What did Abp. Burke actually say about...

... Catholic politicians who support abortion, public repentance, and Catholic funerals? Ed Peters writes:

While journalists usually have some say over how their writings are edited, even the best reporters have little control over how their articles are headlined. Over the years I've cringed at some of the titles pasted atop my work, so I want to avoid assuming David Gibson's responsibility for the goofy charge that headlines his report of Abp. Raymond Burke's recent address to guests at InsideCatholic.com's 14th Annual Partnership Dinner.

The title to Gibson's article reads "Vatican Official: Church Erred in Holding Kennedy Funeral." Not only did Burke never say "the Church erred" in this way or any other (seriously, can anyone imagine Burke making such a reckless claim about the Church?), Gibson's own article makes no such allegation.

What Burke did say about Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion (and a few other issues gravely at odds with Church teaching) was that "Neither Holy Communion nor funeral rites should be administered to such politicians", adding that "To deny these is not a judgment of the soul, but a recognition of the scandal and its effects." In speaking thus, Burke falls squarely within the bounds of Catholic canon law and orthodoxy, however little companionship he might enjoy there these days.

It was only later, in a line Gibson adequately paraphrased but which he should have quoted, that Burke said "with greatly sinful acts about fundamental questions like abortion and marriage, [a politician's] repentance must also be public" adding, "Anyone who grasps the gravity of what he has done will understand the need to make it public." Again, a pastorally sound position, in my opinion.

Read the entire post.

Related Posts on Insight Scoop:

• Abp. Burke on truth and civility; Dr. Nelson on Catholic health care (Sept. 22, 2009)
• Now I understand: only pro-lifers are uncivil. (Sept. 16, 2009)
• The Senator, the Cardinal, and the Bishop (among others) (Sept. 7, 2009)
• Kennedy's letter—the pro-life one (Sept. 2, 2009)
• Fr. Robert Barron on Sen. Edward Kennedy (Sept. 1, 2009)
• The funeral and the letter (Aug. 30, 2009)
• Sen. Ted Kennedy's right to a Catholic funeral (Aug. 27, 2009)
• What is Sen. Ted Kennedy's "Catholic legacy"? (Aug. 27, 2009)
• Straw men by the left, straw men from the left (May 17, 2009)

Comments

[Charles E Flynn]

It may have been Brother Brendan, F.S.C., who taught me that headlines should be considered as advertising, not product, or that may be a conclusion at which I arrived based on his concern for such distinctions.

[Mark Brumley]

Dr. Peters reminds us that (1) headlines are often inanely inaccurate and (2) articles are often inanely inaccurate. Those points certainly bear consideration when it comes to reporting of Archbishop Burke's comments under discussion here.

It would help the discussion if we could have the text of Archbishop Burke's talk. While I understand Dr. Peters' position, I'm not sure that the most reasonable interpretation of the Burke talk, based on what has been quoted and what observers such as Deal Hudson report, is that Archbishop Burke thinks the Kennedy funeral was permitted under canon law. Perhaps he does. I just can't be certain from what he is quoted and described as having said.

To be sure, there is a way to take the reports of what he said and reconcile them with the proposition that Mr. Kennedy's actions included those that can be considered "signs of repentance" and therefore he was rightly given a church funeral. But the comments attributed to Archbishop Burke by Deal Hudson, for example, can also be reasonably interpreted otherwise. Regarding a politician associated "with greatly sinful acts about fundamental questions like abortion and marriage," Archbishop Burke is quoted as stating, "his repentance must also be public" and, "Anyone who grasps the gravity of what he has done will understand the need to make it public."

If those quotes are accurate and in context, then it is a reasonable interpretation, even if not the only plausible interpretation, that the Archbishop thinks that the signs of repentance in question must be (1) signs of repentance for the politician's sinful actions concerning abortion and marriage, not merely signs of generic repentance, and (2) must be of a public nature.

"'Must be' or what?" is an obvious question. "Must be made public or the bishop risks giving scandal?" "Must be made public or a church funeral should not be permitted?"

It would help if we had the text before us to determine whether the Archbishop's comments allow us to answer those questions.

[Mrs. O]

Archbishop Burke's speech is out:http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6937&Itemid=48 and after reading it, I do not find the title of the article misleading. I also take "the Church" to mean that particular diocese also. They did err, it just didn't start with the elaborate funeral though.
I especially liked the following:

One of the ironies of the present situation is that the person who experiences scandal at the gravely sinful public actions of a fellow Catholic is accused of a lack of charity and of causing division within the unity of the Church. In a society whose thinking is governed by the "tyranny of relativism" and in which political correctness and human respect are the ultimate criteria of what is to be done and what is to be avoided, the notion of leading someone into moral error makes little sense. What causes wonderment in such a society is the fact that someone fails to observe political correctness and, thereby, seems to be disruptive of the so-called peace of society. Lying or failing to tell the truth, however, is never a sign of charity. A unity which is not founded on the truth of the moral law is not the unity of the Church. The Church's unity is founded on speaking the truth with love. The person who experiences scandal at public actions of Catholics, which are gravely contrary to the moral law, not only does not destroy unity but invites the Church to repair what is clearly a serious breach in Her life. Were he not to experience scandal at the public support of attacks on human life and the family, his conscience would be uninformed or dulled about the most sacred realities.

[Mark Brumley]

Here is a key paragraph:

When a person has publicly espoused and cooperated in gravely sinful acts, leading many into confusion and error about fundamental questions of respect for human life and the integrity of marriage and the family, his repentance of such actions must also be public. The person in question bears a heavy responsibility for the grave scandal which he has caused. The responsibility is especially heavy for political leaders. The repair of such scandal begins with the public acknowledgment of his own error and the public declaration of his adherence to the moral law. The soul which recognizes the gravity of what he has done will, in fact, understand immediately the need to make public reparation.

[Ed Peters]

Mrs. O. In my defenses of the decision to grant the Kennedy funeral I expressly quoted 2 objective canonical commentaries accepting what Kennedy did as sufficient for according him a Catholic funeral. I could have quoted a dozen others. Would you kindly point to a single canonical commentary that holds Kennedy's actions as insufficient for licit funeral and by which you can conclude that "they did err"? Thanks ever, edp.

Mark, I read Burke's talk. It's fine of course. I agree 100% with it. Esp. since he does not deny that what Kennedy did was sufficient under law for a funeral under c. 1184 (a standard which might be, and I think is, different from that canonically required for readmission to Communion under c. 915, and from that morally required before God toward "making up" for one's public sins.)

[Mark Brumley]

The main objective of Canon 1184 § 1, 3° seems to be avoidance of the risk of scandal to the faithful that would occur if an unrepentant manifest sinner were granted a church funeral.

If that is so, then it is reasonable to expect public signs of repentance before a church funeral would be approved for a public sinner, since the purpose of the signs of repentance, in this context, would be to avoid the scandal that would be given by a church funeral given to a public sinner. The faithful need to know that the public sins of the public sinner have been repented of.

But of course that suggests, as Archbishop Burke seems to indicate in the section quoted above, that the public signs of repentance are specific--at least specific enough that they are indications that the public sins have been repented of. Otherwise the objective of the canon requiring "signs of repentance"--avoidance of scandal to the faithful--cannot be realized.

Where a public sinner's activities give no indication that the sinner has repented of his public sins, or when those activities seem to suggest that the public sins have not been repented of, a church funeral for such a public sinner can be reasonably interpreted only as meaning that the man's public sins are judged by the relevant church authorities as compatible with communion with the Church--at least the minimal level necessary to receive a church funeral.

When the public sins in question involve the denial of the right to life for millions of unborn children and the affirmation of the right of their mothers to kill them, the denial of the right to life and to bodily integrity for millions of embryonic human beings, and the denial that marriage is the union of one man and one woman only and the affirmation of the legal right for same-sex people to "marry", and when the public sinner is a highly prominent politician who identifies himself with the Catholic Church and who claims that he has never failed to believe and respect the Church's fundamental teachings and that he has always tried to be a faithful Catholic, it is hard to see how allowing such a person a church funeral, without the man's explicit, public repudiation of those actions, can achieve the goal that Canon 1184 § 1, 3° seems to intend.

An interpretation of the canon that allows a church funeral for someone in the circumstances described, is either wrong (contrary to what the text means or contrary to what the text intends) or right. If it is wrong, then it needs to be replaced by a correct interpretation, one that would not allow public sinners to receive church funerals without the signs of repentance being public and sufficiently specific to the sinners' public sins to indicate their repudiation.

On the other hand, if the interpretation of the canon is correct--if the canon intends to allow public sinners to receive a church funeral without public signs of repentance specific enough to indicate the sinner's repentance from his public sins--then the canon is self-defeating because it cannot achieve its goal of avoiding public scandal, given the circumstances in which it allows the kind of public sinner in question to receive a church funeral.

[Mark Brumley]

Mark, I read Burke's talk. It's fine of course. I agree 100% with it. Esp. since he does not deny that what Kennedy did was sufficient under law for a funeral under c. 1184 (a standard which might be, and I think is, different from that canonically required for readmission to Communion under c. 915, and from that morally required before God toward "making up" for one's public sins.)

Ed, I did not see your comment until after I posted my lengthy comment above.

I'm not sure that Archbishop Burke would read his talk as indicating that what Kennedy did was sufficient under law for a funeral under canon 1184, whether or not it is a different standard for readmission to Communion under canon 915, as you indicate. I just don't know whether he would or not.

Archbishop Burke writes, "When a person has publicly espoused and cooperated in gravely sinful acts, leading many into confusion and error about fundamental questions of respect for human life and the integrity of marriage and the family, his repentance of such actions must also be public."

When he says that the sinner's repentance for the actions listed "must also be public", does he mean that such public repentance must occur in order for the person rightly to receive a church funeral under Canon 1184? That is an important question.

Furthermore, does he mean when he refers to the sinner's "public repentance of such actions" that the public repentance must be such as by its nature to indicate the repudiation of his public sins?

If so, does the sinner's public repentance involve "the public acknowledgment of his own error and the public declaration of his adherence to the moral law"?

If Archbishop Burke means that in order rightly to receive a church funeral under 1184 that a public sinner's repentance must 1) be public, and (2) be specific enough that by its nature that it indicates repudiation of the sinner's public sins, and (3) involve "the public acknowledgement of his own error and the public declaration of his adherence to the moral law", then, based on what I saw of what was reported, it seems to me that Senator Kennedy did not do what was sufficient under canon 1184 for a church funeral, according to Archbishop Burke's comments.

Note the ifs. Would you agree, Ed, given the ifs?

It would seem that if what I have summarized above accurately represents Archbishop Burke's position--and it may not--and if Archbishop Burke reads the stories about Senator Kennedy in the same way as I do (as not entailing the Senator's public repentance specific enough to indicate repudiation of his public stances on abortion, etc., and not entailing the Senator's public acknowledgement of his error), then Archbishop Burke should conclude that the conditions for a church funeral under canon 1184 were not met in Senator Kennedy's case.

[Ed Peters]

Well, the above "ifs" would redefine the question entirely, of course. "If" the law and tradition read differently than they do, then, yes, my opinion would likely change, too.

We neither of us know what Burke thought/felt, but we do know what he said. I am trying to understand his words in accord with canonical tradition, and not at odds with it. While I await (here or on the several other blogs where I've had this discussion) a single citation to an authority holding contrary to me (as I said over at WDTPRS, I seem to be the only one who's discussing canon law the way it's supposed to be discussed), I'll respond to your as-always reasonable observations this way:

Public sin (which you and I agree Kennedy was involved in) puts one, as Burke noted, at risk under two respects (, ie, c. 915 re Eucharist, and c. 1184 re funerals) and of course it puts one at risk morally. So far so ok.

Now, what NO ONE (besides me) seem to noting about CANON LAW (pace MB, who is discussing not quite canon law) is that the criteria for rehabilitation under c. 915 ARE DIFFERENT from the criterion for rehabilitation under c. 1184. One must PUBLICLY give signs, adequate signs, of repentance for rehab udner c. 915, but one need only give ANY signs for repentance for c. 1184 purposes. It's an easy difference to overlook, esp. since "public sinner" is today almost always discussed in terms of c. 915, not c. 1184. Throw in that, morally speaking, one has an obligation to un-do public scandal, as best one can, in the same degree that one gave it, and presto, you see people are applying the "morals / c. 915" higher standard to the "c. 1184" situation. Wrongly. Quite wrongly.

As to how c. 1184 OUGHT to read, I've no great insight there. Wouldn't bother me if it read differently. I would only caution that, in asking for a "public repentance" action at/near death, one might get stuck in a very nebulous scale of assessment at a time when nuance and detail and dialogue are not very likely.

The Church as ALWAYS expected less of those at death's door than She has of those in full possession of their powers, or so it seems to me. It's not a point I could argue vigorously, though, just my observation.

[Mark Brumley]

Ed, thanks for your comments. We agree on a lot here, I think.

Just to make sure my purpose was clear: my point about the ifs was to make sure that my reasoning was sound, since, as we both know, even true premises don't lead to a sound conclusion unless the reasoning that would connect the premises is valid. I wanted to be sure that, granted the premises, the conclusion followed.

Thanks as well for clarifying the different sorts of issues--canonical (re: the Eucharist, 915 and funeral, 1184) and moral.

On interpreting Archbishop Burke, I understand your desire to read him as you do. You may well be right in the sense that he may have intended his words to be read as you read them. I'm less certain of that. I just don't know. I see how one can reasonably read him in another way.

As I have said before, I (for what it's worth) don't doubt that the interpretation you give to c. 1184 is in keeping with the traditional understanding of the law. Let me add that I think your analysis of how people reason from c. 915 to c. 1184 is probably an accurate description of what is happening.

It seems to me that such a course of thinking is understandable, even if mistaken, given that at least one purpose of c. 915 seems to be the same as at least one, if not the primary, purpose, of c. 1184--the avoidance of giving scandal to the faithful by not authorizing a church activity with a public sinner. Given that, it is not farfetched to suppose that public signs of repentance for one (which, as you know, c. 915 doesn't actually mention) would be seen as parallel to "signs of repentance" in the other (which, as you also know, c. 1184 does mention).

While I would not argue in that way from c. 915 to c. 1184, I would note that the lower bar for c. 1184--whatever the tradition of interpretation here--seems at odds or at least in significant tension with the stated reason for the requirement of "signs of repentance"--avoiding "public scandal to the faithful". What's more, whatever c. 1184 is intended to mean, in at least the circumstances to which Archbishop Burke refers in his example of the proabortion rights, pro-same-sex marriage Catholic politician, it is hard to see how the goal of avoiding scandal to the faithful can be achieved in the absence of public signs of repentance specific enough to indicate repudiation of the sinner's public sins. The only other way it seems that the goal could be achieved would be if private signs of repentance were made public. The effect of alerting people to the public sinners repentance from his public sins would be achieved, either way.

Of course there are some public sins it would be reasonable to see general church-related activities as repudiating. If I were a prominent Catholic who lapsed into public atheism (and thus became a notorious apostate), calling a priest to pray at my bedside or to hear my confession would be a sign of repentance. But, as I have argued elsewhere, if I were a Catholic who engaged in public grave sin and went to confession, etc., all the while insisting that my public grave sin was not grave sin and was not incompatible with being a good Catholic, then we would have a different story, whatever the canonists want to claim for "signs of repentance".

Public signs of repentance or private signs made public may not be required in the traditional understanding of c. 1184, but whether they are or not doesn't seem to change what is in fact needed in order avoid giving scandal. If that is the primary goal of the canon in relation to public sinners and church funerals, then it seems that the primary goal cannot be achieved, in the circumstances posited, by the terms required in the canon.

With respect to the issue of the Church "always" expecting less of those at death's door, I'm not sure. For certain things, yes. For others, it seems not. But that's not an issue either of us seems especially interested in pursuing.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Ed Peters]

My pleasure. Lucky for us, Mizzou played yesterday, so I had a little more time today to check Scoop!

[Mrs. O]

Dr Peters,
The diocese failed to call evil by its name and also failed to reprimand Kennedy in a public way (for his public actions). The error(s) I am referring to was allowing this to become as big as it did.
I agree that he should have been allowed a funeral but not for the same reasons. I am no canon lawyer but it seems that if nothing was done before he died (enforcing the canon law to bring about repentance), it makes little sense to me to go looking for reason as to why he could have one (funeral) when they have allowed this scandal to grow unchecked. It is still unclear that his own diocese viewed him as a manifest sinner too (although I will agree he was one). I pray a priest was able to help him, in his final hours, to see the horror of his sins.

[Sharon]

I am not across all the Canon Law regulations but could he not have had a small family funeral instead of the extravaganza which became his funeral what with princes of the Church present, the president of the United States and a world famour singer? The splendour of the funeral gave many a Joe and Mary Catholic either the idea that it was ok to hold the ideas which Kennedy held or that when money and position speaks the Church sits up and listens.

Dr Peters and Mr Brumley inhabit a rarified place in society filled with articulate, educated people. I am afraid that your wise insights don't perculate very far into the consciousness of the masses who are left with their impressions formed by the media. I don't think that the hierarchy realises this either.

[Mark Brumley]

Dr Peters and Mr Brumley inhabit a rarified place in society filled with articulate, educated people. I am afraid that your wise insights don't perculate very far into the consciousness of the masses who are left with their impressions formed by the media. I don't think that the hierarchy realises this either.

There's nothing especially rarefied about the place I "inhabit", Sharon. Of course the discussion Dr. Peters and I were engaged in here might be dubbed "rarefied" by some, but those who find it so don't need to take part in it if they don't want to. And in any case I don't live "here" and neither does Ed Peters. The people I live around include articulate, educated people and inarticulate and uneducated people, and lots of folks in between.

What's more, I think my not-rarefied article on the subject under discussion more or less made the same point as you, Sharon, when it comes to how the funeral of someone like Edward Kennedy is likely to be perceived by the general public.