I wonder how often it happens that people move towards the very end of life (to be near family, to enter a nursing home, etc) and never get registered in a new parish. That seems like a far more common reason for "someone called the parish looking for a funeral for a non parishioner" than someone intentionally trying to make a political point like this
And sadly, for a lot of elderly people in that situation, their kids and grandkids aren't practicing, and might not know how to explain/what parish Grandma used to go to/etc.
Something does seem “off” as the story is unfolding. Cardinal Dolan is making light of it, which I should have expected but did not. It almost seems like he was the one who gave the go ahead, perhaps at the behest of a politician or celebrity, or another priest.
I’ll let others answer any concerns with Canon Law, but even if it does support this course of action I have no doubt the mourners would’ve marched straight to the nearest media outlet and cried foul for being thrown out by the evil, nasty, bigoted Church that hates them for being queer. No one (except The Pillar, obviously) would’ve cared to report the truth.
"The fact that a deceased person identified as a transgendered person does not by itself constitute a prohibition in the Church’s practice regarding “manifest sinners” or “public scandal” — "
Really? It doesn't? I think it does, in most cases.
Isn't it breaking the 8th commandment to not bear false witness against thy neighbor? Especially when one asks others to identify them as someone they are manifestly not. It becomes a charade of untruth and leads others into confusion, especially children (Mom, why is Aunt S now Uncle?).
I noticed that line too in the article, and I think it's begging the wrong question. The quote:
"The fact that a deceased person identified as a transgendered person does not by itself constitute a prohibition in the Church’s practice regarding “manifest sinners” or “public scandal”"
could be true, insofar in that most people who identify as "transgendered" and request funerals in a Catholic Church are not denied their requests. But in my view, that's the wrong criteria to judge by. Just because it is common Church practice doesn't mean that it is morally correct or a prudent practice. The better question would be, "Do individuals that identified as "transgendered" meet the criteria of being "manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful?"
It's a question that those in the Vatican has done their best to avoid in recent history, especially with the recent guidance regarding transgender individuals that the Vatican released (also mentioned in the article). This is a reason why I believe that guidance is deficient, because it mentions things like the fact that transgender individuals can be given baptism "under the same conditions as other believers, if there are no situations in which there is a risk of generating public scandal, or disorientation among the faithful," yet it declines to elaborate on the obvious question: Can someone who doesn't repent of their sin (identifying as a contrary gender) be baptized? And now we have another real world situation here with this debacle in New York: Can someone who doesn't repent of their sin be given a funeral?
My overall point is that I'm not particularly interested in what is longstanding Church practice with regards to questions like this because there is a strong argument that the Church, especially in very recent history, is not aligning practice with its teachings on this topic and others. I'm more interested in arguments from the standpoint of morality, or to put it simply, "Was this an moral/immoral action or not?"
JD, the facts have explained themselves pretty throughly, haven't they? Deplorable is deplorable. It's good to know the legalities, but now and then equity simply requires something more.
Maybe quote a critic who could highlight some of the points Oswald brings out. That seems pretty common practice in journalism, for those who don't want to state the obvious themselves.
The Church’s general approach (which varies by country) is to assume and hope that the person is searching for God, as the purpose of our faith journey is not to establish a legal declaration (similar to what you see in Protestantism) but to help people continue the marathon of conversion. Ratzinger gave communion to a Protestant pastor who was so moved by the encounter he later converted, and as pope, Benedict XVI gave communion to some shockingly abhorrent dictators. In any case, I am furious at what happened at St. Patrick’s. Disgusting.
Well at the most basic level, it would be a lie. Saying "I am a woman" when I am actually a man is knowingly false for anyone passingly familiar with Church teaching on the subject.
It is really rare that the Catholic Church in a particular country becomes so over-processed that the pronoun is the issue. That seems to have happened here though. What is important is opposing the gender ideology, but not applying a political fight to an individual. There is a woman in our homeless ministry who wants everyone to call her Jesus. She doesn’t believe she is a savior, she just thinks it is her name. In this case it’s a disassociation. But you know what, encountering her in that way actually applies in a spiritual sense for us too. And the respect we show for her allows us to go a lot deeper into the wounds.
Things could have gotten violent if the priest used male pronouns, I don't think that's out of the question. But of course, that just confirms the whole problem.
For many it is not a psychological condition, but an affectation and freely chosen, "identity" which gives them a sense or power or belonging or social standing. For most, it's an outgrowth of a traumatic childhood. Hundreds of millions of humans have traumatic childhoods though, and don't end up demanding that the entire world cop to their narcissistic warping of reality.
The time and space matters in answering that question. If you begin with a correction, it is typically not pastoral or charity. Copying my comment above: There is a woman in our homeless ministry who wants everyone to call her Jesus. She doesn’t believe she is a savior, she just thinks it is her name. In this case it’s a disassociation that followed a beating she experienced. But you know what, encountering her in that way actually applies in a spiritual sense for us too. And the respect we show for her allows us to go a lot deeper into the wounds. When we make more progress, I’ll ask her if she remembers her name…which I learned from another homeless person.
I think I would say that what happened at this funeral was sacrilegious; but not that any funeral for any transgender person is sacrilegious -- mind explaining what your line of reasoning is?
It’s more in the vein of a mental illness — which is not a sin, but certainly not a personality trait to be celebrated (with or without obscene pageantry) at a Catholic funeral. What I find most bizarre about this incident is that any priest among the parish authorities would agree to permit this funeral to take place, especially in New York’s principal Catholic Church, without a thorough investigation of the basic criteria: first and foremost, is the person a regular parishioner, or in any way connected to the parish community (such being, one would think, the basic requirement for requesting a funeral there) — certainly St. Patrick’s can’t handle permitting any funeral requested by just anybody who wants it, as if the building is little more than a fancy entertainment venue. But even if such is possible (for the right price, no doubt), one would think it’s standard procedure for the pastor or his associate to make basic enquiries as to the Catholicity of the deceased, and for the parties to exchange detailed information about the nature of the proposed ceremony — including the fact that Catholic funerals DO NOT PERMIT eulogies (with the possible exception of certain public figures — though I’d bet anything that even the funeral of JFK included only a proper Catholic funeral homily by the celebrant.) These, and other considerations, like appropriate music and procession, should all be discussed and agreed to ahead of time, for ANYBODY. The principal “crime” in the travesty is dereliction of duty on the part of the presiding priest, who should be disciplined by his superior.
I have no idea what the status of that church is. If it is like my cathedral, it is really like any other church, only bigger. I am not sure how many of those who have funerals are "regulars". That would be an interesting statistics to have.
The Church’s general approach (which varies by country) is to assume and hope that the person is searching for God, as the purpose of our faith journey is not to establish a legal declaration (similar to what you see in Protestantism) but to help people continue the marathon of conversion. Ratzinger gave communion to a Protestant pastor who was so moved by the encounter he later converted, and as pope, Benedict XVI gave communion to some shockingly abhorrent dictators. In any case, I am furious at what happened at St. Patrick’s. Disgusting.
I think this is a plausible but narrow reading of the law that maybe could have used a bit more explanation as to what scenarios would permit or prohibit a burial. The presence of gender dysphoria in the past doesn't seem to prohibit a Christian burial, gender dysphoria at the time of death would get dicey depending on the perceived culpability of the person and possible scandal, ruling out referring to the person as other than their given gender, which would probably be ok only in a few case, I guess
Father Martin also said that he made his comment a to the NYTimes under the assumption that Gentili was a believer. That a professed atheist should have their funeral at St Patrick's Cathedral, then continue to mock the Catholic faith throughout the ceremony, is what bothers me most about this story.
Thanks JD. The question of whether an atheist could have a funeral in a Catholic church is the aspect which troubled me most about this outrage in St Patrick's.
Of course, it is one thing having a public circus, accompanied by multiple transgender and prostitution provocations, in the most famous Catholic church in the USA. It is another thing having a low key funeral for the non believing respectable husband of a practising Catholic woman in my very ordinary Chapel of Ease in an English suburb.
We have had two such funerals in recent years without it being spread all over social media or the Catholic blogosphere. Is there canonical guidance on such funerals? Or perhaps implicit "pastoral" practice informally directed from above...as long as you don't get your Bishop on primetime news.. ..
That IS a tricky question, and I will be interested in your podcast. The family (or who I presume was family) didn't seem atheist. One of eulogists talked about (in Spanish, if my memory serves) about "Cecilia" being with her grandparents in heaven. Another eulogist expressed the belief that the deceased lives "on a different plane." So for family and friends at the funeral, the hope of heaven and an afterlife were certainly present. I pray that some souls may have heard the message of the Gospel despite the distractions.
Surely there can be nothing blameworthy about lying in a good cause. Now, if an unprincipled reporter had caught him sniggering about it and told, that would be reprehensible.
Not sure what system could truly have prevented this unless they’re going to do a google/social media search for every request.
When I registered at my parish, no one asked me to prove I was baptized/confirmed. They ask us to always put our envelopes in the collection plate so they can track Mass attendance (this is for the purpose of the school and faith formation office) , but I’ve never used an envelope. In fact, I haven’t attended mass in that parish since 2020. This is the only parish I’ve ever been registered in.
The priest who confirmed me is no longer with us.
Simply put, there would be no formal record that I am a practicing Catholic and any parish would have to take the word of my friends and family.
Ok, one hurdle overcome. Now the trick would be for someone to know which parish that was and to find that record. Seeing as I haven’t lived in that town in more than 10 years, the person trying to verify would need to know a lot about me.
My point is there is not a system that I am aware of that could confirm for someone that I am a practicing Catholic, or even that I am a baptized/confirmed Catholic who has the right to receive a funeral mass.
I used my own experience as an example because I entered the Church my senior year of HS. My priest did not require me to attend any faith formation/RCIA classes because “you get enough of that at school” (my religion teacher cried tears of joy when I told her that).
A year later I was across the country in school and never registered in a parish until 2016 when I was working for that parish as Dir. of Evangelization.
While my story is not a universal experience, it is a common enough experience. One of the issues we faced at that parish was people not being registered. Being one of the largest parishes in WNY, we had frequent requests for funerals, weddings, baptisms, and letters of recommendation for godparents. There were many we had to reject because we couldn’t accommodate all requests and prioritized those who were members of our community. If someone wasn’t registered - as many millennials are not - we had no choice but to reject their request unless we knew them personally.
I registered at a parish on the west side of Detroit in 1998. I would be amazed if they checked on my 1953 baptism in Cheltenham, 120 miles west of London. Never mind my First Communion and Confirmation records. Seeing that other parishioners also came from other countries, that's a lot of long distance paperwork.
I was also baptized in a Protestant church. When I was confirmed, I had to submit my protestant baptism certificate and the baptism date and location was noted on my confirmation certificate. The parish where I was confirmed now holds all my sacramental records.
One need not be Catholic to have a Catholic funeral. We'll bury almost anyone on request as recent history demonstrates. A policy of a Google search for "strangers" would have revealed the obituary of this poor soul whose survivor's antics brought so much shame. Google will not discover everything, but will in general reveal a scandalous (or the risk of scandalous) deceased so that the proper resources can be at hand to ensure the dignity of the Catholic Rites requested, and alert persons to many (but not all) persons or groups that might to ambush the liturgy for their own ends instead of God's.
It has nothing to do with the personal, sacramental records of the Church which are accessed rarely. In my case my baptismal record might have been accessed 5 times in 60 years.
Except that all baptized Catholics have rights under Canon law that non-Catholics do not. One such right is the right to a funeral Mass. If a Mass is what is requested (as seems to be the case here) the priest needs to know the person was Catholic. Otherwise it is not permitted.
As for the google search, it may not find the obituary. Even if it did, it may not have enough information.
When we planned mom’s funeral last month her obituary had not been written yet, and it certainly had not been published. The longer the obituary, and the larger the circulation, the more money outlets charge to publish. Want photos? Add an additional charge for that.
This is not to say google would not have revealed something worth taking a closer look, only that it would be unlikely to reveal anything in a standard obituary.
I don't see why the priest should take requests in good faith, even if the person didn't attend mass or maybe wasn't even Catholic (or lapsed a long time ago).
If the person was not Catholic, they cannot have a funeral Mass. They can still have a funeral SERVICE, but not a Mass.
If they were a baptized Catholic, they have the right to a Mass.
With the high number of mixed/lapsed families today, it is likely people wouldn’t know the difference nor the importance for Catholics to have the funeral Mass, making it both a point of Canon Law and an opportunity for evangelization.
Absolutely a difficult question. In this specific case, since the person was not a member of the parish, perhaps insist on a meeting with the celebrant at least 4 days before the funeral, then use that time to do a quick search and determine if the funeral is likely to cause scandal. You could also ask for the deceased’s sacramental records, but as I’ve addressed elsewhere that’s its own can of worms.
It is obvious these activist chose St Patrick's because it is St Patrick's.
The celebrant, upon seeing the crowd gather, and their attire and attitude, should have refused to proceed. None of the things done there would have been allowed in my parish. "According to the photos provided by the Times, “Mass cards and a picture near the altar showed a haloed Ms. Gentili surrounded by the Spanish words for ‘transvestite,’ ‘whore,’ ‘blessed’ and ‘mother’ above the text of Psalm 25.”
Fr Dougherty deserves more charity than you have given him. I have no idea what went through his mind at that moment, but it’s entirely possible that he - with only a moment to decide - chose to abandon the Mass so as to limit the sacrilege and abuse sure to take place, while also making the decision it was better to do something - which may or may not make national news - rather than kick everyone out which surely would’ve made headlines of “Mean Catholics show off bigotry by canceling funeral for LGBT activist at last minute.”
We can critique the decision, but let’s at least do so with charity and remember that we weren’t in his position. We don’t know what he knew and when he knew it.
"rather than kick everyone out which surely would’ve made headlines of “Mean Catholics show off bigotry by canceling funeral for LGBT activist at last minute.”
- What he should have done was delay. Announce that there was a "problem" and that it was being sorted out. He should have contacted his superiors and let them know what was going on. After an hour announce that the funeral, due to the "problem," was being delayed into sometime in the future. When pressed he should have said that it was an internal Catholic issue and that announcements would be made in the future.
If the activists then threw a fit they could be asked to leave. Maybe put out the Lord in a monstrance and invite those who wished to remain to silently pray and reflect.
Of course we don’t know what went through his mind, but it seems from the video that it was Father King who made the decision to not go forward with the Mass. I am interested in knowing what the Times meant by “Mass Cards.” Perhaps something resembling prayer cards? I cannot imagine anyone in that crowd offering Masses.
I agree with you. After watching the video, I thought he seemed somewhat in shock and did the best he could. The people who actually misbehaved were few and mostly toward the end. The majority of the crowd were clearly unchurched, but stood and sat as directed and were quiet during the readings and prayers, even if they thought the appropriate response was to clap afterwards. There were clearly grieving people, the prostitutes and tax-collectors that Jesus loves and wants to heal, even if we find them outrageous. I don't know how Father could have just turned them all away. He did the merciful thing to proceed, especially because there is always hope that even one soul will be turned to Christ in the process.
Im sure the person would have to be repented to be baptized right? The same for being a God-parent?
In any case, I feel bad for the priest. Confusion can cause people to be stunned but Im glad he was able to change it to just a service through that craziness.
Could we get a Pillar explainer on what precisely constitutes a Catholic funeral and who merits one, as well as what the options are for people who don't? On the one hand, I'm sympathetic to Mr. Zwilling's statement that "every single one [funeral] has been for a sinner in need of God's mercy"—he's not wrong, and it seems especially true that those who died apparently persistent in sin are most in need of our prayers. On the other hand, Fr. Salvo is absolutely right that the cathedral was deceived as to the nature of the funeral, and much of what happened therein was totally inappropriate if not sacrilegious. After all, burying the dead, comforting the afflicted, and praying for the living and the dead are universal obligations, whether the dead is a literal saint or a transgender activist. At the same time, our charitable obligations shouldn't be used to wink at sin or permit sacrilege for the sake of good feelings.
I guess what I'm asking is, what's the most charitable approach that simultaneously respects the unique character of Catholic funerals while also giving the dead and their bereaved the true love, mercy, and prayer they need?
All (except Jesus and Mary) are sinners. All (except Jesus alone) need salvation. But only *repentant* sinners are ready to receive it. If a sinner (i.e. human) is unrepentant, that refusal to repent constitutes a barrier to grace.
Those who die condemned to hell are beyond the reach of prayer. Since we can't know who dies in that state, it is good to pray for all the dead without exception, but not all the dead benefit from those prayers, since those in hell have placed themselves beyond the reach of prayer.
The funeral is a ceremony full of symbols that show divine realities, particularly showing the mystery of God's grace and mercy. It is inappropriate to publicly perform rituals that emphasize forgiveness if there is strong evidence that the person for whom the rituals are being performed did not want forgiveness. Private prayers, and Masses for the soul of the departed, can and should be offered without the specific ceremony of a funeral.
That poor priest. I guarantee you he was simply assigned to it and given nothing more than a fact card from the funeral home. The question of “how to handle this on the spot without creating a riot” must have been on his mind.
At least he made the great call not to continue with the funeral as a mass. We can Monday morning quarterback his decisions, but he got that one right.
Indeed, but this is a parish that has long been in the media spotlight. They ought to have learned long ago to be especially on the lookout for booby traps.
The Cardinal has been grossly let down by his clergy, as have all Catholics. "Egg in the face" is a euphemism.
Especially so soon after that fiasco where a provocative pop video was filmed at a beautiful but much less famous New York Church. I guess that our luckless clergy will have to get into a almost paranoid mindset before approving any kind of activity inside their churches.
Looks to me like the priest understandably was not aware of the prominence of this individual in the LGBT community, took things at face value (such as the deceased's preferred pronouns) uncritically, and then the actual liturgy started and spiraled out of his control with the audience members interjections and speakers espousing things directly contrary to the faith, he didn't know how to rein things back in and maybe felt like the the entire situation would devolve if he tried.
The entire thing was clearly a ****show, but I'm not seeing how much we could have expected the priest to be able to have foreseen beforehand and prevented.
I guess that's my biggest question in this case: what does the priest do in the face of obviously disrespectful and disturbing behavior? What did the priests do when ACT UP disrupted Masses back in the day? It seems this priest wasn't given any guidance, which is a little odd to me. I mean, St. Patrick's Cathedral is a very prominent symbol of Catholicism, and therefore an irresistible target for anti-Catholic haters looking for attention.
I think this situation is a little different than when some group comes in from the outside to disrupt a mass. The people making the disruptions were part of the liturgy and the majority of the audience, so the priest probably felt very much "without backup" so to speak. I don't know that he actually had the power to stop them even if he'd had tried.
I don’t think that implies the spokesman alerted clergy about the inquiry. In fact, so far, it seems the spokesman issued his reply before leadership properly understood the situation and his initial response to it because they issued a much different second statement as events unfolded. I could be wrong, but it seems plausible he just didn’t tell his bosses.
I feel for the priest celebrant since, until this hit the news, I had never heard of Gentili either. I believe he didn’t know anything about the person other than what he was told. I’ve also celebrated funerals where - while not exactly like this - things got out of control. It’s tough to balance maintaining decorum and at the same time being compassionate toward families that are often suffering on many levels. The priest was in a tough spot not of his own making.
Funerals are one of the times we priests can minister to people who don’t go to Church, are disengaged from their faith, and are in need of evangelization. Sometimes treating them kindly and respectfully at the funeral not only helps them in their grief but also begins to heal their broken relationship with the Church. It at least creates an opening for God’s grace.
This went terribly wrong, but I can believe the priest entered the moment with good intentions and was blindsided. He did the best he could to manage a bad situation. If we didn’t live in an age when almost everything is broadcasted everywhere, he probably would have gone back to the rectory afterward and decided quietly how to avoid getting into a situation like that again.
Good intentions pave the way to public disgrace. There must have been at least one staffer who pointed out to the authorities that the odor of rat was strong about this event. Another commenter remarked that the NYT had asked the parish about it on the day before. Hint? Time to google? In a time when the Church is widely and aggressively under public fire, this should have been defused quietly before it happened.
I think in all fairness and fidelity to the truth & the Catholic faith, The Pillar should have made it clear right in the first paragraph of this article that this was a biological man and have indicated what his original male name was rather than going along with his desire to identify as female and as "Cecilia."
I'm an extremely well-read and educated Catholic adult & I still don't understand or comprehend right off the bat what is meant by the terms "transgender male" or "transgender female" and what that means they actually are biologically vs what they "identify" as in their own minds.
I dunno. I appreciated The Pillar's discretion, and think they managed to write the article in a way that is journalistically and traditionally acceptable. To start off with "was born a man and identified as a woman" would have seemed very combative to many people. And they made some other editorial choices to ensure that they didn't deny the traditional teaching and practice of the Church on sexuality with their language.
Thought we might see something original here, instead of what just seemed like a summary of reporting from elsewhere. No mention of what looked like absolute joy on the face of Dougherty, and the swipe he took at the Church for having empty pews during other events. Constantly being labelled as “right leaning/wing” by other Catholic writers seems to be having the desired effect of muting what was once a daily read.
I’ve seen the comment elsewhere that the priest commented on the size of the crowd. I took his remark about how “turned out” the mourners were to be a reference to their attire.
From the moment Dougherty walked out he looked “among his own,” or it was the largest crowd that ever “turned/turnt out” for a service he was officiating. Unless and until we hear directly from him and he denies knowing anything at all, he knew. I won’t give priests the benefit of the doubt when we hear about one episode of abuse after another on a near daily/weekly basis. They’re always blameless sheep…until they’re not. Maybe we’re all so tired from the constant beating our psyche takes in order to make obvious BS smell like roses, we don’t realize the jokes on us.
There’s plenty of blame to go around. I was just pointing out that Father Dougherty did not take a swipe at the Church for having empty pews although some media outlets heard it that way. The quote was “ “Except on Easter Sunday we don’t really have a crowd that is this well turned out.” He was joking about the attire. I didn’t like the joke but that is what it was about.
https://www.whatsgoingonnews.net/post/cardinal-dolan-praises-priest-who-presided-at-trans-funeral-in-new-york-cathedral
Don't forget Cdl Dolan has marched in Pride parades and is a regular at the MET Gala.
I wonder how often it happens that people move towards the very end of life (to be near family, to enter a nursing home, etc) and never get registered in a new parish. That seems like a far more common reason for "someone called the parish looking for a funeral for a non parishioner" than someone intentionally trying to make a political point like this
And sadly, for a lot of elderly people in that situation, their kids and grandkids aren't practicing, and might not know how to explain/what parish Grandma used to go to/etc.
Something does seem “off” as the story is unfolding. Cardinal Dolan is making light of it, which I should have expected but did not. It almost seems like he was the one who gave the go ahead, perhaps at the behest of a politician or celebrity, or another priest.
I think they had planned on a Mass, and the priest made a game-time call on the spot not to do that.
Agreed.
I’ll let others answer any concerns with Canon Law, but even if it does support this course of action I have no doubt the mourners would’ve marched straight to the nearest media outlet and cried foul for being thrown out by the evil, nasty, bigoted Church that hates them for being queer. No one (except The Pillar, obviously) would’ve cared to report the truth.
I respectfully beg to very much doubt that :o)
"The fact that a deceased person identified as a transgendered person does not by itself constitute a prohibition in the Church’s practice regarding “manifest sinners” or “public scandal” — "
Really? It doesn't? I think it does, in most cases.
maybe you have access to data on that I don't? I'd be glad to take a look if so.
Isn't it breaking the 8th commandment to not bear false witness against thy neighbor? Especially when one asks others to identify them as someone they are manifestly not. It becomes a charade of untruth and leads others into confusion, especially children (Mom, why is Aunt S now Uncle?).
I noticed that line too in the article, and I think it's begging the wrong question. The quote:
"The fact that a deceased person identified as a transgendered person does not by itself constitute a prohibition in the Church’s practice regarding “manifest sinners” or “public scandal”"
could be true, insofar in that most people who identify as "transgendered" and request funerals in a Catholic Church are not denied their requests. But in my view, that's the wrong criteria to judge by. Just because it is common Church practice doesn't mean that it is morally correct or a prudent practice. The better question would be, "Do individuals that identified as "transgendered" meet the criteria of being "manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful?"
It's a question that those in the Vatican has done their best to avoid in recent history, especially with the recent guidance regarding transgender individuals that the Vatican released (also mentioned in the article). This is a reason why I believe that guidance is deficient, because it mentions things like the fact that transgender individuals can be given baptism "under the same conditions as other believers, if there are no situations in which there is a risk of generating public scandal, or disorientation among the faithful," yet it declines to elaborate on the obvious question: Can someone who doesn't repent of their sin (identifying as a contrary gender) be baptized? And now we have another real world situation here with this debacle in New York: Can someone who doesn't repent of their sin be given a funeral?
My overall point is that I'm not particularly interested in what is longstanding Church practice with regards to questions like this because there is a strong argument that the Church, especially in very recent history, is not aligning practice with its teachings on this topic and others. I'm more interested in arguments from the standpoint of morality, or to put it simply, "Was this an moral/immoral action or not?"
That’d be a great topic for a column, for sure. Here we’re just to aiming to explain thr facts, so that you can assess them accordingly.
JD, the facts have explained themselves pretty throughly, haven't they? Deplorable is deplorable. It's good to know the legalities, but now and then equity simply requires something more.
jjust to make sure I understand: You would like us, as journalists, to do what, exactly? Not write down the facts and explain them as best as we can?
I'm not being facetious, I'm really asking.
Touché. Mais ...
Maybe quote a critic who could highlight some of the points Oswald brings out. That seems pretty common practice in journalism, for those who don't want to state the obvious themselves.
I don't see why "identifying as another gender" (whatever that might mean) should necessarily constitute a sin.
It's denying the reality of how God created the individual
The Church’s general approach (which varies by country) is to assume and hope that the person is searching for God, as the purpose of our faith journey is not to establish a legal declaration (similar to what you see in Protestantism) but to help people continue the marathon of conversion. Ratzinger gave communion to a Protestant pastor who was so moved by the encounter he later converted, and as pope, Benedict XVI gave communion to some shockingly abhorrent dictators. In any case, I am furious at what happened at St. Patrick’s. Disgusting.
Well at the most basic level, it would be a lie. Saying "I am a woman" when I am actually a man is knowingly false for anyone passingly familiar with Church teaching on the subject.
Well, that's another question... Languages other than English are much more forgiving :D
I quite disagree. This being a psychological condition it cannot be sinful as such.
It is really rare that the Catholic Church in a particular country becomes so over-processed that the pronoun is the issue. That seems to have happened here though. What is important is opposing the gender ideology, but not applying a political fight to an individual. There is a woman in our homeless ministry who wants everyone to call her Jesus. She doesn’t believe she is a savior, she just thinks it is her name. In this case it’s a disassociation. But you know what, encountering her in that way actually applies in a spiritual sense for us too. And the respect we show for her allows us to go a lot deeper into the wounds.
Things could have gotten violent if the priest used male pronouns, I don't think that's out of the question. But of course, that just confirms the whole problem.
For many it is not a psychological condition, but an affectation and freely chosen, "identity" which gives them a sense or power or belonging or social standing. For most, it's an outgrowth of a traumatic childhood. Hundreds of millions of humans have traumatic childhoods though, and don't end up demanding that the entire world cop to their narcissistic warping of reality.
God has created us male and female, our bodies speak of how God has made us.
When we deny the truth of our bodies and try to say we will make them into the image we desire, we are working against God and His will for us.
Quite, but here we are talking about an illness.
Does Christian charity require overlooking sacrilege?
The time and space matters in answering that question. If you begin with a correction, it is typically not pastoral or charity. Copying my comment above: There is a woman in our homeless ministry who wants everyone to call her Jesus. She doesn’t believe she is a savior, she just thinks it is her name. In this case it’s a disassociation that followed a beating she experienced. But you know what, encountering her in that way actually applies in a spiritual sense for us too. And the respect we show for her allows us to go a lot deeper into the wounds. When we make more progress, I’ll ask her if she remembers her name…which I learned from another homeless person.
I think I would say that what happened at this funeral was sacrilegious; but not that any funeral for any transgender person is sacrilegious -- mind explaining what your line of reasoning is?
It’s more in the vein of a mental illness — which is not a sin, but certainly not a personality trait to be celebrated (with or without obscene pageantry) at a Catholic funeral. What I find most bizarre about this incident is that any priest among the parish authorities would agree to permit this funeral to take place, especially in New York’s principal Catholic Church, without a thorough investigation of the basic criteria: first and foremost, is the person a regular parishioner, or in any way connected to the parish community (such being, one would think, the basic requirement for requesting a funeral there) — certainly St. Patrick’s can’t handle permitting any funeral requested by just anybody who wants it, as if the building is little more than a fancy entertainment venue. But even if such is possible (for the right price, no doubt), one would think it’s standard procedure for the pastor or his associate to make basic enquiries as to the Catholicity of the deceased, and for the parties to exchange detailed information about the nature of the proposed ceremony — including the fact that Catholic funerals DO NOT PERMIT eulogies (with the possible exception of certain public figures — though I’d bet anything that even the funeral of JFK included only a proper Catholic funeral homily by the celebrant.) These, and other considerations, like appropriate music and procession, should all be discussed and agreed to ahead of time, for ANYBODY. The principal “crime” in the travesty is dereliction of duty on the part of the presiding priest, who should be disciplined by his superior.
I did wonder about the "eulogy" myself.
I have no idea what the status of that church is. If it is like my cathedral, it is really like any other church, only bigger. I am not sure how many of those who have funerals are "regulars". That would be an interesting statistics to have.
The Church’s general approach (which varies by country) is to assume and hope that the person is searching for God, as the purpose of our faith journey is not to establish a legal declaration (similar to what you see in Protestantism) but to help people continue the marathon of conversion. Ratzinger gave communion to a Protestant pastor who was so moved by the encounter he later converted, and as pope, Benedict XVI gave communion to some shockingly abhorrent dictators. In any case, I am furious at what happened at St. Patrick’s. Disgusting.
I think this is a plausible but narrow reading of the law that maybe could have used a bit more explanation as to what scenarios would permit or prohibit a burial. The presence of gender dysphoria in the past doesn't seem to prohibit a Christian burial, gender dysphoria at the time of death would get dicey depending on the perceived culpability of the person and possible scandal, ruling out referring to the person as other than their given gender, which would probably be ok only in a few case, I guess
Father Martin also said that he made his comment a to the NYTimes under the assumption that Gentili was a believer. That a professed atheist should have their funeral at St Patrick's Cathedral, then continue to mock the Catholic faith throughout the ceremony, is what bothers me most about this story.
That's, in my mind, a tricky question. I expect Ed and I will talk about atheism and funerals on our podcast this week.
Good. We just have to go a few days without anything more controversial happening.
Thanks JD. The question of whether an atheist could have a funeral in a Catholic church is the aspect which troubled me most about this outrage in St Patrick's.
Of course, it is one thing having a public circus, accompanied by multiple transgender and prostitution provocations, in the most famous Catholic church in the USA. It is another thing having a low key funeral for the non believing respectable husband of a practising Catholic woman in my very ordinary Chapel of Ease in an English suburb.
We have had two such funerals in recent years without it being spread all over social media or the Catholic blogosphere. Is there canonical guidance on such funerals? Or perhaps implicit "pastoral" practice informally directed from above...as long as you don't get your Bishop on primetime news.. ..
That IS a tricky question, and I will be interested in your podcast. The family (or who I presume was family) didn't seem atheist. One of eulogists talked about (in Spanish, if my memory serves) about "Cecilia" being with her grandparents in heaven. Another eulogist expressed the belief that the deceased lives "on a different plane." So for family and friends at the funeral, the hope of heaven and an afterlife were certainly present. I pray that some souls may have heard the message of the Gospel despite the distractions.
Cool, looking forward to hearing your analysis! I can see why it's complicated the more I think about it.
Surely there can be nothing blameworthy about lying in a good cause. Now, if an unprincipled reporter had caught him sniggering about it and told, that would be reprehensible.
not sure I follow.
Irony. Sarcasm. Whatever :o)
Not sure what system could truly have prevented this unless they’re going to do a google/social media search for every request.
When I registered at my parish, no one asked me to prove I was baptized/confirmed. They ask us to always put our envelopes in the collection plate so they can track Mass attendance (this is for the purpose of the school and faith formation office) , but I’ve never used an envelope. In fact, I haven’t attended mass in that parish since 2020. This is the only parish I’ve ever been registered in.
The priest who confirmed me is no longer with us.
Simply put, there would be no formal record that I am a practicing Catholic and any parish would have to take the word of my friends and family.
Just for your edification, there is a formal record of your confirmation. It is recorded in your baptismal registry!
Also, in 2024, is a google search for each request a good idea? It could be!
I was baptized in a Protestant tradition.
Cool! then when you entered the Church, a record was made in the parish baptismal registry. s.o.p. and pro forma.
Ok, one hurdle overcome. Now the trick would be for someone to know which parish that was and to find that record. Seeing as I haven’t lived in that town in more than 10 years, the person trying to verify would need to know a lot about me.
I guess I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. My only point was that there is a record.
And I'm surprised that your baptismal record wasn't checked when you registered in the parish -- it might have been, incidentally.
My point is there is not a system that I am aware of that could confirm for someone that I am a practicing Catholic, or even that I am a baptized/confirmed Catholic who has the right to receive a funeral mass.
I used my own experience as an example because I entered the Church my senior year of HS. My priest did not require me to attend any faith formation/RCIA classes because “you get enough of that at school” (my religion teacher cried tears of joy when I told her that).
A year later I was across the country in school and never registered in a parish until 2016 when I was working for that parish as Dir. of Evangelization.
While my story is not a universal experience, it is a common enough experience. One of the issues we faced at that parish was people not being registered. Being one of the largest parishes in WNY, we had frequent requests for funerals, weddings, baptisms, and letters of recommendation for godparents. There were many we had to reject because we couldn’t accommodate all requests and prioritized those who were members of our community. If someone wasn’t registered - as many millennials are not - we had no choice but to reject their request unless we knew them personally.
This is the state of the Church in 2024.
I registered at a parish on the west side of Detroit in 1998. I would be amazed if they checked on my 1953 baptism in Cheltenham, 120 miles west of London. Never mind my First Communion and Confirmation records. Seeing that other parishioners also came from other countries, that's a lot of long distance paperwork.
I was also baptized in a Protestant church. When I was confirmed, I had to submit my protestant baptism certificate and the baptism date and location was noted on my confirmation certificate. The parish where I was confirmed now holds all my sacramental records.
One need not be Catholic to have a Catholic funeral. We'll bury almost anyone on request as recent history demonstrates. A policy of a Google search for "strangers" would have revealed the obituary of this poor soul whose survivor's antics brought so much shame. Google will not discover everything, but will in general reveal a scandalous (or the risk of scandalous) deceased so that the proper resources can be at hand to ensure the dignity of the Catholic Rites requested, and alert persons to many (but not all) persons or groups that might to ambush the liturgy for their own ends instead of God's.
It has nothing to do with the personal, sacramental records of the Church which are accessed rarely. In my case my baptismal record might have been accessed 5 times in 60 years.
Except that all baptized Catholics have rights under Canon law that non-Catholics do not. One such right is the right to a funeral Mass. If a Mass is what is requested (as seems to be the case here) the priest needs to know the person was Catholic. Otherwise it is not permitted.
As for the google search, it may not find the obituary. Even if it did, it may not have enough information.
When we planned mom’s funeral last month her obituary had not been written yet, and it certainly had not been published. The longer the obituary, and the larger the circulation, the more money outlets charge to publish. Want photos? Add an additional charge for that.
This is not to say google would not have revealed something worth taking a closer look, only that it would be unlikely to reveal anything in a standard obituary.
I don't see why the priest should take requests in good faith, even if the person didn't attend mass or maybe wasn't even Catholic (or lapsed a long time ago).
If the person was not Catholic, they cannot have a funeral Mass. They can still have a funeral SERVICE, but not a Mass.
If they were a baptized Catholic, they have the right to a Mass.
With the high number of mixed/lapsed families today, it is likely people wouldn’t know the difference nor the importance for Catholics to have the funeral Mass, making it both a point of Canon Law and an opportunity for evangelization.
OK, fair point, but still you take what you are told at face value.
Taking what you’re told at face value is how we ended up with this scandal.
Perhaps, but I can't see what else one might want to do.
Absolutely a difficult question. In this specific case, since the person was not a member of the parish, perhaps insist on a meeting with the celebrant at least 4 days before the funeral, then use that time to do a quick search and determine if the funeral is likely to cause scandal. You could also ask for the deceased’s sacramental records, but as I’ve addressed elsewhere that’s its own can of worms.
It is obvious these activist chose St Patrick's because it is St Patrick's.
The celebrant, upon seeing the crowd gather, and their attire and attitude, should have refused to proceed. None of the things done there would have been allowed in my parish. "According to the photos provided by the Times, “Mass cards and a picture near the altar showed a haloed Ms. Gentili surrounded by the Spanish words for ‘transvestite,’ ‘whore,’ ‘blessed’ and ‘mother’ above the text of Psalm 25.”
Fr Dougherty deserves more charity than you have given him. I have no idea what went through his mind at that moment, but it’s entirely possible that he - with only a moment to decide - chose to abandon the Mass so as to limit the sacrilege and abuse sure to take place, while also making the decision it was better to do something - which may or may not make national news - rather than kick everyone out which surely would’ve made headlines of “Mean Catholics show off bigotry by canceling funeral for LGBT activist at last minute.”
We can critique the decision, but let’s at least do so with charity and remember that we weren’t in his position. We don’t know what he knew and when he knew it.
"rather than kick everyone out which surely would’ve made headlines of “Mean Catholics show off bigotry by canceling funeral for LGBT activist at last minute.”
- What he should have done was delay. Announce that there was a "problem" and that it was being sorted out. He should have contacted his superiors and let them know what was going on. After an hour announce that the funeral, due to the "problem," was being delayed into sometime in the future. When pressed he should have said that it was an internal Catholic issue and that announcements would be made in the future.
If the activists then threw a fit they could be asked to leave. Maybe put out the Lord in a monstrance and invite those who wished to remain to silently pray and reflect.
Until we care more about what God thinks, than what our neighbor thinks, God will not be honored as he should be. We all need to be more courageous.
Of course we don’t know what went through his mind, but it seems from the video that it was Father King who made the decision to not go forward with the Mass. I am interested in knowing what the Times meant by “Mass Cards.” Perhaps something resembling prayer cards? I cannot imagine anyone in that crowd offering Masses.
I agree with you. After watching the video, I thought he seemed somewhat in shock and did the best he could. The people who actually misbehaved were few and mostly toward the end. The majority of the crowd were clearly unchurched, but stood and sat as directed and were quiet during the readings and prayers, even if they thought the appropriate response was to clap afterwards. There were clearly grieving people, the prostitutes and tax-collectors that Jesus loves and wants to heal, even if we find them outrageous. I don't know how Father could have just turned them all away. He did the merciful thing to proceed, especially because there is always hope that even one soul will be turned to Christ in the process.
// Not sure what system could truly have prevented this unless they’re going to do a google/social media search for every request. //
Regrettably, we live in an age in which it is only realistic and prudent to do just that.
Im sure the person would have to be repented to be baptized right? The same for being a God-parent?
In any case, I feel bad for the priest. Confusion can cause people to be stunned but Im glad he was able to change it to just a service through that craziness.
Could we get a Pillar explainer on what precisely constitutes a Catholic funeral and who merits one, as well as what the options are for people who don't? On the one hand, I'm sympathetic to Mr. Zwilling's statement that "every single one [funeral] has been for a sinner in need of God's mercy"—he's not wrong, and it seems especially true that those who died apparently persistent in sin are most in need of our prayers. On the other hand, Fr. Salvo is absolutely right that the cathedral was deceived as to the nature of the funeral, and much of what happened therein was totally inappropriate if not sacrilegious. After all, burying the dead, comforting the afflicted, and praying for the living and the dead are universal obligations, whether the dead is a literal saint or a transgender activist. At the same time, our charitable obligations shouldn't be used to wink at sin or permit sacrilege for the sake of good feelings.
I guess what I'm asking is, what's the most charitable approach that simultaneously respects the unique character of Catholic funerals while also giving the dead and their bereaved the true love, mercy, and prayer they need?
All (except Jesus and Mary) are sinners. All (except Jesus alone) need salvation. But only *repentant* sinners are ready to receive it. If a sinner (i.e. human) is unrepentant, that refusal to repent constitutes a barrier to grace.
Those who die condemned to hell are beyond the reach of prayer. Since we can't know who dies in that state, it is good to pray for all the dead without exception, but not all the dead benefit from those prayers, since those in hell have placed themselves beyond the reach of prayer.
The funeral is a ceremony full of symbols that show divine realities, particularly showing the mystery of God's grace and mercy. It is inappropriate to publicly perform rituals that emphasize forgiveness if there is strong evidence that the person for whom the rituals are being performed did not want forgiveness. Private prayers, and Masses for the soul of the departed, can and should be offered without the specific ceremony of a funeral.
That's just my take, of course....
That poor priest. I guarantee you he was simply assigned to it and given nothing more than a fact card from the funeral home. The question of “how to handle this on the spot without creating a riot” must have been on his mind.
At least he made the great call not to continue with the funeral as a mass. We can Monday morning quarterback his decisions, but he got that one right.
It was Father King, not Father Dougherty, who made that call.
Indeed, but this is a parish that has long been in the media spotlight. They ought to have learned long ago to be especially on the lookout for booby traps.
The Cardinal has been grossly let down by his clergy, as have all Catholics. "Egg in the face" is a euphemism.
Especially so soon after that fiasco where a provocative pop video was filmed at a beautiful but much less famous New York Church. I guess that our luckless clergy will have to get into a almost paranoid mindset before approving any kind of activity inside their churches.
Looks to me like the priest understandably was not aware of the prominence of this individual in the LGBT community, took things at face value (such as the deceased's preferred pronouns) uncritically, and then the actual liturgy started and spiraled out of his control with the audience members interjections and speakers espousing things directly contrary to the faith, he didn't know how to rein things back in and maybe felt like the the entire situation would devolve if he tried.
The entire thing was clearly a ****show, but I'm not seeing how much we could have expected the priest to be able to have foreseen beforehand and prevented.
Wish he had done the funeral. It would have been interesting to see how he'd deal or not deal with the situation.
I have a profound appreciation for that sentiment, but seeing the Church desecrated is bad enough without hoping that it be defiled any worse...
I guess that's my biggest question in this case: what does the priest do in the face of obviously disrespectful and disturbing behavior? What did the priests do when ACT UP disrupted Masses back in the day? It seems this priest wasn't given any guidance, which is a little odd to me. I mean, St. Patrick's Cathedral is a very prominent symbol of Catholicism, and therefore an irresistible target for anti-Catholic haters looking for attention.
I think this situation is a little different than when some group comes in from the outside to disrupt a mass. The people making the disruptions were part of the liturgy and the majority of the audience, so the priest probably felt very much "without backup" so to speak. I don't know that he actually had the power to stop them even if he'd had tried.
Well said.
The NYT asked the cathedral to comment the day before the funeral. That should have prompted them to Google and escalate the issue.
Bingo.
I don’t think that implies the spokesman alerted clergy about the inquiry. In fact, so far, it seems the spokesman issued his reply before leadership properly understood the situation and his initial response to it because they issued a much different second statement as events unfolded. I could be wrong, but it seems plausible he just didn’t tell his bosses.
"Cecilia Gentili, who identified as a transgender woman and an activist."
This line made me laugh out loud. So Cecilia identified as an activist as well :D
Thanks for this.
I feel for the priest celebrant since, until this hit the news, I had never heard of Gentili either. I believe he didn’t know anything about the person other than what he was told. I’ve also celebrated funerals where - while not exactly like this - things got out of control. It’s tough to balance maintaining decorum and at the same time being compassionate toward families that are often suffering on many levels. The priest was in a tough spot not of his own making.
Funerals are one of the times we priests can minister to people who don’t go to Church, are disengaged from their faith, and are in need of evangelization. Sometimes treating them kindly and respectfully at the funeral not only helps them in their grief but also begins to heal their broken relationship with the Church. It at least creates an opening for God’s grace.
This went terribly wrong, but I can believe the priest entered the moment with good intentions and was blindsided. He did the best he could to manage a bad situation. If we didn’t live in an age when almost everything is broadcasted everywhere, he probably would have gone back to the rectory afterward and decided quietly how to avoid getting into a situation like that again.
Good intentions pave the way to public disgrace. There must have been at least one staffer who pointed out to the authorities that the odor of rat was strong about this event. Another commenter remarked that the NYT had asked the parish about it on the day before. Hint? Time to google? In a time when the Church is widely and aggressively under public fire, this should have been defused quietly before it happened.
I think in all fairness and fidelity to the truth & the Catholic faith, The Pillar should have made it clear right in the first paragraph of this article that this was a biological man and have indicated what his original male name was rather than going along with his desire to identify as female and as "Cecilia."
I'm an extremely well-read and educated Catholic adult & I still don't understand or comprehend right off the bat what is meant by the terms "transgender male" or "transgender female" and what that means they actually are biologically vs what they "identify" as in their own minds.
I dunno. I appreciated The Pillar's discretion, and think they managed to write the article in a way that is journalistically and traditionally acceptable. To start off with "was born a man and identified as a woman" would have seemed very combative to many people. And they made some other editorial choices to ensure that they didn't deny the traditional teaching and practice of the Church on sexuality with their language.
I think that "many people" is not the issue here. There is fantasy and there is fact. Clergy owe it to the flock not to equivocate about that.
// I still don't understand or comprehend right off the bat what is meant by the terms "transgender male" or "transgender female" //
Easy. When you see "transgender" before "male" or "female", reverse the meaning.
Thought we might see something original here, instead of what just seemed like a summary of reporting from elsewhere. No mention of what looked like absolute joy on the face of Dougherty, and the swipe he took at the Church for having empty pews during other events. Constantly being labelled as “right leaning/wing” by other Catholic writers seems to be having the desired effect of muting what was once a daily read.
I’ve seen the comment elsewhere that the priest commented on the size of the crowd. I took his remark about how “turned out” the mourners were to be a reference to their attire.
From the moment Dougherty walked out he looked “among his own,” or it was the largest crowd that ever “turned/turnt out” for a service he was officiating. Unless and until we hear directly from him and he denies knowing anything at all, he knew. I won’t give priests the benefit of the doubt when we hear about one episode of abuse after another on a near daily/weekly basis. They’re always blameless sheep…until they’re not. Maybe we’re all so tired from the constant beating our psyche takes in order to make obvious BS smell like roses, we don’t realize the jokes on us.
There’s plenty of blame to go around. I was just pointing out that Father Dougherty did not take a swipe at the Church for having empty pews although some media outlets heard it that way. The quote was “ “Except on Easter Sunday we don’t really have a crowd that is this well turned out.” He was joking about the attire. I didn’t like the joke but that is what it was about.
Man I thought the headline photo was someone dressed in a giant mole costume and was waiting for the article to address it.