I wonder if this changes the issue somewhat. HERE Bolger apparently wrote to someone about his regrets. Private letter, not a public statement.
No… it doesn’t change much.
Originally Published on: Nov 10, 2018
Here is yet another example of scandalous Jesuit homosexualist activist James Martin, LGBTSJ committing scandal and undermining the morals of Catholics.
Whitey Bugler, mobster and murderer, died and, for some inexcusable reason the Archdiocese of Boston permitted a funeral Mass for him, though that is explicitly contrary to Canon Law.
What Boston did caused scandal. That is, their action brought on other sin, especially in the case of homosexualist Martin’s arguement below. This is how scandal works: one person sins and another uses that sin to justify his own sin.
A Funeral Mass in a Catholic church was celebrated for Whitey Bulger, the mobster. As is right. We are all sinners and in need of grace. But file this story away the next time a bishop or priest denies a funeral to an LGBT person because they are married. https://t.co/qZG6xvryX3
— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) November 10, 2018
Look at that #sodojesuital argument. If Bulger gets a funeral, and he was a sinner, then all sinners get funerals. And since all of us are sinners, we all should get funerals, including homosexual couples.
Not so fast. The Church’s law, can. 1184 § 1 n. 1, says “manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without scandal”. If the sin is manifest (as it surely was in the case of Whitey Bulger), then funerals must be denied lest scandal result. There was, apparently, no sign of repentance on Bulger’s part that was made public. Hence, he was and remained a manifest public sinner.
Homosexuals who civilly marry are manifest public sinners. Unless they give public signs of repentance they remain manifest public sinners and they must be denied ecclesiastical funerals lest scandal result.
Prof. Peters has a great piece about this whole pile of rubbish and Martin’s shoveling of it. HERE
Peters says that the fact that the Archd. of Boston violated the law that doesn’t mean that everyone else can (that’s the point about “scandal”). Martin the Jesuit, who knows better – he’s not stupid, even though his intellect and will seem to be darkened with the fascination of sodomy in its various forms – comes right out and says, “if mobsters, then homosexuals”. Never mind that the law was violated in the first instance and in the second instance. Who cares?
See how devious Martin’s message is?
The Archdiocese violated the law. Martin sees that violation and then tells you to violate the law.
The serpent deceived Eve. Eve offered the apple to Adam.
“Did the Church’ssssss law really sssssay that you can’t do that? Really? Never mind the law. Go ahead. Do as you pleassssssssse.”
Peters makes the point that so long is the law, then the law must be obeyed. If the Legislator wants to change the law, the Legislator is free to do so. However, until then, we must follow it, particularly in important points such as these.
BTW… perhaps Martin didn’t notice that he drew a straight line between a mobster murderer and homosexuals. Perhaps he had in mind the Latin word ferox or perhaps even the fact that the infamous Stonewall Inn was run by the mafia precisely for that sort of sinner.