 |
| Ben Barboza, husband of the late Jacintha Saldanha, with the couple's children Junal, 16, (l.) and Lisha, 14 (r.). @AP |
Edit: if Ordinaries like Archbishop Nichols don't actually follow established rules because they're too cowardly to face a media storm, what's the point of having laws which even the ordinaries themselves don't follow?
A nurse who committed suicide as the result of a phone prank was also Catholic. She was found hanging in her room on December 7th three days after a prank was played on her by Australian DJs. It's not known if she was a practicing Catholic, but there will be a scandalous Requiem Mass for her in London to placate the sentimental and soft-hearted. This will be done at the expense of the Catholic religion.
The man responsible for this scandalous act, Archbishop Nichols, has often been long on sentimentality and short on orthopraxis. In 2009, he appeared at a Hindu Temple in London and received a "blessing", and he still hasn't put the brakes on the notorious Soho Masses. It must be things like this which have prevented this Prince of the Church from receiving the honor of a Cardinal's hat.
Here's the following citation from the Church's Canon Law which ++Nicholas has most likely perjured himself over when he swore he would uphold it:
CHAPTER II : THOSE TO WHOM CHURCH FUNERALS ARE TO BE ALLOWED OR DENIEDHere's the story from New York Daily News...
Can. 1183 §1 As far as funeral rites are concerned, catechumens are to be reckoned among Christ's faithful.
§2 Children whose parents had intended to have them baptised but who died before baptism, may be allowed Church funeral rites by the local Ordinary.
§3 Provided their own minister is not available, baptised persons belonging to a non-catholic Church or ecclesial community may, in accordance with the prudent judgement of the local Ordinary, be allowed Church funeral rites, unless it is established that they did not wish this.
Can. 1184 §1 Church funeral rites are to be denied to the following, unless they gave some signs of repentance before death:
1° notorious apostates, heretics and schismatics;[Suicides]
2° those who for anti-christian motives chose that their bodies be cremated;
3° other manifest sinners to whom a Church funeral could not be granted without public scandal to the faithful.
§2 If any doubt occurs, the local Ordinary is to be consulted and his judgement followed.
Can. 1185 Any form of funeral Mass is also to be denied to a person who has been excluded from a Church funeral.
13 comments:
I've never read Can. 1184 §2 before. Who determines the anti-Christian motives? And hasn't cremation always been anti-Christian‽
I've pointed this out before, but it strikes me as thought this legislation is so written to allow whoever so desires it to twist the law any way he likes.
I wouldn't have thought that someone who commits suicide is ipso facto an apostate, heretic or schismatic. Canonically at least, this won't fly.
May someone who commits suicide receive a Catholic funeral? In the past, people who committed suicide were often denied a Church funeral. This was not a judgment of the deceased’s eternal destiny (indeed, the Church has always offered Masses for those who have committed suicide). Rather, a Church funeral was denied to the deceased in order to avoid giving scandal to the faithful and to emphasize the grave nature of suicide.
As in the past, the Church teaches that suicide is and always will be objectively and gravely wrong. At the same time, today she better understands the psychological disturbances that may influence a suicide and thus mitigate personal culpability. This being the case, those who take their life are now typically provided funerals (cf. Catechism, no. 2282).
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=264
It may be a hard pill to swallow, but the author fails to note two very important things after making some grave charges against this Archbishop: 1) the condition of suicide added in red brackets doesn't actually appear in canon law but is instead the author's own edit; 2) canon law defers to the final judgment of the Archbishop ( §2 If any doubt occurs, the local Ordinary is to be consulted and his judgment followed). While there are serious problems in the hierarchy of the church today, the author undermines his own credibility with this article. By making his own revision to canon law, failing to consider that the same law envisions the final judgment of the same ordinary he attacks, and instead imposes his own judgment with fiery accusation is very un-Catholic. Please move on - there are bigger fish to fry than the presumptive spiritual work of mercy in burying this poor soul.
1) Accusing the author of altering canon law is a lie.
2) The Archbishop undermines his credibility by giving what was clearly a suicide, the benefit of a Funeral Mass, it's a bit hard to credit ""doubt" especially since this particular Prelate is no stranger to giving scandal.
Perhaps the really problem here is related to the crisis of the church - everyone makes himself his own pope:
1) the author denies editing revising canon law to include suicide a condition - please see the Vatican website for this - suicide is not listed - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4C.HTM
2) unless the author is actually pope Benedict (in which case, I offer my apologies), the same author is running afoul of canon law himself:
Can. 1405 §1. It is solely the right of the
Roman Pontiff himself to judge in the
cases mentioned in ⇒ can. 1401:
1/ those who hold the highest civil office
of a state;
2/ cardinals;
3/ legates of the Apostolic See and, in
penal cases, bishops;
And
Can. 1401 By proper and exclusive right
the Church adjudicates:
1/ cases which regard spiritual matters or
those connected to spiritual matters;
2/ the violation of ecclesiastical laws and
all those matters in which there is a
question of sin, in what pertains to the
determination of culpability and the
imposition of ecclesiastical penalties.
1. I didn't edit the entry. You lie.
2. Even Pope Benedict should abide by the Church Law he had a hand in making, unless he means to make it meaningless and doesn't plan on enforcing it.
3. Canon 1405 isn't a license to trample the law or ignore its spirit.
I've gotta agree with Anonymous on this. Why do you keep saying that you didn't edit the entry when it is undeniable?...your addition is in red. Or are you trying to say that the original is in red and in parenthases? And to talk about ignoring the 'spirit of the law' is a very problematic stance....I've seen the same arguement made, verbatum, ad nauseum in the NCR-Fishwrap.
No lover of the fruit of VII, I, but you're arguing from a very weak stance here Tancred, and accusing the commentor of a grave offense he didn't commit...a grave offense in itself.
Probably because a suicide (which is the crime of murdering ones self) is a demonstration of manifest and public sin.
Perhaps the objector is one of those soft-hearted, and perhaps soft-headed individuals who is concerned more about people's emotions than their souls?
Wow...you just can't admit you have no ground to stand on ON TOPIC. No one is defending suicide, but you don't make your point by editing Canon text, and then calling everyone who points out YOUR EDIT a liar. You could make a good case with logic and reason; instead you double-down on jackassery. Shame that, you have too good a mind to slime-dive.
He accused me of including (editing) a term that doesn't belong to the statute.
He's lying.
I enjoy your blog whenever I get the time to check it out. You seem like such a mean, nasty little thing! That's what makes it so much fun!
Post a Comment