"Signs of Repentance or of the Status Quo?"

That's the title of Mark Brumley's essay for Catholic Exchange, posted today, about Catholic funerals for wayward Catholic politicians:

Suppose a politician is well-known for his support of abortion rights and same-sex marriage. Suppose he is a Catholic and suppose he has been told repeatedly by bishops and others what the Church teaches and of his grave responsibility to promote laws consistent it, including regarding the rights of the unborn and the defense of marriage. Furthermore, suppose despite all the politician has been told by the Church, he continues to support abortion, embryonic experimentation and same-sex marriage. Furthermore, he denies that his support of these evils is incompatible with his faith, so he receives Holy Communion at Mass, leads family prayers, and visits with priest friends.

Now suppose the Catholic politician becomes terminally ill and goes to his death bed. He has Mass in his home and receives Holy Communion, leads the family prayers, and visits with priest friends. He writes a letter to his bishop admitting that he is a fallible human being, mentions the good things he did as a politician, and asks for the bishop’s prayers. He says nothing in the letter about his public abortion rights activities, embryonic experimentation, or his public support for same-sex marriage.

Under the circumstances, do the activities of receiving Holy Communion, leading family prayers, and visiting with priests amount to “signs of repentance”? Canonists may count them as such but in the situation I just outlined, we can’t say that they really are. Why not? Because the politician received Holy Communion, led prayers, etc., before he was on his death bed and all the time maintained that his manifestly, objectively sinful activities were compatible with his Catholicism. How, then, can we suppose his death bed actions show he has repudiated his earlier actions?

Read the entire piece.

Also take in the lively conversation about this topic between Mark, Ed Peters, and others, here on Insight Scoop.

Comments

[Ed Peters]

Fine essay, Mark.

MB does not identify his canon lawyer friend, but I must say, he sounds like a very careful thinker who knows and explains what the law actually says. In short, my kind of guy (assuming it's a guy, of course, maybe it's a lady canon lawyer). Doubtless, such an approach lands him or her in all sorts of trouble with various factions for, as I remember a wag once putting it during Watergate, "The fastest way to get into hot water these is to simply point out what the Constitution actually says." I've experienced myself that when pointing out what the Code actually says on certain matters. Oh well. ;)

If I had been the canonist the MB referenced above, I would have offered two small quibbles: (1) I don't think TK's letter qualified as a "sign of repentance", per my comments at http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/08/about-teddys-letter-to-pope.html. But I could be wrong about that one; and (2) Reports are that a priest was summoned to TK's bedside and seen by him, and that's "code" (no pun intended) for making a final confession, etc. In other words, reports indicate something more than just talking to priests in last days, and to that extent, that is distinguishable from Teddy's penchant for using clerics as tall acolytes at Hyannis functions. fwiw.