More on funerals: Dom mentions the story of the Santa Fe priest being sued because he allegedly said that the faithful departed, an 80-year-old gentleman, (1) wasn't very faithful and (2) had departed for -- well, somewhere other than paradise.
That beats the other case of funerary denunciation I knew about: when Bishop McGann criticized the late CIA chief William Casey at his 1987 obsequies.
A friend sent in a bit of oral history that circulates among the Discalced Carmelites:
Then there was the OCD in OK City that agreed to say the funeral for the mafioso at the request of the widow. He began his homily by saying, "You are comforted by the thought that your husband, your dad, grandpa, your friend and business associate is now in Heaven with Jesus. Well, he isn't. He is in Hell and in the deepest pits of Hell, which is where all of you will wind up if you don't repent."He sure didn't learn to preach like that in a program of Clinical Pastoral Education.The provincial transferred the priest shortly thereafter.
(EXTRA) Questions for class discussion:
What do you think about these situations? If the deceased appeared to die impenitent of serious sin, does it make sense for a priest to say (in some way): this guy probably went to Hell; do not follow him. Or should the deceased simply be denied a Catholic funeral?
Illustrative examples (especially from the lives of the Saints) are welcome.
Is this, "Tough Love" ?
I have the Santa Fe priest points for being honest, but there is such a thing as tact. I don't think I would have referred to the deceased as being "vomited out of the mouth of God into the pits of Hell". An effective public speaker could make the point without being quite so offensive. This priest is either some kind of whacko or there is some part of the story that wasn't reported here.
I agree with Chris. A simple "He's in Hell now" would have sufficed. There's no need to get ugly about it. :-)
I think funeral homilies like these are an abomination. It is presumptuous for even a priest to claim to know whether any person went to Hell. (I think the Catechism says something about this, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.) We can say that someone didn't attend Mass, or didn't receive the sacraments, or was a member of the Mafia, but we cannot say what takes place in those last moments before death or foresee the magnitude of God's mercy.
If these clergymen want to teach, fine, but why not say something remotely charitable to the family . . . like, how much additional grief they must be suffering, not knowing whether their loved one is in Purgatory or Hell. And reminding them that they wouldn't want to put their own kids through that torture. That gets the point across and is more accurate and much more judicious.
Refusing to do the funeral is ok, too.
The William Casey homily is even more of an outrage because the Bishop was disagreeing with him on a political matter. Shame on that bishop for using a funeral to further his political agendas.
I don't even think saying "He's in Hell now" would be appropriate. Like Robin said in her comment above, "we cannot say what takes place in those last moments before death or foresee the magnitude of God's mercy". Tactful mention of a few concerns about the deceased's trangressions will give those at the funeral enough information to draw their own conclusions.
I think that my grandfather is in Purgatory, if not Hell, and pray for him daily, but I didn't need a priest to point it out to me. If you know the difference between good and bad, and have even a little bit of knowledge of Christ's teachings, you can "do the math" for a lot of people that you knew well and form your own opinion.
As for R.C.'s request for examples from lives of saints, look at St. Paul. He was the nastiest guy on the block toward the earliest Christians, and was responsible for many of them being put to death. If someone focused on only that part of his life, then yeah, they'd say he's in Hell. But if they had the whole picture of his conversion and subsequent work in the Lord's name, they would likely change their tune. Granted, St. Paul is an extreme case, but I find it difficult to believe that God would turn away from someone who repents and reaches out to Him, even if it is in their final moments.
A secular, ficticious example of this that may serve as a good analogy is Anakin Skywalker, a.k.a. Darth Vader from the Star Wars series of films. His last minute repentance and return to "the good side of the Force" just before his death at the end of the final movie in the series (Return of the Jedi) is comparable.
One final note: not so many years ago, priests and religious were telling us that we would go to Hell if we ate a hamburger on a Friday. The only one who determines where we spend eternity is God Himself. All humans can do is offer their opinions. Remember, His ways are not our ways.
Let me nit-pick Chris' final note:
do we have any reason to think that Friday abstinence was not a matter of grave obligation back then, and that eating meat on a Friday wasn't a mortal sin? Eating meat on a Lenten Friday still is (for those who are obliged). When the Church imposes certain commands on us by her authority, she also has the power to decide whether a disobedience constitutes mortal or venial sin.
This New Mexican case was a particularly poor one, and I'm hoping against hope that it's only an urban legend.
An elderly, very ill, mostly housebound parishioner, in the last year of his life, did not make it to church very often. How is this just cause for, as the priest bragged to people on the way to the burial, "putting that Martinez family in their place"? Or for publicly proclaiming something that only the One Just Judge Himself could possibly know?
If it turns out this isn't urban legend, I hope his bishop gets this priest some help.
karen marie
As net-Catholic Marty Helgesen points out, if we want to "put someone in his place", we should remember that the person's place is in Heaven.
Here are a couple more newspaper accounts of the case, one with the quote Karen provided:
Family files suit against Archdiocese
Archdiocese seeks change of venue
Based on the alleged remarks that the deceased "supported adultery" and was "living in sin", I'm going to guess that the deceased was in an invalid marriage, and the priest took that as a justification (in his own mind) for criticizing him.
I'm certain the courts can settle this one, since most lawyers typically have a reliable connections in Hell that can find out for sure if the man is there or not. ;)