I'll admit it seems like the Catholic church wouldn't pass up a chance to get a lot of free air time in conducting his funeral, but maybe they'll stand by their principles...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606406)

Why must someone believe that Earthly laws must have a 1:1 correlation with moral right/wrong in order to be Catholic? That's ridiculous.

Moreover, since when did God/Jesus kick people out for being wrong about something?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606607)

Link?

My point is that saying the gubment shouldn't make abortion a crime and people should have abortions are different things, and the Roman Catholic church seems to ignore that distinction in the case of public figures.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606677)

So he did something wrong in the eyes of the Church. No forgiveness? I guess if he doesn't say he regrets it or whatever, maybe there's grounds.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606703)

[If you want a response to your *specific* question, of course there's no god so he/she/it/they don't kick people out (or do anything else); and Jesus of Nazareth died about 2,000 years ago, so he hasn't done anything for a long time either.]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606646)

God and Jesus send people to hell for not repenting of their sins. Every time he fucked his harlot or supported the killing of babies he sinned and his unrepentant ways have damned him.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606688)

I don't really agree with that. I think the church has an obligation to follow Christian teachings/will to the extent it can. So, if it were to deny a Catholic burial for some reason contrary to those teachings, I think that's not appropriate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607007)

It's fine and dandy for you to give somebody a christian burial in the 1st Church of Ironmonkey if you disagree with Rome's position, but Rome's decision is final on whether or not a catholic burial is appropriate. I'm not saying the church completely abrogates any free will or thinking but when Rome pronounces something it very much is the position of the Catholic church whether you would have made the same pronouncement or not.

It's a little less clear in a situation like what is likely to occur here where there is no clear pronouncement from Rome and they just don't interfere with local clergy, although in my opinion the lack of interference suggests pretty strongly that it is not a serious problem.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607074)

If we're going by official Catholic doctrine/theology, I suppose you're right. But don't actually buy the notion that whatever Rome says is always in conformance with what Jesus taught.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607094)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606821)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606870)

"God and Jesus send people to hell for not repenting of their sins."

No argument there.

"Every time he fucked his harlot or supported the killing of babies he sinned and his unrepentant ways have damned him."

First, see my posts above re: "support[ing] the killing of babies." The Gospels seem to explicitly acknowledge the distinction between earthly laws and moral right/wrong ("render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's"). Why is it an unforgivable sin to support the notion that U.S. law should not criminalize abortion, whereas it is not an unforgiveable sin to support the notion that U.S. law should not criminalize worshipping false gods?

As for repentance, do you have some particular insight as to what Ted Kennedy has or has not repented?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606756)

I have seen nothing to suggest he repented.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606809)

As for repentence, you can have your own little judgment party based on what you've seen or not seen, but I think that's both irrelevant and not your place as far as theology is concerned.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606852)

the church has to decide if he gets a burial. end. your sophistry no longer interests me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606918)

I don't believe that, and I don't think that's the position of the Catholic Church (though I'd certainly be interested in a link to the contrary).

"the church has to decide if he gets a burial. end."

No kidding. That's irrelevant to what considerations are and should be taken into account.

"ur sophistry no longer interests me."

read: I don't have good answers so I think I'll stop posting about this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606953)

of course the things in his life are what should be taken into account you fucking idiot. what did you think they would use?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607079)

Why? They are sinning against God. Why is a legislator who promotes laws that permit such sins any better off than a legislator who promotes laws that permit other sins?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607103)

I don't believe that is a philosophically or theologically sound answer.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607142)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607208)

So you're really coming at it from a different perspective.

Also, Gentle is wild flame, so there's that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607265)

First, how is this different than supporting legislation clarifying freedom of religion?

Second, how is this different than, for example, refraining from making the law conform to God's law when a legislator has the option of supporting such laws?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607032)

Catholic theology support free choice of religion, it is viewed as a fundamental right, so no cooperation with evil there.

"Second, how is this different than, for example, refraining from making the law conform to God's law when a legislator has the option of supporting such laws?"

Catholic legislators are allowed their own conscience concerning most issues, some they must follow the Church on, I do not have a complete list but abortion is included, as is euthanasia and other "hot button" issues. You can disagree and be in good standing with the church, but only on certain issues. Its been a very long time but its the difference between Ordinary and Extraordinary Magasterium I believe.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607073)

At any rate...

"Catholic theology support free choice of religion, it is viewed as a fundamental right, so no cooperation with evil there."

But there is a right and wrong choice, just as there is a right and wrong choice when it comes to abortion. Why is promoting policies that allow more people to make the wrong choice in one arena totally different than the other arena?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607126)

to repeat myself and to simplify what i said, allowing another (by legislation) to choose islam is not a sin, allowing another (by legislation) to choose abortion (murder for catholics) is a sin.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607510)

(2) "Conform with God's law" isn't exactly the point. The sin from the legislator's viewpoint is formal cooperation with evil (i.e., intending evil as the means or the ends), as distinguished from material cooperation with evil (i.e., not intending evil as the means or the ends). I assume that by "refraining," you mean something like "Senator X isn't actively working 24/7 to make the law less evil and actually spends most of his time on rewriting the tax code," as opposed to "Senator X voted no on a bill that would outlaw abortion." If I'm correct in my assumption, then "refraining" is only problematic if (1) Senator X is "refraining" because he is fine with the law the way it is (i.e., he intends the evil as an end) or (2) Senator X is "refraining" as a bargaining chip to get some other piece of legislation passed (i.e., he intends the evil as a means). If he's just got other things on his plate, that's not a problem.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607128)

Really? "Thou shalt have no other god before me" seems to be as clear as day regarding sin.

As far as formal/material, I think it is entirely plausible that at least some legislators would *not* want or intend for more abortions to occur even while maintaining their legality.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607161)

Pius IX, Singulari Quadam, 1854.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607220)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607230)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607355)

They don't at ALL. **BUT** public pro-choice stances by political figures is the most sensitive issue with Rome, they issue more statements and show more concern for this than all others.

Plenty of everyday people who probably died not in the state of grace are given Catholic funerals. But he advocated not just a policy that was anti-Catholic but the most strongly held and specifically discussed issue.

"Moreover, since when did God/Jesus kick people out for being wrong about something?"

There are rules in the Church about what you can dissent from and not dissent from. Private v. Public dissent and different levels of compliance. No one must agree or accept 100% of the magesterium (teachings) of the church completely, but again, Public advocacy against the church on its most complained-of issue is a special concern.

Edit: as pointed out above, Canon 1184 would govern and I think any reasonable reading would deny Mr. Kennedy the mass of Christian burial (see "manifest sinners to whom a Church funeral cannot be granted without causing public scandal to the faithful") assuming there was no repetence before death.

Like someone else above, obviously we do not know if Kennedy is hell, heaven or purgatory bound but there is a strong feeling (at least to me) that his Catholic funeral would give rise to scandal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606998)

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0903846.htm

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606761)

Funeral Masses

And More on the Eastern Rites

ROME, AUG. 18, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Who can be buried by the Church, and who can a burial Mass be said for? If a faithful of the Catholic Church is not baptized before he dies, but had the desire to be baptized, can a burial Mass be celebrated for him? If a Catholic was baptized, received first Communion and was confirmed, but failed to have his marriage blessed before he dies, can Mass be celebrated for him also? What about a Church member who contributed financially over the years to the Church and has held positions in the Church, but after his death there was a doubt of whether he had been baptized? Can he be given a Church burial, or can Mass be celebrated for him? -- D.A., Accra, Ghana

A: The Church is usually generous toward the deceased, within limits.

First, we must distinguish between offering a funeral Mass and celebrating a Mass whose intention is the eternal repose of a particular soul.

Since the latter is basically the private intention of the priest, albeit offered at the request of a particular person, and since there are practically no limitations as to whom we may pray for, almost any intention can be admitted. In cases that might cause scandal, especially if the person were denied a funeral Mass, it would not be prudent to make this intention public.

A funeral Mass on the other hand is basically a public act in which the Church intercedes for the deceased by name. A funeral Mass is one which uses the formulas found in the Roman Missal and the ritual for funerals. Some of these formulas may be used even if the deceased's body is not present.

Because of its public nature the Church's public intercession for a departed soul is more limited. A funeral Mass can be celebrated for most Catholics, but there are some specific cases in which canon law requires the denial of a funeral Mass. Canons 1184-1185 say:

"Canon 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.

"Canon 1185. Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals."

In fact, these strictures are rarely applied. In part, this is because many sinners do show signs of repentance before death.

Likewise, the canons are open to some interpretation. In No. 1184 §1 notorious would mean publicly known. Therefore someone who had abandoned the faith and joined some other group would be denied a funeral; someone who harbored private doubts or disagreements would not.

Cases of those who choose cremation for reasons contrary to the faith are extremely rare and are hard to prove (see the follow-up in our column of Nov. 29, 2005).

The most delicate cases are those in No. 1184 §1.3. Many canonists say that for denial of a funeral the person must be both widely known to be living in a state of grave sin and that holding a Church funeral would cause scandal.

About a year ago in Italy the Church denied an ecclesiastical funeral for a nationally known campaigner for euthanasia who requested and obtained the removal of his life-support system. In this case the request for a funeral for someone who was only nominally Catholic was in itself a publicity stunt for the organization behind the campaign. Likewise, someone subject to excommunication or interdict (for example, a Catholic abortionist) would be denied a funeral.

Given the severity of the requirements for denial of an ecclesiastical funeral, people in irregular marriages and suicides should not usually be denied a funeral. In such cases denial of the funeral is more likely than not to be counterproductive and cause unnecessary misunderstanding and bitterness. The Church intercedes for the soul and leaves final judgment to God.

Analogous to the funeral Mass are anniversary Masses which are somewhat in between an intention and a funeral Mass. Although, strictly speaking, these would not fall under the prohibitions mentioned in Canon 1184, such Masses should not be given publicity if the person had been denied a funeral.

With respect to non-Catholic Christians the local bishop may permit a funeral in some cases as specified in the Ecumenical Directory 120: "In the prudent judgment of the local Ordinary, the funeral rites of the Catholic Church may be granted to members of a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial Community, unless it is evidently contrary to their will and provided that their own minister is unavailable, and that the general provisions of Canon Law do not forbid it (see Can. 1183,3)."

Regarding the first and third cases presented by our reader, we can also refer to Canon 1183:

"Canon 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."

This would apply both to the person who had intended to receive baptism but was prevented by death as well as to the person whose baptism was uncertain but was active in the Church.

In the first case the funeral liturgy may be celebrated as usual, only omitting language referring directly to the sacrament. The same would apply to the second case, but omission of mentioning the sacrament should be done only if the fact that the person had never been baptized could be established with some degree of certainty.

The foundation for this is the doctrine of baptism of desire in which the Church believes that a soul who explicitly desired the sacrament will receive all the graces of baptism at the moment of death, except for the sacramental character. This last is not given because it is directly orientated toward the exercise of worship during the course of life.

Finally, Catholic funerals are not celebrated for non-Christians.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12606939)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6097524/Ted-Kennedy-Barack-Obama-to-deliver-eulogy-at-funeral.html

Rite of Christian Burial with a "eulogy" given by a "Christian"

Also, eulogies are not part of the regular form of the funeral mass. And I've never heard one at a catholic funeral.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607093)

"382. At the Funeral Mass there should, as a rule, be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607679)

As did Robert Kennedy's funeral at St. Peters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12608451)

It's blatantly obvious that the majority of modern bishops act with utter disregard for the Church hierarchy and openly violate the Holy Father, Catechism, and rubrics without a second thought. Go to Google News and search "Cardinal Mahoney" for proof.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607443)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607451)

Pre-Vatican II Latin Mass

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607887)

I assume you are a conservative catholic?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607533)

This is without getting into the miserable mess of whether the Church should be dictating political policy rather than individual morals to its members.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607756)

Funny how that doesn't apply to liberal causes like socialist medicine that have no relation to Catholic doctrine but are absolutely mandatory according to American "Catholic" politicians that don't even attend church. Killing babies is not merely a "political" issue FYI.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607775)

It would be wise to do so on abortion as well. It's one thing to mandate individual conduct for members, but this goes a step further. It's also pretty damn hypocritical, given how many practicing Catholics have had abortions or have supported family members in having them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607805)

This is not how religion works. If the issue was slavery you would agree the RCC should mandate all Catholics vote for abolition. Or would you still say it has nothing to do with denying a fundamental right to people? For Catholics abortion is the same.

Also, you cannot fault a religion for missteps of its members, otherwise no organization anywhere could ever talk about anything. "Catholics" who have abortions (or help others obtain them) are excommunicated automatically and so are not what msot would consider "catholic"--until they confess and return to the church.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607854)

But I suppose that's one of many reasons I don't have anything to do with the Church anymore.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607897)

Everyone knows the Catholic Church is against abortion. There are lots of people in every faith who break its rules personally, or whose political sentiments allow a broader range of conduct than their faith finds acceptable. My comments above are more going towards how the organization deals with them - something like half the Church's American members support abortion in at least some circumstances, yet it's focuing only on a handful of them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607966)

Not sure who you're referring to, what politicians have been excommunicated? Excommunication is a warning that one has fallen into heresy. It also prohibits them from receiving Holy Communion, which would be a sacrilege and a desecration. Finally, if it were actually used, it would prevent public scandal along the lines of "but but but, the senator is Catholic, so the Church must be okay with what he does." The Church simply does not give a damn about helping some sleazy political types save face; its primary concern is for their souls.

"Everyone knows the Catholic Church is against abortion."

See: Nancy Pelosi publicly claiming that the Church allows abortion. This is *exactly* what excommunication is for. She has been instructed over and over again, but still remains belligerent in her heresy. Excommunication would be a last-ditch effort to encourage her to reconcile and warn the thousands of Catholics that have been misled by her heretical teachings.

"My comments above are more going towards how the organization deals with them - something like half the Church's American members support abortion in at least some circumstances, yet it's focuing only on a handful of them."

The majority of American "Catholics" support abortion precisely because public figures like Catholic bishops, celebrities, and politicians tell them that it's ok. Those who promote abortion publicly should be dealt with publicly. Those whose involvement in abortion is private can be dealt with privately.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12608093)

I would be more sympathetic towards punishing someone who purposefully mistates the Church's policy than someone who merely disagrees with it, or doesn't feel it should be applied to the nation as a whole, or doesn't feel that it should be enforced legally rather than morally. I have never met anyone who made the "but but but, the Senator is Catholic..." argument. People are perfectly aware the Catholic Church has strong views on any number of issues related to sexuality.

No, that's not why they support it. People aren't sheep, and the Catholic identity in this country isn't that incredibly strong anymore. People support it because their family members do, or because they live in cultural groups of Catholics and non-Catholics where it's relatively common and accepted.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12608147)

"I'm a devout Catholic shaped and informed by my upbringing."

"But Congresswoman, you were excommunicated."

"I consider myself a devout Catholic. That the Church apparently thinks otherwise has no bearing on my beliefs or my relationship with God."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12608188)

Anyway, that reason is only secondary. The primary motivation is that administering Holy Communion to publicly professed heretics is a sacrilege against Our Lord.

Anyway, I'm going to go to Mass and then confession afterwards. And I will not be receiving until then, because unlike the Kennedy family, I'm not so damned important that I'm allowed to sin without consequence. Will be back to this syndicated IRC token router later.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12608235)

Regarding suicide, I don't think I've ever heard of someone being denied a funeral for that outisde the limited context of a murder-suicide type thing, or killing oneself while on the run from a crime. The general Catholic thought on suicide, IIRC, is that those who commit it due to depression or what have you are mentally ill and thus unable to make a free choice, meaning they couldn't have committed a sin by taking their own lives.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607842)

I was thinking more of the first set of cases, which are admittedly rare. I'm aware they generally tend to skirt the suicide issue in modern contexts where no one else is harm.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12607867)

Umm...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1072630&forum_id=2#12608218)