is to be understood as permitting a church funeral for Catholic politicians under the circumstances I have just outlined.
The requirement for “signs of repentance” in Canon 1184 seems to be there to prevent the “public scandal to the faithful” that a church funeral for a “manifest sinner” would otherwise cause or seriously risk. Its focus is on not misleading others into thinking that the activities of the manifest sinner in question are compatible with the Catholic faith. When someone who engaged publicly in objectively gravely sinful activities is given a church funeral without any indication that he repented of his manifest sins, it is a reasonable inference that the activities in question cannot have really been so seriously incompatible with Catholic life and practice. Because the Church wants to avoid misleading people in this way, she requires “signs of repentance” before a “manifest sinner” may receive a church funeral.
But if, as in the case outlined in my example, what are taken as “signs of repentance” can’t tell us anything about whether the politician came to see his support of 40 million legal abortions, embryonic experimentation, and same-sex marriage as incompatible with the Catholic faith, how can a church funeral for such a politician avoid giving scandal? How will it be taken by many people—or most—to mean anything but that these things are not, after all, serious evils, and that they are not, in the end, contrary to the Catholic faith?
Mark Brumley is president of Ignatius Press.
|
