Over the past week, especially during the nonstop media coverage of the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, I have received many questions concerning the conditions for being granted a Catholic funeral. They have been phrased many ways, but they can all be summed up in this one:
Given Senator Kennedy's dissent from Church teaching on abortion and "gay marriage," why was he allowed a funeral Mass?
Because Senator Kennedy's funeral Mass offered great potential for scandal, both among Catholics and non-Catholics, it's a legitimate question. Indeed, the Code of Canon Law (Canon 1184) lists "public scandal of the faithful" as a reason for denying a Church funeral.
The best explanation I've seen for granting Senator Kennedy a Church funeral comes from Ed Peters, a canon lawyer whose blog, In the Light of the Law, is must reading for any Catholic who wishes to understand the application of canon law in this and other cases. In "A Catholic Funeral for Ted Kennedy?" Dr. Peters points out that the question of "public scandal" in Canon 1184 comes with a condition:
Unless, that is, "they gave some sign of repentance before death." And there is at least some evidence that Ted Kennedy did just that.
Referring to a New York Times article that indicates that the Kennedys' parish priest "made regular visits to the Kennedy home this summer and held a private family Mass in the living room every Sunday" and "was called to [Senator Kennedy's] bedside" in his final hours, Dr. Peters writes:
Folks, my reading of the canonical tradition behind Canon 1184 says that those actions suffice as "some signs of repentance", making Ted Kennedy eligible for a Catholic funeral.
Still, while Senator Kennedy seems to have had the right to a Catholic funeral, that does not mean that it had to be conducted as a public spectacle. While we should hope that Senator Kennedy did repent of his dissent from Church teaching in his last hours or weeks, in light of the lack of public repentance, it would perhaps have been more prudent to avoid the possibility of "public scandal of the faithful" by holding a private requiem Mass.
That is how, two weeks before, the funeral of Senator Kennedy's sister, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, was conducted. As I noted in "A Tale of Two Kennedys," there was no danger of public scandal in the case of Mrs. Shriver, who embraced Catholic teaching in its fullness and lived the Faith every day of her life.
The contrast between the dignified, private memorial for Mrs. Shriver, as her soul was commended to God, and the carnival-like atmosphere of Senator Kennedy's funeral Mass, at which it was declared that he was already in Heaven, was a final reminder of a deep divide in American Catholicism that ran straight through the heart of the Kennedy family.
This seems about right. If he repented, it should have been a private funeral. The public spectacle was a scandal because he was a lifelong, top-rung pro-abort and reprobate.
I’d like to see Mr. Richert’s comments on Obama’s giving the eulogy. It was a pure scandal for this pro-abort quasi-Protestant (whatever Rev. Wright’s church was to Obama) to do anything in a Catholic Church.
The whole spectacle was another reason to junk the modern funeral rite, which practically canonizes every dead person, and return to the old rite in Latin, with its fearsome Dies Irae warning sinners to repent. Mozart and Verdi are more appropriate than “Kumbaya.”
What makes one ‘faithful’? Money? By virtue of being a politician and a public figure that would equate to a public funeral AND it is not the funeral that is important, is it? One makes their decision relative to eternity BEFORE they die, there are no second chances.
Adhering to ‘Catholic’ traditions does not mean one is adhering to the words/teachings/commands of scripture, God’s Holy Bible. Only a personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross, dying for our sins, is admittance into heaven as Eph 2:8-9 states: “For by grace are ye saved through FATITH; and that not of yourselves: it is the GIFT of God; NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.”
If Ted K loved God, as commanded in Deut 6:5 and then reaffirmed by Jesus in Matt.22:37-39 “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with al your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love our neighbor as yourself.” (either Jesus is LORD OF ALL, or not at all), he would have put Christ FIRST as scripture commands (not the Democratic party and its demonic ideologies, and Nancy Pelosi is another ‘Catholic’) and would have made his repentance public. Ps 97:10 says “You who love the LORD, hate evil! He preserves the souls of His saints; He delivers them out of the hand of the wicked.” Because Jesus also says, When you say there was some indication of repentance before he died, did you ever hear the expression: “You can fool others all of the time, you can fool yourself some of the time, BUT you cannot fool God any time.” God is omniscient. Men look on the external, God looks on the internal and why in the Sermon of the Mount (Matt 5, 6, 7) Jesus said in Matt 7:13-15 “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for WIDE is the gate, and BROAD is the way, THAT LEADETH TO DESTRUCTION, and MANY there be which go in thereat; Because STRAIT is the gate, and NARROW is the way, which leadeth unto life, AND FEW THERE BE THAT FIND IT.” A sobering thought, which is further expounded in the following verses 20-23 “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, ord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he the DOETH the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied (means to teach/preach) in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name DONE MANY WONDERFUL WORKS? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Jesus also said in Matt 10:32-33 “WHOSOEVER therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven, BUT whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven.” Doesn’t this encompass many ‘politians’ who profess to be Catholics or ‘Christians’? GOD IS the final judge.
Even Sen Kennedy’s wife is a divorced Catholic with a living husband. A compassionate private funeral Mass, with many prayers for his soul, is quite proper. A gigantic televised spectacle where the Mass is minimized in order to praise the very public sinner isn’t right.
The first among you without sin – cast the first stone. This entire article repulses me.
Beth, could you explain why this article “repulses” you? Are you suggesting that not judging the sins of others means providing them with everything that the Church offers, even if doing so violates canon law? Or that the question of public scandal is utterly unimportant?
We do not know about Ted’s repentance, so please do not judge. I thought the liturgy was quite nicely done, however, I am just puzzled why was Obama delivering the eulogy. As far as I know, eulogy is generaly not suppoed to be a part of the funeral Mass, however, this is hardly ever enforced.
Only God is our JUDGE. We humans should spend our time in praying for the person who has already faced Him.
Sen. Kennedy Made Many Mistakes,He Did Very Much Alot Good.Let Jesus Judge Him,Not Us…
You have a Mormon Church Bile and Book of Mormon Ad,
on a Conservitive Roman Catholic Web Site,are You Joining the Mormon Church,or A Secret Member of the Mormon LDS CHURCH,and U speak out agianist Se, Kennedy’s Furneral!!!!Thier are Bible and RC Church Believing Christians Who Are DemoCract and make not
Shy Statement about it,I voted once for SenSnow from Maine 6 months after us Pro Lifers’ got Her Elected She became Pro Choice,speak out on that or Sen.Collins,being a Openly Lesbian.Speak to that Rebuplicans are not that Great,Bush,mr.War person Cheated on his Wife for 6 months…He had Anti-Gay Christian Counseling from 2 different Christian Minitries…say something on that…
#9 doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Mr. Richert has no control over the ads on this site. As I write this, there’s an ad for the anti-Catholic NY Times. There’s nothing one can do about it except stop writing, and option I hope he rejects.
More to the point: I was thinking that Teddy’s sumptuous Catholic funeral was itself a funeral for old-style Democratic-Catholic politics, of the kind that was washed out of the Party about the time Teddy drove Mary Jo off a bridge and left her to drown in 1969. Before then, Democrats were pro-family, pro-life, pro-private-sector unions (instead of pro-government unions today), pro-American. If you’re old enough, you remember the “hardhats,” mostly Catholic-ethnic construction workers who despised the McGovern Democrats who took over the party before 1972. Many of those folks became “Reagan Democrats.” Of course, the Republicans betrayed them, too.
Most American bishops came from such families, though themselves being radicalized during the 1960s into hippy-dippy prelates. So there was a strong emotional tie to Teddy, the Kennedys, and the hopes of Camelot — hopes that now seem more fantastical than the Arthurian Camelot. So there’s no way Cardinals O’Malley and McCarrick were going to do anything but canonize Teddy. Liberals have nostalgia, too.
But all that’s buried with Teddy.
John, thanks for the kind comments. While my family and I attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form (we’re members of Saint Mary Oratory in Rockford, which is administered by the Institute of Christ the King), I should note that Kveta is right: the funeral Mass in the Ordinary Form does not allow for eulogies, either. Allowing a eulogy is a violation of the rubrics in either form.
Beyond that, I think I’ll have more to say about President Obama’s eulogy—and, more importantly, its effects—early next week.
Kveta, nickie, and Disco Jazzy Jazz, it wasn’t my intention in this post to “judge,” but rather to discuss the reason why Senator Kennedy was allowed a funeral Mass. As I have noted previously (see “A Tale of Two Kennedys”), we should pray for Senator Kennedy’s soul and hope that his repentance was genuine.
All of that said, however, the second point of this post holds. The public nature of this Mass was a cause for scandal among the faithful—we know so because of the bewilderment expressed by so many of the faithful in the wake of the funeral. It would have been far better if Senator Kennedy’s funeral Mass had been private, as his sister’s was.
holyprayerscollection@live.com, John Seiler is correct. Please see this post: Reader Question: Why Do You Run Non-Catholic Ads?
As for the rest of your comment (at least to the extent I can understand it), if you think that I haven’t/don’t/won’t criticize Republican politicians when they stray from Catholic teaching, then you haven’t been reading this GuideSite.
Scott, it appears that you’re being challenged by self-styled spokespeople for all of the following ad hoc groups simultaneously:
1.) The Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God/more-Catholic-than-the-Pope delegation …not known for their devotion to the Divine Mercy (Exit, stage right)
2.) The scandal-what-scandal?/you’re repulsive/judging St. Edward the Senator delegation (Exit, stage left)
3.) The fundamentalist Protestant forget-all-this-Catholicism-stuff delegation
As such, I’m particularly inclined to think you’ve nailed the balanced and authentically Catholic response to these questions, that embraces both orthodoxy and charity, in regard to Sen. Kennedy’s funeral arrangements.
Thanks, Michael.
“the funeral Mass in the Ordinary Form does not allow for eulogies, either. Allowing a eulogy is a violation of the rubrics in either form.” Thanks for the correction. I had the opposite impression because I sometimes go to daily Mass (Ordinary Form) at the Cathedral of Orange, under Bishop Tod Brown. At least once a week it’s a funeral Mass, *always* including a eulogy. (On Sundays I usually go to the Extraordinary Form at St. John the Baptist in Costa Mesa, said by our wonderful Norbertines.)
More on this whole subject is by Phil Lawler, who years ago was fired as editor of the Boston Archdiocese’s newspaper and recently published the excellent “Faithful Departed” on the scandal and other recent problems in the Church. He writes: “Unlike private sins, which can be absolved in sacramental Confession, serious public sins require some form of public amendment, to address the scandal that they create. Ted Kennedy never recanted his support for abortion, and so he remained in open conflict with his Church. To allow a public funeral for him meant allowing for the perception that the Church is not really serious about the abortion issue, and thus creating a new public scandal.”
The rest is here: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=342
How could Ted Kennedy have repented about the abortion issue before his death when his letter to the Pope was read at his graveside (at Kennedy’s request)\. The letter was a self-serving piece of drivel wherein he itemized all the “good” things he had done in his life, e.g., opposing war, fighting for universal health care and agreeing to put the “conscience clause” in the health care bill. The ONLY reason for the conscience clause to be included in any health care bill is if abortion is a part of the bill. The conscience clause says that hospitals and health care professionals would not be forced to perform abortions if their conscience would not allow.
His funeral was a travesty for someone with such an amoral and anti-Catholic life.