I think I’ll hire someone to pose as a priest at my funeral.
I’ll have him start with lowered head, and then he’ll look up solemnly and say: “Mockingbird(pause for dramatic effect) was a fine piece of ass. He was always there, making sure the men in the rectory were cared for.”
Hmph.
Saying that someone is going to Hell is not a priest’s job; if it’s anybody’s, it’s God’s. And any priest who thinks this sort of thing is appropriate should be having a good hard look at his vocation. IMHO, anyway.
Don’t leave out “He did his duty in rectifying matters of philosophical (i.e. hedonistic) trouble.”
I know absolutely nothing about the individual in question, whether he was a saint, a creep, or (like most of us) somewhere in between.
But for the sake of argument, SUPPOSE that he was a truly horrible person.
IF that were the case, I think a priest would be within his rights to refuse to preside over a funeral Mass for him. In some cases, a priest SHOULD do so. When I was a kid, I found it nauseating that Mafia dons had elaborate Catholic funerals, at which priests said all the usual nice things about cold-blooded thieves and killers. So, I’d find it refreshing if a priest refused to preside at a funeral Mass for a genuinely evil man. In such a case, I have no patience with the argument that “funerals are for the living.”
But in this case, it appears that the priest pulled a fast one, and sprang a mean, nasty surprise on the dead man’s family. And that’s unforgiveable.
The priest could have and should have said (PRIVATELY, to one or two family members), “I can’t, in good conscience, do what you want me to do. If you want to seek out another priest, or if you’d like to hold some kind of secular memorial service, I’ll cooperate in any way I can.” That would have been hurtful, but it would have been honorable.
But to rail against the deceased in front of his family… that was just a rotten thing to do.
Feck! Drink! Bed! Feck!
You’re absolutely right.
A funeral is NOT for the deceased. A funeral is for the family and friends of the deceased to say goodbye. This asshole of a priest was way out of line. If he had no respect for the dead man, he could have at least had respect for the family.
I really think he should be disciplined for this. He could have refused to perform the service and instead he chose to embarrass and upset the family.
Ava
As noted above, I suspect that Fr. Mansfield did something to alienate this family. On the other hand, I would like to hear his side of the story. This family let this fester for more than a year, and then suddenly has a need to file a multi-million dollar lawsuit? Is this the result of stonewalling from the diocesan offices after they initially complained? Or did one of the kids start dating a lawyer this Spring who smelled some cash? Were the comments made at the homily of the funeral mass? Or were some personal asides mutterd by the priest overheard and are now being played out of proportion (with suitable adjustments to the tale to make it sound worse than it was).
I suspect that the priest did something, since this sort of thing is rarely created out of whole cloth, but I am curious as to what the “something” actually was.
Something’s fishy about the story. The guy was buried a YEAR ago, and a year later the family suddenly files a multimillion dollar lawsuit.
Note that
There is absolutely no corroboration outside the family of the comments
The comments were not made in the sermon, when some other person might have heard, but were allegedly made while the priest was walking to the service.
I don’t believe the whole family had a mass hallucination, but I can certainly believe that in the intervening 12 months since the actual event they could, through a combination of old memory, working themselves into hysteria over one person’s memory of what they overheard, and not a small amount of avarice, convince themselves of something that might not actually be true.
Not sure if the story’s true completely, but on the half a chance it is, I don’t believe that legal recourse is the best way to go about it. I’m not certain I’d want the court meddling about in what things a priest can and cannot say. Legal remedies for child molestations, yeah, but trash talking? Not so much.
That’s my loved one layin there stiff, and Father Gatemouth opens up with some diatribe, I’d see to it he was beaten, horsedragged and left in the desert for buzzard chow, but a lawsuit? Meh.
Ma, get me my defrocking stick, the one with the variable power scope. I’ll show that preist an instrument of Gods will.
[insert appropriate quote from Barry Pepper in Saving Private Ryan here]]
Anyone else click on this thread just to see what the heck a X-tian was?
Not only was he a cheesy 1950s sci-fi alien, but a bad one.
Fucking X-tians stole my cows.
I’ll stop now.
I’m guessing it was an afternoon funeral, because it sounds like the priest was coming off the worst round of golf ever.
I agree. I don’t think a court should even hear this case. Wouldn’t it be asking the court to rule on whether or not the preist’s words were valid in context of their religion?
How does one effect service when subpoening the devil?
Apparently, Fr. Mansfield has denied the charge and he is not speaking with reporters. The Archdiocese, of course, is looking at the First Amendment for a change of venue (state to fed court) while also denying the charges.
Here is the initial local article with more detail than the national outlets relayed.