Ijournal entry 070317 #26 July.Month of the Precious Blood. The Rule of St. Benedict. Quotes by Tertullian, Cardinal Robert Sarah, & Severianus of Gabala. Article: "Abbot Chapman Prays In The Rain", by Fr. Michael Gillis. Article: "Who Can Receive a Catholic Funeral?", by Trent Horn. YouTube Video: "Divine Mercy and the Incarnation", by Fr. Thaddaeus Lancton, MIC.
"Sacrifice is the highest form of religious worship which man offers to God as an act of praise, thanksgiving, petition or atonement. The most singular and pre-eminent sacrifice of the Old Law was the immolation of the Paschal Lamb which celebrated the sparing of Israel’s firstborn from the fatal sword of the Angel of Death in Egypt at the time of Moses and Pharaoh. The imagery of sacrificial blood from slain animals is made more vivid and meaningful if we recall Moses’ words from the Book of Exodus:
This old sacrifice took a new form in the New Testament when the Immaculate Lamb of God offered Himself on the altar of the Cross to redeem mankind from sin and the slavery of Satan. And during the Last Supper, Our Lord offered Himself in an unbloody yet real sacrifice when He uttered the following words,
Truly, this “shedding of blood’ or “pouring out of blood” took place and forms one of the glorious mysteries of our Faith"
Info from this site:
http://www.tfp.org/july-month-of-the-most-precious-blood-of-our-lord/
Info from this site:
http://www.tfp.org/july-month-of-the-most-precious-blood-of-our-lord/
The Rule of St. Benedict
"We believe that God is present everywhere and that the eyes of the Lord in every place behold the good and the evil;
1 but let us especially believe this without any doubt when we are assisting at the Divine Office. Therefore let us ever remember the words of the prophet: Serve ye the Lord in fear;
2 and again, Sing ye wisely;
3 and, I will sing to thee in the sight of the angels.
4 Let us then consider how we ought to behave ourselves in the presence of God and his angels, and so sing the psalms that mind and voice may be in harmony"
MC= It is right and just to consider who we are sending up our praises to and how we are doing it. As people striving for excellence to serve the one, Tru, and living God, should we do so with duplicity of heart? I'd we are here to minister to the Lord, should every person in sight be the center of attention. When we are bust chatting with others are our minds on God? Seems like it is when it's His turn to be the center attraction, everyone body and everything filters in as an interference. Time to do right by God, at least to attempt to be God centered in church and chapel. A backbone should replace a wishbone.
"We believe that God is present everywhere and that the eyes of the Lord in every place behold the good and the evil;
1 but let us especially believe this without any doubt when we are assisting at the Divine Office. Therefore let us ever remember the words of the prophet: Serve ye the Lord in fear;
2 and again, Sing ye wisely;
3 and, I will sing to thee in the sight of the angels.
4 Let us then consider how we ought to behave ourselves in the presence of God and his angels, and so sing the psalms that mind and voice may be in harmony"
MC= It is right and just to consider who we are sending up our praises to and how we are doing it. As people striving for excellence to serve the one, Tru, and living God, should we do so with duplicity of heart? I'd we are here to minister to the Lord, should every person in sight be the center of attention. When we are bust chatting with others are our minds on God? Seems like it is when it's His turn to be the center attraction, everyone body and everything filters in as an interference. Time to do right by God, at least to attempt to be God centered in church and chapel. A backbone should replace a wishbone.
🍏 "In confession, while the man abases himself, the sacrament raises him. While he covers himself with squalor, it renders him cleaner. While he accuses himself, it excuses him. While he condemns himself, it absolves him. The less you excuse yourself, the more God will forgive you". By Tertullian
🌖 "If we are faithful in always directing our soul toward the divine light, we will become luminous in turn, as flowers take on a resemblance to the sun". By Cardinal Robert Sarah
🔴 "Of all the trades, the one that Adam first practiced was the trade of the tailor. Yes, before taking up any other trade, he collected some fig leaves and sewed them together. Who taught him this skill? How did he learn it? The fact is that he had received from God the gift of intelligence; the fact is that he was the image of God. You may ask yourselves in what way man arrived at the construction of the first plough, at woodwork, at forging iron, at putting oxen under the yoke, and in what way woman invented the art of spinning. Where did all these come from? When a trade comes into being, it is plied with a tool. The hands are not involved in the work as much as the reason, intelligence, which arranges different objects in different shapes. It is the intelligence, for example, that manufactures clothes. The shape of the clothes reveals the intelligence of the tailor. When you read in the bible that God worked in creating the world, do you really think he needed hands for his work? If you are looking for the origin of a trade, if you are asking how a discovery or an invention could have come about, remember the word that God spoke: "Let us make humanity in our image." Then you will have the solution at once, humanity in the image of God. How could humanity possibly fail to use intelligence? Humanity in the image of the Creator. How could humanity possibly fail to imitate his Creator?" By Severianus of Gabala
🌖 "If we are faithful in always directing our soul toward the divine light, we will become luminous in turn, as flowers take on a resemblance to the sun". By Cardinal Robert Sarah
🔴 "Of all the trades, the one that Adam first practiced was the trade of the tailor. Yes, before taking up any other trade, he collected some fig leaves and sewed them together. Who taught him this skill? How did he learn it? The fact is that he had received from God the gift of intelligence; the fact is that he was the image of God. You may ask yourselves in what way man arrived at the construction of the first plough, at woodwork, at forging iron, at putting oxen under the yoke, and in what way woman invented the art of spinning. Where did all these come from? When a trade comes into being, it is plied with a tool. The hands are not involved in the work as much as the reason, intelligence, which arranges different objects in different shapes. It is the intelligence, for example, that manufactures clothes. The shape of the clothes reveals the intelligence of the tailor. When you read in the bible that God worked in creating the world, do you really think he needed hands for his work? If you are looking for the origin of a trade, if you are asking how a discovery or an invention could have come about, remember the word that God spoke: "Let us make humanity in our image." Then you will have the solution at once, humanity in the image of God. How could humanity possibly fail to use intelligence? Humanity in the image of the Creator. How could humanity possibly fail to imitate his Creator?" By Severianus of Gabala
One day while spiritually surfing the web, coming across the image below, it seemed perfect for a text message. So is was sent out, and praise the Lord, my comments had company that day. There were seven great responses (thanks, in alphabetical order to: Claudia, Dan, Daphne, Janet, Juanita, Katie, Roxanne)
Check out the seven responses, representing perfection. Indeed they were all great, different facets to behold. We are so enriched by each other. The body have many different parts, the small and the great alike contributing in a way that is invaluable.
Juanita was the last to respond, so sharing her response first.:
"Da Lord is my Shepherd,He will be with me on any road, any way I take, BUT straight is the way 2 Him, so I try 2 yoke myself 2 Him &follow Him...His yoke is easy & ur burden is light... 🙌"
(MC=💥Fireworks Juanita💥,is it 4th of July already?Thank u responders, respect ur time & luved every response dat came in, Sharing da last 1 first. Different points of view makes 4such a rich spiritual stew. It's so tru, that with our mistakes, God writes straight wit crooked lines & works all for good, but traveling da straight & narrow cuts 2 da chaise. Remember da Israelites spent 40 yrs. on a journey dat should have taken 11 days. Goin rite R Left, gonna cost sum time, is it worth it?4me, lookin 4 what is easy so da burden can b lite. Dat means from da jump want 2 head straight out da gait)
My after communion meditation in church on the day after the text mess was sent out, this came to mind:
Seeing for the first time that at each Eucharist when we receive Jesus, we are renewing our vows with the bridegroom of our Soul. It's all like an reenactment of our Wedding ceremony. On that day we get the final call open will be the grand ceremony. At each communion we're in a new way coming under His Lordship. That entails following Him as He leads the way, seeing that the truth will be ours, and that our life wedded to His means we are victorious in our walk. This is a belief to hold on to because we walk by faith and not by sight. Jesus is the one charting the territory on which way we are to travel. He assesses everything, going before us. He see's obstacles, road blocks, detours, etc., but He knows the way around, above, below, and He can even gi in and through all. Therefore we follow the straight and narrow leading of the Lord. The extra baggages of doubt, worry, fear, anxiety, frustration, etc. weighs us down and impedes our traveling light. It is all too bulky and takes up to much space to fit on the straight and narrow. They also cause an imbalance, causing us to veer to the right or to the left, then we find ourselves departing little by little from the straight and narrow.
Here are the other six responses:
📬Someone said this:
🏹"🔸The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. 🔸Life and the enemy brings many detours. 🔸We are blessed because God is faithful. 🔸We will make it"
📬Another said this:
👂🏻"Just heard a short piece on discernment. We should pray, fast, and listen for the Lord's voice, then what comes to mind is probably His word to you. It is to take action on that word and continue to pray. His word will become clearer clearer. Seems solid to me. Xox
📬This:
"When temptation comes never fear, you must be able to walk. The first thought implying fear is paralyzingly, think you must be able to walk to be set free. Love ya.
📬This:
"What direction do I take? With prayer, determination, faith, and God's plan for my life, the possibilities are endless and so right. All because HE WILL LEAD"
📬And this:
"Stop taking directions that leads to the left and to the right, but it's to keep my eyes on the straight line, where Jesus is found. Thanks.
📬And this:
"The picture in my mind suggests leaping over with the Lord."😊
"Da Lord is my Shepherd,He will be with me on any road, any way I take, BUT straight is the way 2 Him, so I try 2 yoke myself 2 Him &follow Him...His yoke is easy & ur burden is light... 🙌"
(MC=💥Fireworks Juanita💥,is it 4th of July already?Thank u responders, respect ur time & luved every response dat came in, Sharing da last 1 first. Different points of view makes 4such a rich spiritual stew. It's so tru, that with our mistakes, God writes straight wit crooked lines & works all for good, but traveling da straight & narrow cuts 2 da chaise. Remember da Israelites spent 40 yrs. on a journey dat should have taken 11 days. Goin rite R Left, gonna cost sum time, is it worth it?4me, lookin 4 what is easy so da burden can b lite. Dat means from da jump want 2 head straight out da gait)
My after communion meditation in church on the day after the text mess was sent out, this came to mind:
Seeing for the first time that at each Eucharist when we receive Jesus, we are renewing our vows with the bridegroom of our Soul. It's all like an reenactment of our Wedding ceremony. On that day we get the final call open will be the grand ceremony. At each communion we're in a new way coming under His Lordship. That entails following Him as He leads the way, seeing that the truth will be ours, and that our life wedded to His means we are victorious in our walk. This is a belief to hold on to because we walk by faith and not by sight. Jesus is the one charting the territory on which way we are to travel. He assesses everything, going before us. He see's obstacles, road blocks, detours, etc., but He knows the way around, above, below, and He can even gi in and through all. Therefore we follow the straight and narrow leading of the Lord. The extra baggages of doubt, worry, fear, anxiety, frustration, etc. weighs us down and impedes our traveling light. It is all too bulky and takes up to much space to fit on the straight and narrow. They also cause an imbalance, causing us to veer to the right or to the left, then we find ourselves departing little by little from the straight and narrow.
Here are the other six responses:
📬Someone said this:
🏹"🔸The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. 🔸Life and the enemy brings many detours. 🔸We are blessed because God is faithful. 🔸We will make it"
📬Another said this:
👂🏻"Just heard a short piece on discernment. We should pray, fast, and listen for the Lord's voice, then what comes to mind is probably His word to you. It is to take action on that word and continue to pray. His word will become clearer clearer. Seems solid to me. Xox
📬This:
"When temptation comes never fear, you must be able to walk. The first thought implying fear is paralyzingly, think you must be able to walk to be set free. Love ya.
📬This:
"What direction do I take? With prayer, determination, faith, and God's plan for my life, the possibilities are endless and so right. All because HE WILL LEAD"
📬And this:
"Stop taking directions that leads to the left and to the right, but it's to keep my eyes on the straight line, where Jesus is found. Thanks.
📬And this:
"The picture in my mind suggests leaping over with the Lord."😊
"Abbot Chapman Prays In The Rain", by Fr. Michael Gillis
Info from this site:
blogs.ancientfaith.com/prayingintherain/2016/11/abbot-chapman-prays-rain/
Excerpts:
"Spiritual Letters" is a collection of letters written in the early part of the twentieth century by a Roman Catholic priest—and I highly recommend it to English speaking Orthodox Christians who want to be encouraged in prayer. The priest, Abbot John Chapman, was a very well educated Oxford graduate and devout Anglican who converted to Roman Catholicism in his mid twenties. As a Roman Catholic he became a Benedictine monk, then a priest and eventually, near the end of his life, the abbot of Downside Abbey in Wales. Although the collection of letters called "Spiritual Letters" has at some points a heavy Roman Catholic flavor, most of what I find in his letters could have easily been written by a devout Orthodox Christian priest giving advice on prayer to an English speaking inquirer in the early twentieth century. Some of the terms require a bit of translation into contemporary English Orthodox idiom. For example, ‘contemplation’ needs to be understood as something like theoria or noetic prayer. But, by in large, his letters are, in my opinion, pretty good, practical advice on prayer.
To whet your appetite, I’d like to copy here one of his letters and comment on it a bit as we go. I think the advice he gives here on prayer is both Orthodox and very practical.
Downside Abbey April 11, 1929
My Dear …
As to advice, I can only tell you what I think. I recommend you prayer, because it is good for everybody, and our Lord tells us to pray. As to method, do what you can do, and what suits you.
This is such a huge matter in prayer: One must pray in whatever ways one can. One of the greatest hinderances to prayer, I have found, is the expectation that I should pray a certain type or method of prayer. That is, I may find peace in saying the Jesus Prayer, for example, but somehow condemn myself because I do not find life in Akathist prayers or the hours. The case may, however, be exactly the opposite. One may find grace in Akathists or in praying the hours but not make much progress in the practice of the Jesus Prayer. The important point is not this or that method of prayer. The important thing is to pray, pray however one can, and not to stress out about ways you can’t seem to pray.
It seems obvious that most spiritual reading and meditation fails to help you; The simplest kind of prayer is best. So use that. [Meditation here means western style use of imagination in prayer—a practice that almost no Orthodox spiritual writers recommend. However, that prayer should be simple is highly recommended in the Orthodox tradition.] But prayer, in the sense of union with God, is the most crucifying thing there is. One must do it for God’s sake; but one will not get any satisfaction out of it, in the sense of feeling “ I am good at prayer” [or] “I have an infallible method.” That would be disastrous, since what we want to learn is precisely our own weakness, powerlessness, unworthiness. Nor ought one to expect “a sense of the reality of the supernatural” of which you speak. And one should wish for no prayer, except precisely the prayer that God gives us—probably very distracted and unsatisfactory in every way!
It is very difficult for most of us to grasp, even as a mere concept, much less as a working principle of our spiritual lives, that real and effective prayer is not measured by how I feel about it. We read of saints finding consolation in prayer and expect ourselves to find that same consolation without also going through the same experience of withdrawal of Grace or dark night of the soul (as a very rough western equivalent) that the saint we are reading about went through both before and after he or she experience consolation in prayer, we nonetheless expect to experience consolation in prayer. Rather, the fight to continue in prayer despite distraction and unsatisfactory feelings is, often, the beginning of the struggle for real prayer in the sense of union with God.
On the other hand, the only way to pray is to pray; and the way to pray well is to pray much. If one has no time for this, then one must at least pray regularly. But the less one prays, the worse it goes. And if circumstances do not permit even regularity, then one must put up with the fact that when one does try to pray, one can’t pray—and our prayer will probably consist of telling this to God.
The more one prays, the easier it gets; the less one prays, the harder it gets. However, regularity is more important than amount. Prayer is much more effective if you have a regular time and place and a regular “rule”: that is, a regular prayer or set of prayers that you say. It can be a very short rule. In fact, short rules are almost always better than long ones. You can say your short rule on a busy day and be at peace. If you have more time, you can always linger in prayer and say more. However, if your rule is long, you are continually feeling condemned that you don’t complete it and quickly are tempted to give up altogether. And especially on days—or perhaps for seasons—when you cannot seem to prayer at all, your prayer needs to be the prayer of confession: “Lord, have mercy, I cannot make myself pray!” This, you will find, is a very effective prayer if it breaks your heart, brings you to tears and humbles you.
As to beginning afresh, or where you left off, I don’t think you have any choice! You simply have to begin wherever you find yourself. Make any acts [of prayer] you want to make and feel you ought to make; but do not force yourself into feelings of any kind.
In other words, whether you start your prayer rule from where you left off last time, or start at the beginning again does not matter in the slightest. Do whatever you think best, whatever you like, but pray. And when you pray, don’t try to feel or force yourself to feel anything in particular. Just say the prayer or make the prostration or light the candle before the icon and stand in silence. Whatever it is you do to pray, just pray.
You say very naturally that you do not know what to do if you have a quarter of an hour alone in a Church [or alone anywhere else for that matter]. Yes, I suspect the only thing to do is to shut out the Church and everything else, and just give yourself to God and beg Him to have mercy on you, and offer Him all of your distractions.
As to religious matters being “confused and overwhelming,” I daresay they may remain so—in a sense—, but if you get the right simple relation to God by prayer, you have got into the centre of the wheel, where the revolving does not matter. We can’t get rid of the worries of this world, or the questionings of the [rational] intellect; but we can laugh at and despise them so far as they are worries.
Ever yours affecly,
H. John Chapman.
Begging God for mercy, in my experience, is at the centre of the Christian experience, at the centre of the Church. And the wonderful thing is that you can be completely distracted and confused and even lacking in faith and still beg God for mercy. In fact, it is when the Church and its bureaucracy and the world and all its insanity crowd in most on us, it is then we can most earnestly beg God for mercy. This is what Praying in the Rain is about: Praying when the world rains on the picnic we had hoped our life would be, when the priest or the bishop rains on the straight forward simplicity that seems so obvious to me and that I had expected to be be reinforced by the Church, praying in the rain means begging God for mercy at the centre of the wheel, at the centre of my heart, allowing the politics and misfortunes of the Church and of life in general to rotate around me even as I in my heart, in the silence of the night or in the church or in my room alone as I hear the rain pounding outside, I, in my heart, beg: Lord have mercy."
Info from this site:
blogs.ancientfaith.com/prayingintherain/2016/11/abbot-chapman-prays-rain/
Excerpts:
"Spiritual Letters" is a collection of letters written in the early part of the twentieth century by a Roman Catholic priest—and I highly recommend it to English speaking Orthodox Christians who want to be encouraged in prayer. The priest, Abbot John Chapman, was a very well educated Oxford graduate and devout Anglican who converted to Roman Catholicism in his mid twenties. As a Roman Catholic he became a Benedictine monk, then a priest and eventually, near the end of his life, the abbot of Downside Abbey in Wales. Although the collection of letters called "Spiritual Letters" has at some points a heavy Roman Catholic flavor, most of what I find in his letters could have easily been written by a devout Orthodox Christian priest giving advice on prayer to an English speaking inquirer in the early twentieth century. Some of the terms require a bit of translation into contemporary English Orthodox idiom. For example, ‘contemplation’ needs to be understood as something like theoria or noetic prayer. But, by in large, his letters are, in my opinion, pretty good, practical advice on prayer.
To whet your appetite, I’d like to copy here one of his letters and comment on it a bit as we go. I think the advice he gives here on prayer is both Orthodox and very practical.
Downside Abbey April 11, 1929
My Dear …
As to advice, I can only tell you what I think. I recommend you prayer, because it is good for everybody, and our Lord tells us to pray. As to method, do what you can do, and what suits you.
This is such a huge matter in prayer: One must pray in whatever ways one can. One of the greatest hinderances to prayer, I have found, is the expectation that I should pray a certain type or method of prayer. That is, I may find peace in saying the Jesus Prayer, for example, but somehow condemn myself because I do not find life in Akathist prayers or the hours. The case may, however, be exactly the opposite. One may find grace in Akathists or in praying the hours but not make much progress in the practice of the Jesus Prayer. The important point is not this or that method of prayer. The important thing is to pray, pray however one can, and not to stress out about ways you can’t seem to pray.
It seems obvious that most spiritual reading and meditation fails to help you; The simplest kind of prayer is best. So use that. [Meditation here means western style use of imagination in prayer—a practice that almost no Orthodox spiritual writers recommend. However, that prayer should be simple is highly recommended in the Orthodox tradition.] But prayer, in the sense of union with God, is the most crucifying thing there is. One must do it for God’s sake; but one will not get any satisfaction out of it, in the sense of feeling “ I am good at prayer” [or] “I have an infallible method.” That would be disastrous, since what we want to learn is precisely our own weakness, powerlessness, unworthiness. Nor ought one to expect “a sense of the reality of the supernatural” of which you speak. And one should wish for no prayer, except precisely the prayer that God gives us—probably very distracted and unsatisfactory in every way!
It is very difficult for most of us to grasp, even as a mere concept, much less as a working principle of our spiritual lives, that real and effective prayer is not measured by how I feel about it. We read of saints finding consolation in prayer and expect ourselves to find that same consolation without also going through the same experience of withdrawal of Grace or dark night of the soul (as a very rough western equivalent) that the saint we are reading about went through both before and after he or she experience consolation in prayer, we nonetheless expect to experience consolation in prayer. Rather, the fight to continue in prayer despite distraction and unsatisfactory feelings is, often, the beginning of the struggle for real prayer in the sense of union with God.
On the other hand, the only way to pray is to pray; and the way to pray well is to pray much. If one has no time for this, then one must at least pray regularly. But the less one prays, the worse it goes. And if circumstances do not permit even regularity, then one must put up with the fact that when one does try to pray, one can’t pray—and our prayer will probably consist of telling this to God.
The more one prays, the easier it gets; the less one prays, the harder it gets. However, regularity is more important than amount. Prayer is much more effective if you have a regular time and place and a regular “rule”: that is, a regular prayer or set of prayers that you say. It can be a very short rule. In fact, short rules are almost always better than long ones. You can say your short rule on a busy day and be at peace. If you have more time, you can always linger in prayer and say more. However, if your rule is long, you are continually feeling condemned that you don’t complete it and quickly are tempted to give up altogether. And especially on days—or perhaps for seasons—when you cannot seem to prayer at all, your prayer needs to be the prayer of confession: “Lord, have mercy, I cannot make myself pray!” This, you will find, is a very effective prayer if it breaks your heart, brings you to tears and humbles you.
As to beginning afresh, or where you left off, I don’t think you have any choice! You simply have to begin wherever you find yourself. Make any acts [of prayer] you want to make and feel you ought to make; but do not force yourself into feelings of any kind.
In other words, whether you start your prayer rule from where you left off last time, or start at the beginning again does not matter in the slightest. Do whatever you think best, whatever you like, but pray. And when you pray, don’t try to feel or force yourself to feel anything in particular. Just say the prayer or make the prostration or light the candle before the icon and stand in silence. Whatever it is you do to pray, just pray.
You say very naturally that you do not know what to do if you have a quarter of an hour alone in a Church [or alone anywhere else for that matter]. Yes, I suspect the only thing to do is to shut out the Church and everything else, and just give yourself to God and beg Him to have mercy on you, and offer Him all of your distractions.
As to religious matters being “confused and overwhelming,” I daresay they may remain so—in a sense—, but if you get the right simple relation to God by prayer, you have got into the centre of the wheel, where the revolving does not matter. We can’t get rid of the worries of this world, or the questionings of the [rational] intellect; but we can laugh at and despise them so far as they are worries.
Ever yours affecly,
H. John Chapman.
Begging God for mercy, in my experience, is at the centre of the Christian experience, at the centre of the Church. And the wonderful thing is that you can be completely distracted and confused and even lacking in faith and still beg God for mercy. In fact, it is when the Church and its bureaucracy and the world and all its insanity crowd in most on us, it is then we can most earnestly beg God for mercy. This is what Praying in the Rain is about: Praying when the world rains on the picnic we had hoped our life would be, when the priest or the bishop rains on the straight forward simplicity that seems so obvious to me and that I had expected to be be reinforced by the Church, praying in the rain means begging God for mercy at the centre of the wheel, at the centre of my heart, allowing the politics and misfortunes of the Church and of life in general to rotate around me even as I in my heart, in the silence of the night or in the church or in my room alone as I hear the rain pounding outside, I, in my heart, beg: Lord have mercy."
Who Can Receive a Catholic Funeral?, by Trent Horn; Catholic Answers
Info from this site:
www.courageouspriest.com/catholic-controversy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+courageouspriest%2FqTKF+%28Courageous+Priest%29
"Last week, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois issued a decree forbidding persons in “same-sex marriages” who cause public scandal from receiving Communion or from being received into the Church through RCIA if they choose not to end their relationship. Pastors are to meet with such individuals in private and call them to conversion through the sacrament of reconciliation. Some, like Fr. James Martin, have criticized the decree as an example of the Church’s judgmentalism and lack of inclusion. But when we examine the Church’s teaching on celebrating funerals we see that it’s not intended to bring condemnation to sinners but rather prayerful support for the deceased and solace hope for the living.
Who can receive a Catholic funeral? According to the Code of Canon Law, “Deceased members of the Christian faithful must be given ecclesiastical funerals according to the norm of law” (1176.1). This also includes catechumens who died before they received the sacraments of initiation like baptism and confirmation (CIC 1183.1). If a bishop deems it appropriate, a funeral can also be given to children who died before being baptized or even, in some cases, to a baptized non-Catholic (CIC 1183.2-3). The inclusion of catechumens and unbaptized children shows that the Church wants to provide funerals for as many believers as possible. However, canon 1184 stipulates that:Unless [the deceased] 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.
The Catechism teaches that “The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection” (2300). This means all people, including non-Christians, should receive honorable burials. But in the context of a Christian funeral we recognize that “the Church who, as Mother, has born the Christian sacramentally in her womb during his earthly pilgrimage, accompanies him at his journey’s end, in order to surrender him ‘into the Father’s hands’” (CCC 1683).
A Christian funeral can serve as a reminder to those who have separated themselves from God through mortal sin that they should reconcile with God as soon as possible, since the time of our earthly departure can be sudden and unexpected. But a funeral for someone who engaged in manifest, unrepentant sin could cause those in attendance, or even those who merely hear about the funeral, to think that certain mortal sins are not a big deal. “After all,” they may ask, “If the morally certain hope of eternal life is preached at this person’s funeral, then why would it be wrong to live just like he did?” This part of canon law does not forbid funerals for Christians who struggled with sin (otherwise no one would have a Christian funeral). It also does not forbid funerals for people whose struggle with serious sins had become public knowledge. It only includes “manifest sinners” whose funerals could cause the faithful to think their unrepentant, mortally sinful behavior was not a serious matter. It prohibits liturgies that distort the truth that “all who die in God’s grace and friendship [emphasis added], but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation” (CCC 1030).
A less-controversial example that illustrates this point involves refusing funerals to members of organized crime families. Notorious gangsters such as John Gotti and Paul Castellano, for example, were denied Catholic funerals because of their potential for scandal.
Inconsistent discrimination? In response to Bishop Paprocki’s decree, Fr. James Martin—who recently published a book on how the Church can build bridges with the “LGBT community”—wrote this on his public Facebook page: If bishops ban members of same-sex marriages from receiving a Catholic funeral, they also have to be consistent. They must also ban divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received annulments, women who has or man who fathers a child out of wedlock, members of straight couples who are living together before marriage, and anyone using birth control. For those are all against church teaching as well. Moreover, they must ban anyone who does not care for the poor, or care for the environment, and anyone who supports torture, for those are church teachings too. More basically, they must ban people who are not loving, not forgiving and not merciful, for these represent the teachings of Jesus, the most fundamental of all church teachings. To focus only on LGBT people, without a similar focus on the moral and sexual behavior of straight people is, in the words of the Catechism, a “sign of unjust discrimination.”
The problem with Fr. Martin’s response is that it fails to make a distinction between gravely evil, public displays of sin that can cause scandal, and other types of sin against which the faithful struggle. Take, for example, his claim that someone like Bishop Paprocki should also deny funerals for people “who are not loving, not forgiving and not merciful.” According to James 3:2, “we all make many mistakes,” so we should expect the deceased at Christian funerals to have failed at times to be loving or merciful. But there is a difference between being a sinner and being a cause for scandal. A person’s “failure to love” would only involve the latter if it was exceptionally grave, publicly known, and unrepented (as with the mafia bosses we discussed earlier). To equate any failure to love or forgive with remaining in a disordered, publicly recognized sexual union reveals an ignorance of the Church’s teachings on the gravity of sin (CCC 1854).
What about failing to care for the poor, the environment, or prisoners? These failures to act only become gravely sinful under certain conditions, such as by causing serious harm. They are not like specific actions, such as murder or sexual activity outside of marriage, that are always wrong and can become mortal sins if a person who knows they are gravely wrong freely chooses to commit them anyway. Likewise, the conditions for these sins to become objects of scandal are also fairly rare. A public advocate of social Darwinism who wanted the poor to “die off” might engender enough scandal to deny him funeral rites, merely being lax about contributing to a second collection would not result in a similar ecclesial sanction.
Having conceived a child outside of marriage is not an ongoing source of scandal, since a person could repent of that sin and still live out a holy vocation of parenthood. Contraception use is not a publicly known matter, so a priest could not know with certainty if a person repented of this sin before death. A same-sex union, on the other hand, is a matter of public record and it would be known if someone remained in such a union until death. Unless a pastor made it known that the deceased had vowed to remain chaste and repented of his behavior, a funeral for such a person would be a cause for scandal. The sin of contraception might only reach a similar level of scandal if a Catholic publicly and notoriously advocated for its use: such as by being a director of a Planned Parenthood or similar organization.
Finally, there is the issue of allowing funerals for Catholics who remain in invalid marriages. Some theologians hold that funerals for Catholics in invalid marriages are scandalous and so they should not be celebrated. But other theologians and bishops believe that funerals in this case can be offered in a way that does not lead to scandal. The Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut, for example, allows funeral masses for Catholics in invalid marriages who upheld Church teaching (by living as brother and sister, for example) but recommends the “Funeral Liturgy Outside Mass” for those who neglected the Church’s teaching on marriage in this regard. We must also remember that the fact that the deceased was in an invalid marriage would only be known by a select number of people and so it would have a low potential for generating scandal. If the deceased were in a same-sex union, however, the invalid and disordered nature of there relationship would be known by anyone who heard about the funeral. Given the unique political climate surrounding the issue of homosexuality, such a funeral could attract widespread attention and be used as a platform to misinform people about the Church’s teachings on this subject or a rallying cry to change the teachings and undermine the Church’s authority in the process.
But what should a parish do if a member of a same-sex couple approaches them seeking a funeral? They should show, contra critics like Fr. Martin, that it is possible to be compassionate towards those who suffer without scandalizing others and leading them into sin. A pastor or parish staff member faced with this request should remember that the surviving member of such a couple will certainly be experiencing a deep sense of grief. He or she may also be suffering from loneliness, depression, or financial hardship. Catholics should reach out to such a person, who is created in the image of God and loved by him, and strive to meet his or her basic human needs through empathy and acts of charity, especially to help alleviate the financial burdens and emotional tolls that accompany burying a loved one. This person may be hurt by the denial of a Catholic funeral, but by offering an olive branch of compassion this person can have a genuine encounter with Christ, who always calls us to conversion and gives us the grace to follow him in any circumstance."
Info from this site:
www.courageouspriest.com/catholic-controversy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+courageouspriest%2FqTKF+%28Courageous+Priest%29
"Last week, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois issued a decree forbidding persons in “same-sex marriages” who cause public scandal from receiving Communion or from being received into the Church through RCIA if they choose not to end their relationship. Pastors are to meet with such individuals in private and call them to conversion through the sacrament of reconciliation. Some, like Fr. James Martin, have criticized the decree as an example of the Church’s judgmentalism and lack of inclusion. But when we examine the Church’s teaching on celebrating funerals we see that it’s not intended to bring condemnation to sinners but rather prayerful support for the deceased and solace hope for the living.
Who can receive a Catholic funeral? According to the Code of Canon Law, “Deceased members of the Christian faithful must be given ecclesiastical funerals according to the norm of law” (1176.1). This also includes catechumens who died before they received the sacraments of initiation like baptism and confirmation (CIC 1183.1). If a bishop deems it appropriate, a funeral can also be given to children who died before being baptized or even, in some cases, to a baptized non-Catholic (CIC 1183.2-3). The inclusion of catechumens and unbaptized children shows that the Church wants to provide funerals for as many believers as possible. However, canon 1184 stipulates that:Unless [the deceased] 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.
The Catechism teaches that “The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection” (2300). This means all people, including non-Christians, should receive honorable burials. But in the context of a Christian funeral we recognize that “the Church who, as Mother, has born the Christian sacramentally in her womb during his earthly pilgrimage, accompanies him at his journey’s end, in order to surrender him ‘into the Father’s hands’” (CCC 1683).
A Christian funeral can serve as a reminder to those who have separated themselves from God through mortal sin that they should reconcile with God as soon as possible, since the time of our earthly departure can be sudden and unexpected. But a funeral for someone who engaged in manifest, unrepentant sin could cause those in attendance, or even those who merely hear about the funeral, to think that certain mortal sins are not a big deal. “After all,” they may ask, “If the morally certain hope of eternal life is preached at this person’s funeral, then why would it be wrong to live just like he did?” This part of canon law does not forbid funerals for Christians who struggled with sin (otherwise no one would have a Christian funeral). It also does not forbid funerals for people whose struggle with serious sins had become public knowledge. It only includes “manifest sinners” whose funerals could cause the faithful to think their unrepentant, mortally sinful behavior was not a serious matter. It prohibits liturgies that distort the truth that “all who die in God’s grace and friendship [emphasis added], but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation” (CCC 1030).
A less-controversial example that illustrates this point involves refusing funerals to members of organized crime families. Notorious gangsters such as John Gotti and Paul Castellano, for example, were denied Catholic funerals because of their potential for scandal.
Inconsistent discrimination? In response to Bishop Paprocki’s decree, Fr. James Martin—who recently published a book on how the Church can build bridges with the “LGBT community”—wrote this on his public Facebook page: If bishops ban members of same-sex marriages from receiving a Catholic funeral, they also have to be consistent. They must also ban divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received annulments, women who has or man who fathers a child out of wedlock, members of straight couples who are living together before marriage, and anyone using birth control. For those are all against church teaching as well. Moreover, they must ban anyone who does not care for the poor, or care for the environment, and anyone who supports torture, for those are church teachings too. More basically, they must ban people who are not loving, not forgiving and not merciful, for these represent the teachings of Jesus, the most fundamental of all church teachings. To focus only on LGBT people, without a similar focus on the moral and sexual behavior of straight people is, in the words of the Catechism, a “sign of unjust discrimination.”
The problem with Fr. Martin’s response is that it fails to make a distinction between gravely evil, public displays of sin that can cause scandal, and other types of sin against which the faithful struggle. Take, for example, his claim that someone like Bishop Paprocki should also deny funerals for people “who are not loving, not forgiving and not merciful.” According to James 3:2, “we all make many mistakes,” so we should expect the deceased at Christian funerals to have failed at times to be loving or merciful. But there is a difference between being a sinner and being a cause for scandal. A person’s “failure to love” would only involve the latter if it was exceptionally grave, publicly known, and unrepented (as with the mafia bosses we discussed earlier). To equate any failure to love or forgive with remaining in a disordered, publicly recognized sexual union reveals an ignorance of the Church’s teachings on the gravity of sin (CCC 1854).
What about failing to care for the poor, the environment, or prisoners? These failures to act only become gravely sinful under certain conditions, such as by causing serious harm. They are not like specific actions, such as murder or sexual activity outside of marriage, that are always wrong and can become mortal sins if a person who knows they are gravely wrong freely chooses to commit them anyway. Likewise, the conditions for these sins to become objects of scandal are also fairly rare. A public advocate of social Darwinism who wanted the poor to “die off” might engender enough scandal to deny him funeral rites, merely being lax about contributing to a second collection would not result in a similar ecclesial sanction.
Having conceived a child outside of marriage is not an ongoing source of scandal, since a person could repent of that sin and still live out a holy vocation of parenthood. Contraception use is not a publicly known matter, so a priest could not know with certainty if a person repented of this sin before death. A same-sex union, on the other hand, is a matter of public record and it would be known if someone remained in such a union until death. Unless a pastor made it known that the deceased had vowed to remain chaste and repented of his behavior, a funeral for such a person would be a cause for scandal. The sin of contraception might only reach a similar level of scandal if a Catholic publicly and notoriously advocated for its use: such as by being a director of a Planned Parenthood or similar organization.
Finally, there is the issue of allowing funerals for Catholics who remain in invalid marriages. Some theologians hold that funerals for Catholics in invalid marriages are scandalous and so they should not be celebrated. But other theologians and bishops believe that funerals in this case can be offered in a way that does not lead to scandal. The Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut, for example, allows funeral masses for Catholics in invalid marriages who upheld Church teaching (by living as brother and sister, for example) but recommends the “Funeral Liturgy Outside Mass” for those who neglected the Church’s teaching on marriage in this regard. We must also remember that the fact that the deceased was in an invalid marriage would only be known by a select number of people and so it would have a low potential for generating scandal. If the deceased were in a same-sex union, however, the invalid and disordered nature of there relationship would be known by anyone who heard about the funeral. Given the unique political climate surrounding the issue of homosexuality, such a funeral could attract widespread attention and be used as a platform to misinform people about the Church’s teachings on this subject or a rallying cry to change the teachings and undermine the Church’s authority in the process.
But what should a parish do if a member of a same-sex couple approaches them seeking a funeral? They should show, contra critics like Fr. Martin, that it is possible to be compassionate towards those who suffer without scandalizing others and leading them into sin. A pastor or parish staff member faced with this request should remember that the surviving member of such a couple will certainly be experiencing a deep sense of grief. He or she may also be suffering from loneliness, depression, or financial hardship. Catholics should reach out to such a person, who is created in the image of God and loved by him, and strive to meet his or her basic human needs through empathy and acts of charity, especially to help alleviate the financial burdens and emotional tolls that accompany burying a loved one. This person may be hurt by the denial of a Catholic funeral, but by offering an olive branch of compassion this person can have a genuine encounter with Christ, who always calls us to conversion and gives us the grace to follow him in any circumstance."
YouTube Video: "Divine Mercy and the Incarnation", by Fr. Thaddaeus Lancton, MIC
Video link:
youtu.be/IpXOS_4kpnY
Video link:
youtu.be/IpXOS_4kpnY