UPDATE:
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.
UPDATE:
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.
Loading ...
Not to mention, Fr. Martin calls them married without any quotations or without any qualifying word like “civil”, thus implying that a sodomitic couple is really married, which is also false.
Ted Kennedy was given a Catholic funeral in Boston. Mario Cuomo given a Catholic funeral in NY. Both did all they could to support and promote abortion.
Fr. Martin is becoming more brazen. He’ll make a misstep or a mistweet eventually. His ego and sense of invincibility and lack of correction from bishops and his religious superior will make him overconfident.
@FrAnt – Beat me to it!
@Sawyer – More brazen, but who would dare stand against him that hasn’t already tried? Were Fr Martin to be caught, in flagrante delicto, engaging in the most grotesque acts of buggery such as to blush even the pagan Greeks of old, who would dare “judge” him these days?
Further evidence that Fr. Martin and his fellow LGBT advocates will sexualize anything and everything.
To see such prurient inclinations in a priest is profoundly disturbing.
“Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat!
“Again?”
I mean no disrespect to Bullwinkle by comparing Fr. Martin’s repeated and unconvincing efforts to legitimize homosexual acts (as as contrasted by homosexuals as persons with free will and homosexuality as a condition that produces same-sex attraction) to the beloved cartoon moose’s failed but funny attempts at magic.
We are all sinners and in need of grace, but it is not as if we have the chance for God to apply that grace to us AFTER WE DIE. That’s the point of denying Catholic funerals to manifest, public sinners. Fr. Martin endangers people’s souls to carry on as if this distinction doesn’t exist.
Fr. Z, I am having a bit of difficulty with “ferox”. My Lewis and Short doesn’t give me much to work with, and I appear to be missing some post-classical subtext. Perhaps you could explain what I am missing, and better from where?
So, according to Father Martin, one wrong makes another wrong right. That’s not what my mother taught me. She said two wrongs don’t make a right.
Lavender Mafia.
I am astonished. Fr Martin just equated murderous, thuggish, evil mobsters to be the same as “married” homosexuals. I’m not sure the LGBT movement would appreciate the equivalence…..
Just who exactly is immediately responsible for this man? The ball isn’t simply being dropped; whoever his immediate superior is isn’t even looking for the ball…
More and more, the impression of the Church is that it scandalizes instead of edifies.
[No no. Not “the Church”.]
Btw, Fr. James Flavin (who said Bulger’s funeral Mass) is one of the Boston Archdiocese’s Episcopal vicars. He is not the pastor of the place (which seems to have become more of a Hispanic parish in recent years).
So yeah. interesting.
What? No discussion of the scandal given by one of the Pope’s 9 besties, the exquisite capuchin of beantown, “his imminence”, the Cardinal of “Camelot”, model for Martin, bosom buddy of Bulger, head of the sodomitical seminary of sin, the man in scarlet himself, Seaaaaaaaaan OOOOO’Malleeeeeeeey?
That man remains a big problem.
The Sons of Liberty have more work to do down at the harbor….
Peters says that the fact that the (fill in t he blank) violated the law that doesn’t mean that everyone else can
—————
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.
———————-
WELLLL, how about illegal immigration, it is the law?? isn’t it? yet some in the church condemn the President for enforcing the law (as his job title demands) and encourage law breaking. Fr Martin is not alone
Just drawing a line
Does Fr Martin tweet (or talk, or write) about anything other than sodomy?
Okay… Just time for a few thoughts and responses to notions and comments before leaving for Mass
Those with an issue with Martin – have at it. I’ll stick with the Bulger issue.
Those who look to Dr Peters to back up the contention that this funeral Mass is a problem and at the same time harken back to the Ted Kennedy funeral might want to read the several articles Dr. Peters wrote (and linked) that provided some backup for the notion of the Kennedy funeral.
Those that cite the Gotti example – besides his crimes, he specifically rejected a priest sent with the opportunity for Reconciliation in his last days.
Is the Archdiocese of Boston, in which Bulger lived for only maybe two years (while on federal trial) out of the last twenty-two, supposed to get “letters of (n0) freedom” from all the other dioceses in which he lived on the lam or in prison?
If people are going to take shots at Father Flavin, at least go read what he said: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2018/11/victims_kin_blast_whitey_bulgers_church_rites
Yeah, the optics suck. How else to do it, though? Slough it off on some other parish?
To the notion that Cardinal O’Malley is a pal of Bulger – I doubt they’ve ever met. Whitey was on the lam long before O’Malley was assigned to Boston. While O’Malley was in Fall River earlier, Bulger didn’t have much reach down there.
“…but it is not as if we have the chance for God to apply that grace to us AFTER WE DIE….”? I just don’t have the time to pick apart how wrong that is.
Dismas: Fr. is referring to the insulting Italian term for homosexuals, “froccio,” which is derived from the Latin “ferox.” See his post of Aug. 17 https://wdtprs.com/2018/08/wherein-fr-z-offers-one-of-the-hardest-posts-he-has-ever-written/
WHEN will the Church reprimand this priest for what he says. He represents (?) the Catholic Church and as such he should be VERY careful what he says and who he leads astray because he will have to answer for it.
For Satan, scandal is “the gift that keeps on giving”.
The bishop of my diocese, who is wrongly considered “conservative” or “traditional”, regularly publishes pictures of himself with the pseudo-catholic, apparently pro-“LGBT” liberal Mayor.
This Mayor regularly raises the “Gay Pride Month” flags throughout the downtown area of the city – and he even brazenly raises the “Gay Pride Flags” directly outside of the Diocesan Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception.
The bishop says nothing about this grave scandal, and the bishop is regularly pictured in the diocesan liberal propaganda paper smiling with this scandalous Mayor.
This is very similar to the mortally sinful actions/words/evils of James Martin, SJ.
Again, for Satan, scandal is the “gift that keeps on giving” – in part because, like James Martin, SJ., those who support evil can use the above argument that Fr. Z. refutes: “If Whitey Bulger, then why not Ricardo Simmons”? So, the scandal “keeps on giving” so to speak, to those who wish to spread grave evil.
I believe Cardinal O’Connor denied a Catholic funeral to mobster Paul Castellano, who was gunned down in 1985. (I believe Gov. Cuomo cried foul.)
I read that Cardinal Spellman denied a funeral for NY Congressman Vito Marcantonio, a Soviet fellow traveler on the grounds that he had not practiced his faith, and there was no indication he reconciled with the Church.
Wait until someone associated with the SSPX dies. If you recall, those on the left who want the Church to be more tolerant of dissent were the ones who objected the loudest to Pope Benedict lifting the excommunication.
Martin’s reasoning is moral relativism at it’s worst. He would snap up any bit of scandal to support his far left agenda. He is truly the Apostle of Sodomy.
James Martin LFBTQSJ is the pied piper of sodomy.
If Mr. Bulger was truly repentant and was trying to reform his life, then thanks be to God. But that is not what Fr. Flavin said; he said outright that it was done for the family.
The family has not released any evidence that Bulger was repentant, either. He had years when he could have turned himself in, or done good works. But he didn’t do anything of the kind. I never heard that he did anything philanthropic in prison, either, or even that he apologized to the families of his victims. This Esquire letter linked from 2015 is the first sign of human concern I have ever seen in any Bulger info.
Well, we do not have funerals for the sake of living family members. Sometimes non-Catholic Christians of good reputation get buried from a parish for pastoral reasons. But even a family of saints cannot make a notorious sinner holy by force, and the Bulgers are a family that notoriously has profited and prospered through corruption of their city and state government, federal law enforcement, and even their archdiocese ties.
Even Jeffrey Dahmer managed more of an open amendment of his life. So yeah, this funeral seemed profoundly unpastoral. They could have taken other options.
That said, there is nothing to prevent people praying for his soul. He had a long gruesome death, and may have repented even then.
I thought of something that might explain things. There has been some talk about the mysterious way Bulger’s health status was changed, which led to his sudden transfer to a tougher prison with younger and more violent men. The rumor was that this occurred because Bulger wanted to confess his crimes more fully, which would implicate people in the federal government.
Now, if Bulger had wanted to be absolved in Holy Confession, a secular confession would have to occur. And if he had made honest efforts that got thwarted by his murder, possibly the chaplain for his previous prison would have known that, and have passed that along to the Boston archdiocese.
In that case, though, one would expect different wording from Fr. Flavin, in order to prevent scandal.
Today’s apostles are elite members of a global religious organization which has secretly targeted young boys and unsuspecting adults for sexual sport. Nothing in Canon Law prevents these perverted soul murderers from routinely receiving a Christian burial when they die. Basic human decency on the other hand, doesn’t apply in cases involving everyone else if it involves scandal. So much for the equal application of moral law when it comes to murderers and homosexuals of the protected celibate class.
It doesn’t appear that Canon Law was violated. Canon 1184 §2 says:” If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed”
It’s clear from the news reports that the archdiocese approved the funeral, which was private (no prior public notice, only family and a few close friends allowed in the church, no procession to cemetery). Those may have been conditions of the bishop’s approval.