Skip to comments.Radio Replies First Volume - Protestant services
Posted on 11/03/2009 8:12:02 PM PST by GonzoII
Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
Catholics should check with their Pastor on some of these replies regarding Protestant services, some of the disciplines have changed as I know we can attend and Ecumenical service.
Here is a more recent answer given by Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P:
In the first place a Catholic has no business attending Protestant church services even occasionally. To participate in a heretical worship service and especially a communion service can be sinful for a Catholic because such an act is an affirmation of what we believe to be untrue. To attend an ecumenical service or a wedding or baptism is allowed, but Catholics are not allowed to attend such churches for the main reason of worship. Now if there are no Catholic churches in the vicinity on a Sunday, Catholics are allowed to participate in the Liturgy of Churches whose clergy are validly ordained such as the Eastern Orthodox Churchesincluding the reception of the Eucharist. Although we consider them to be in schism (not in union with the Pope) with the Catholic Church, such Churches are not heretical and share our basic beliefs."
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P."
If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.
It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.
While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.
And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.
A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.
Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.
The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.
Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.
"I was brought up as a Protestant, probably with more inherited prejudices than most non-Catholics of these days. My parents were Anglican and taught me the Angelican faith. My 'broad-minded' protestant teachers taught me to dislike the Catholic Church intensely. I later tried Protestantism in various other forms, and it is some thirty years since, in God's providence, I became a Catholic. As for the 'open, free, sincere worship' of a Protestant Church, I tasted it, but for me it proved in the end to be not only open, but empty; it was altogether too free from God's prescriptions."
Eventually, Leslie became a priest of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.
In 1928, Fr. Rumble began a one-hour 'Question Box' program on 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. radio on Sunday evenings that was heard all over Australia and New Zealand. For five years he answered questions on every subject imaginable that had been written to him from all over that part of the globe. His first show began with a classic introduction:
"Good evening, listeners all. For some time I have been promising to give a session dealing with questions of religion and morality, in which the listeners themselves should decide what is of interest to them. Such a session will commence next Sunday evening, and I invite you to send in any questions you wish on these subjects . . . So now I invite you, non-Catholics above all, to send in any questions you wish on religion, or morality, or the Catholic Church, and I shall explain exactly the Catholic position, and give the reasons for it. In fact I almost demand those questions. Many hard things have been said, and are still being said, about the Catholic Church, though no criminal, has been so abused, that she has a right to be heard. I do not ask that you give your name and address. A nom de plume will do. Call yourself Voltaire, Confucius, X.Y.Z., what you like, so long as you give indication enough to recognize your answer."
"By the summer of 1937, the first edition of Radio Replies was already in print in Australia, financed by Rt. Rev. Monsignor James Meany, P.P. - the director of Station 2SM of whom I am greatly indebted."
"I have often been mistaken, as most men at times. And it is precisely to make sure that I will not be mistaken in the supremely important matter of religion that I cling to a Church which cannot be mistaken, but must be right where I might be wrong. God knew that so many sincere men would make mistakes that He deliberately established an infallible Church to preserve them from error where it was most important that they should not go wrong."
Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty
I broadcast my radio program, the Catholic Radio Hour, from St. Paul, Minnesota.
I was also carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on the Catholic Faith, Radio Replies proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. As many of us street preachers have learned, it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners, but what you get into their hands to read. The questions Fr. Rumble had to answer on the other side of the planet are same the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign."
I realized that this priest in Australia was doing exactly the same work I was doing here in St. Paul. Because of the success of his book, plus the delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe, I got in contact with him to publish a cheap American edition.
It doesn't take long for the imagination to start thinking about how much we could actually do. We began the Radio Replies Press Society Publishing Company, finished the American edition of what was to be the first volume of Radio Replies, recieved the necessary imprimatur, and Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen agreed to write a preface. About a year after the publication of the first edition in Australia, we had the American edition out and in people's hands.
The book turned into a phenomena. Letters began pouring into my office from every corner of the United States; Protestant Publishing Houses are requesting copies for distribution to Protestant Seminaries; a few Catholic Seminaries have adopted it as an official textbook - and I had still never met Dr. Rumble in person.
To keep a long story short, we finally got a chance to meet, published volumes two and three of Radio Replies, printed a set of ten booklets on subjects people most often asked about, and a few other pamphlets on subjects of interest to us.
Fr. Carty died on May 22, 1964 in Connecticut.
"Firstly, since God is the Author of all truth, nothing that is definitely true can every really contradict anything else that is definitely true. Secondly, the Catholic Church is definitely true. It therefore follows that no objection or difficulty, whether drawn from history, Scripture, science, or philosophy, can provide a valid argument against the truth of the Catholic religion."
Biographies compiled from the introductions to Radio Replies, volumes 1, 2 and 3.
Radio Replies Volume One: Natural Religion & Revealed Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Mysteries of Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Miracles
Radio Replies Volume One: Value of the Gospels
Radio Replies Volume One: Inspiration of the Gospels
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 1]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 2]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 3]
Radio Replies Volume One: New Testament Difficulties
Radio Replies Volume One: Conflicting Churches
Radio Replies Volume One: Are All One Church?
Radio Replies Volume One: Is One Religion As Good As Another?
Radio Replies Volume One: The Fallacy of Indifference
Radio Replies Volume One: Protestantism Erroneous
Radio Replies Volume One: Luther
Radio Replies Volume One: Anglicanism
Radio Replies Volume One: Greek Orthodox Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Wesley
Radio Replies Volume One: Baptists
Radio Replies Volume One: Adventists
Radio Replies Volume One: Salvation Army
Radio Replies Volume One: Witnesses of Jehovah
Radio Replies Volume One: Christian Science
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The true Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Hierarchy of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The Pope
Radio Replies Volume One: Temporal Power
Radio Replies Volume One: Not opposed to the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: The reading of the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: Protestants and the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: "Bible Only" a false principle
Radio Replies Volume One: The necessity of Tradition
Radio Replies Volume One: The authority of the Catholic Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Dogmatic Truth
Radio Replies Volume One: Development of Dogma
Radio Replies Volume One: Dogma and Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Rationalism
Radio Replies Volume One: The Holy Trinity
Radio Replies Volume One: Confirmation
Radio Replies Volume One: Confession
Radio Replies Volume One: Holy Eucharist
Radio Replies Volume One: The Sacrifice of the Mass
Radio Replies Volume One: Holy Communion
Radio Replies Volume One: Veracity/Mental Restriction
Radio Replies Volume One: Charity
Radio Replies Volume One: Ecclesiastical Censures/Liberty
Radio Replies Volume One: Index of Prohibited Books
Radio Replies Volume One: Persecution
We will let them hire some next time.
That would depend upon their convictions. We do not judge Protestants on principles they do not hold. If they think one religion as good as any other, I suppose they could attend almost any religion with a good conscience. But if an Anglican, for example, thought his to be the only true Church, and that all others were wrong, he would sin by attending other forms of worship. Objectively, of course, a Protestant does not sin by attending Catholic services. One who has the wrong religion may attend services of the right religion. But he who has the right religion certainly cannot attend the services of a wrong religion. Catholics may not assist at any but Catholic services.
"The 70, 80 and 90 year olds in my family are all Catholics and my young Presbyterian cousins and I are sick of being pall bearers. We will let them hire some next time."
Your elderly relatives are old enough that they might have heard these radio broadcasts. Remind them what these lectures say about your Presbyterianism, and tell them that the Catholic Church of their day considered you a fiendish heretic. Ask them if they trust a heretic to handle their casket.
Then buy them a DVD of Kennedy's funeral, and teach them the meaning of "irony".
I assure you my Catholic family have no idea what a DVD is.
I am not sure about canon law in the 1920’s when Fathers Rumble & Carty were writing this. However, there is certainly nothing in current canon law forbidding Catholics from attending Protestant services, provided that the Catholic does not participate in a non-sacramental communion service.
“”Re:Can Catholics attend Protestant Services?
Yes, Catholics may attend Protestant Services. In fact, there are many occasions on which it is appropriate to gather with our separated brothers and sisters in Christ and pray with them, such as at Thanksgiving or other civic gatherings.
However, Catholics should be mindful of a couple of things. First, we should avoid any false ecumenism or appearance that there does not exist between us a real separation. While we can pray together, it is inappropriate for Catholics to receive sacraments for non-Catholic ministers. The Code of Canon Law says, “Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2. “§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid. “ As this canon makes clear, Catholics are to receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers, unless it is a matter of true necessity or real spiritual need and usefulness. In that case, the Catholic may receive penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid. For all intents and purposes, only the Orthodox Churches have valid Eucharist because only they preserve valid apostolic succession and valid priestly ordination. So, if it is a Protestant or Episcopalian Church, you may pray with them but you make not partake of their communion.
Second, Catholics should fulfill their Sunday obligation (and Holy Days of Obligation) in Catholic Churches. While reception of the Eucharist is not necessary to fulfill the Sunday obligation (mindful that Catholics are required by law to take Holy Communion at least once a year, and at that time between Easter and Pentecost - in the Dioceses of the United States, we have lengthened the time period somewhat), Catholics who are properly disposed ought to receive the Eucharist as part of the Sunday celebration and every Mass at which they assist. Moreover, the Sunday celebration is a reminder of the communal nature of our faith and ought to be celebrate with those with whom we hold the faith in common. Finally, the celebration of the Mass is also meant to be catechetical - to teach one something - so, especially on Sundays and Holy Days - one ought to attend a Catholic Church in order to receive hear the Word of God proclaimed according to the faith Christ has revealed and which the Church has sought to explain through the centuries.
The bottom line, one can attend other Christian services and there certainly are times when this is appropriate. However, the regular celebration of one’s faith in a Catholic Church ought not to be interrupted, especially on Sundays and Holy Days. And Catholics should not partake in communion in other Churches, because we do not share a common faith in the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.
Answer provided by:
Very Rev. Kevin Michael Quirk, JCD
What utter gnonsense.
LOL. When I got married 51 years ago, my maid of honor was a Catholic. Lightning didn’t strike her as she walked down the aisle, cheez.
I know what you mean. I have a relative who just recently bought an HDTV. He's watching VHS tapes of I Love Lucy on it. He's never owned a DVD player.
A pity that your Catholic grandchildren won’t be anything but pall bearers at your generation’s funerals.
Thanks for that input, I new things had changed somewhat.
This is your classic, pre-Vatican II RC-ism, right?
Now John answered and said, Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us. But Jesus said to him, Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side.
Anyway, to get serious here, since your wedding day, the discipline of the Church has changed somewhat in these matters. There has been a relaxation on the mere attendance of Catholics at non-Catholic Christian weddings. This is due in part to a modified understanding of ecumenism, and it is also due to a more realistic outlook on how human nature works in an increasingly secular modern world. Marriages between two baptized Protestants are sacramental as far as the Catholic Church is concerned (and it has always considered them to be so), the couple confers the Sacrament on each other, the specific rites surrounding the vows are of secondary importance, and, in any case, the couple, being Protestant, is outside of Catholic jurisdiction anyway. Adding all of that up, the Church has, since the 70’s, reassessed Catholic attendance at such weddings, and allows such attendance. It is still the case, however, that Catholics shouldn't be attending with any official duties at the wedding, though.
Doubtless, some people will still criticize this as far too restrictive. Perhaps there might even be some truth to that. But this is not a matter of doctrine so much as it is a matter of internal discipline. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. This should not be all that hard for non-Catholics to understand. I doubt a good Presbyterian like yourself would attend the wedding of a Hindu friend at all, and certainly not take on any active role in the ceremony. You, thereby, will have drawn a line. Where is the tipping point of that line? I wouldn't presume to know, but the fact is, as a practical matter, there is, in fact, a line you would draw and not cross.
Catholics are called to draw lines, too. Ours are drawn perhaps a little closer in. In no way am I implying that a Presbyterian wedding is no different from a Hindu one! I merely used an “extreme case” to more easily show that almost any Christian draws a line somewhere. Ours is drawn closer in, in large part because we Catholics consider a valid Christian marriage to be a Sacrament, even when, in many cases, the non-Catholic couple and their church do not. Since divorce is, effectively, universally legitimized within Protestantism, it is not a good thing for a Catholic to attend, in an official capacity, a Sacramental wedding that the couple does not doctrinally see as incapable of being dissolved. Some might chafe at this, but it is hoped that non-Catholics might at least understand the need for the Catholic to be clear about his or her “line.” Again, it's a matter of degree, not kind, you all have your own lines to draw, if Christian doctrine would mean anything to you.
As an aside to this, surely you can also see that, as a matter of doctrinal consistency, no Catholic who knows any better would even attend, never mind officially participate in, the wedding of a divorced person of any denomination, Catholic or other. All Christian marriages are Sacramental, and therefore unbreakable bonds exist while both parties still live.
I know, I know. What about “annulments”? In the question of an annulled marriage, the determination is that the marriage never really existed due to several types of circumstances preexisting the wedding ceremony; in such cases, the person is free to marry “again,” because, in the eyes of the Church, it is for the first time. And an invited guest is free to attend. But there aren't really all that many such marriages to worry about.
You may think this is mumbo-jumbo, and no amount of “dialogue” is likely to change your assessment. Even so, a sincere and reasonably knowledgeable Catholic will not participate in any official capacity in a non-Catholic wedding, even if he or she might otherwise legitimately attend it. A sincere and reasonably knowledgeable Catholic will not attend “attempted marriages” between couples where one or both are divorced from valid preexisting marriages. This, in our understanding, is in fidelity to Christ Himself. We draw the line where it is drawn, because, as the Hebrew National hot dog folks might say: “We don't We can't. We have to answer to an even higher...Authority.” You guys generally think along similar lines, at least when it comes to non-Christian marriages. Again, it is a matter of degree, not kind. So the professed “wonderment” that usually attends these discussions is often a bit insincere. I hope you, at least, can see the logic here, even if you disagree with it, or with the exact placement of that “line.”
Thank you for your explanation. I appreciate your taking the time. Mary
You’re very welcome.
If both parties are validly baptized "cradle Protestants," I don't see that there's an issue.
(Of course, if communion is offered, a Catholic guest or member of the wedding party must decline it.)
Unlikely, unless they're Australians.
Even in “mixed marriages,” where one person is Catholic and the other is not, a dispensation to marry is routinely given by the Catholic bishops these days. Attending such weddings is perfectly okay. Even if the non-Catholic is non-Christian, attending the wedding is not a problem as long as the dispensation has been granted. Of course, it would be probable that such a wedding would not involve a Nuptial Mass (though I have seen exceptions), because a wedding between a Catholic and non-Christian is not a sacramental marriage, but is merely a “natural marriage.” Valid, yes. Just like any natural marriage between two Moslems or two Jews or a Hindu and Buddhist. But only two baptized persons can enter into a sacramental marriage. Two Catholics, two baptized Protestants, or a Catholic and baptized Protestant can enter into a sacramental marriage. No one else can, even if the Church recognizes those of other faiths as “valid” natural marriages. In the event of a person previously entering into a natural marriage and subsequently converting to the Faith, the marriage becomes sacramental at that point. People in these circumstances often have a ceremony where they renew their vows in church, but that is not the same as saying that they are only sacramentally married at that point. Those ceremonies are not a second wedding. The marriage became a Sacramental one, with all of the attendant graces at its disposal, the moment both parties became Christians.
I know most of this is off the track of your point, but I wanted to head-off a few derived scenarios some of the non-Catholics here might think about.
Oh, c'mon, Alex. Maybe they should read-up on needlessly divisive, hyperventilating hyperbole first.
You can be sure that no one is more outraged than I am by the gigantic send off Teddy-Boy got. I was both a violation of canon 1184 in the current D+code of canon Law, and a massive miscalculation in "prudential judgment" from a pastoral perspective. Cardianl O'Malley and a few other clerics should be ashamed of themselves for that debacle. I live in the Boston area, and the screeching about hypocrisy around here is still deafening. And, to a great extent, I agree with its bottom-line. But the screeching should direct itself at the hypocrisy of the individuals involved, not with the Church as a whole. Here is what canon law has to say about circumstances related to the Kennedy scenario, including canon 1184 which I already cited:
"THOSE TO WHOM ECCLESIASTICAL FUNERALS MUST BE GRANTED OR DENIED Can. 1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted among the Christian faithful. §2. The local ordinary can permit children whom the parents intended to baptize but who died before baptism to be given ecclesiastical funerals. §3. In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available. Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals: 1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics; 2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith; 3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful. §2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed. Can. 1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals."
Section "c" of canon 1184 applies here. It is objectively relevant to Kennedy's circumstances. The stuff about heresy and apostasy might apply, too, but that is far more subjective. He never explicitly disavowed the Catholic Faith, even while many of his public actions in life did not seem to be particularly "informed" by that faith. So we'll give him the benefit of the doubt about heresy and apostasy, as the Church itself would wish.
However, it is certain that Teddy K. should have been dealt with pursuant to the intent of subsection "c" of section 1 of canon 1184. Just on the abortion issue alone. Here are some scenarios:
Scenario 1: Kennedy repents and confesses on his deathbed. Great! Though such an action might be derisively dismissed as "too convenient," the fact remains that no one is beyond the forgiveness of God provided he accepts the grace of repentance while still in this life. Now, confession in the Catholic Church often can entail a post-confession attempt to "make good the harm" that certain sins may have caused others. Surely, if at all possible, Kennedy, in this scenario, should have issued a public statement to the effect that he repented of the wrong he helped bring about with his voting record on certain issues. Since he would be dealing with mere moments to live, little more could be expected. Did this happen? Well, we don't even know if he confessed to the attending priest at all. The priest himself said that, in his final lucid hours, Kennedy was just talking up conversations about old times with him. But, even if he made a confession, there is no record about any statement that could help defuse the wrong he had done. And the priest would be forbidden to discuss the matters brought up in the sacrament. So the public would be prone to taking the very scandal canon 1184 warns against creating. It is equally wrong to give scandal as to take scandal. The Church would be ill-served giving Kennedy a funeral Mass under the circumstances of subsection "c." Therefore, there should not have been such a funeral.
Scenario 2: Kennedy repents without sacramental confession. This one's a lot more subjective for those of us still metabolizing. Right to his last moment, Kennedy could have repented, even beyond the time where he might have asked to confess. But, by definition almost, only God would know about this. And the repentance of his sins, in these circumstances, must involve what is known as "perfect contrition." "Imperfect contrition," where at least some of the motives involves fear of hell and its punishments, might suffice when a regular confession is made, provided at least some of the motivation is, in fact, sorrow that an all-good God was offended. But, barring that ability to engage in the "ordinary means" of forgiveness that Jesus entrusted to the Church in John 20, one's contrition for mortal sin must be "perfect contrition," sorrow for sins motivated through considerations that focus on the fact that God was offended by them. Certainly, it is possible that this was Kennedy's situation, but we have no way of knowing this in this life. Therefore, again considering canon 1184, there is none of the required evidence about "repentance," and the part about avoiding scandal doubly applies. No funeral Mass.
Scenario 3: Kennedy gets it right. Okay. Teddy repents, confesses and tries to do what he can to right the wrongs. Outstanding! Yup. He can have his funeral. But there is still the stuff about scandal. Inevitably, people will have a very jaundiced view of a Catholic funeral for a man like Kennedy. The Church says "Too bad!" up to a point. Again, it is a sin to take scandal, just as it is to give scandal. People will have to answer to God for the scandal they take over the funeral of notorious sinners who appear to have sincerely repented. But the Church also has enough common sense to see the inevitability of such scandalmongering, and some common sense remedies are at hand. Kennedy could have been given a simple funeral in his own parish in Hyannis, MA, without all of the bombastic display. Certainly, it only fuels scandalmongering to give him a huge send-off in the largest, most ornate church in the Archdiocese of Boston (I believe the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, where the funeral took place, is even larger than the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston). And it only makes things worse to consider that Kennedy was a resident of Hyannis, which is part of the Diocese of Fall River, and not even a part of the Archdiocese of Boston! He had no particular claim on securing the Basilica at all!
Yes. The Cardinal blew it. He violated canon law's intent if not its actual letter (unfortunately, section 2 of 1184 sort of gives him an "out"), and seems to this day to be oblivious to the scandal caused throughout the whole sordid affair. But you seem to paint the whole Church with a pretty broad brush of condemnation. Kennedy was a manifest, objective sinner. But he might have repented. We are all sinners, and the Church is supposed to be here to heal sinners and bring them to repentance and God's grace. The clerics involved seem to have blown their pastoral responsibilities, even to the point, perhaps, of sinful culpability. But they did so as individuals.
I love the reaction of so many non-Catholic folks involving this Kennedy business! On the one hand, there will be no Popery, no yielding to the authority of Rome! Yet, on the other hand, there have been endless cries from the same quarters calling for the pope himself to have intervened in what is essentially a local matter of a diocese 4000 miles from Rome. The pope should have micromanaged the authority of the local ordinary (the local bishop)! Doubtless, if he really had, there would have been cries about poor Cardinal O'Malley having his authority crushed under the boot of mean old Rome! Ya can't win!
Some folks love to equate the sins of individuals with a condemnation of the entire Church! Unchurched people love to do this with respect to individual Christians and all denominations lumped together ("I will never be a Christian; Christianity is full of hypocrisy!"). Non-Catholics often make the same lapse of logic, just a rung or two further down ("So-and-so the alleged Catholic did such-and-such; Catholicism is full of hypocrisy!"). The Church is chock-full of hypocrites, as the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares should inform you. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church has no gigantic monopoly on hypocrisy. Hypocrisy seems to run pretty evenly through all denominational lines. I guess that's par for the course for churches, whose mission is akin to being spiritual hospitals for sinners.
Note to self: Proofreading and spell check are your friends!
We could say that as regards Church discipline in some matters, as attending Protestant services.
But there is no pre-Vatican II Catholicism and post-Vatican II Catholicism when it comes to Doctrine, because the Church doesn't change in that regard.
Not all of us remember that.