Today’s post summarises my recent journal article, “Clearance-Based Denial of Ecclesiastical Funeral: An Infringement of Human and Ecclesial Rights?”. The article focuses on the South East and argues that it infringes on these rights. The article is attached.
The right to Ecclesiastical Funerals
An ecclesiastical funeral is a liturgical celebration of the Church through which the Church aims to express efficacious communion with the deceased, participation in that communion of the community gathered, and proclamation of eternal life to the community (CCC, 1684). Through an ecclesiastical funeral, the Church prays for her children that they may be welcomed among the saints in heaven and asks for consolation and hope for those who mourn the passing of the deceased (cf. Can. 1176 §2).
Only baptism is necessary for the right to an ecclesiastical funeral because, through the sacrament, one is incorporated into the Church and enjoys the rights and privileges. The right is expressed in law: “Christ’s faithful who have died are to be given a Church funeral according to the norms of law” (Canon 1176 §1).
Therefore, the right to ecclesiastical funerals is not tied to the reception or non-reception of other sacraments, and a faithful does not lose the right just because they are excluded from receiving a sacrament.
Praying for the spiritual support of the dead is the primary purpose of an ecclesiastical funeral and the theological basis for denying the funeral to certain members. This plays out in two ways. First, since an ecclesiastical funeral is a liturgical celebration, and “liturgical services are not private functions but are celebrations of the Church which is the sacrament of unity” (Can. 837 §1; CCC, 1140), it is fitting that those who, by their conduct, deliberately and irrevocably chose to secede from the unity and community of the Church should be denied an ecclesiastical funeral.
Second, since the Church emphasises respect for individual freedom, she intends to respect the will of the person who became detached from her by consciously following certain behaviours. Even a contrary desire of the family does not change this Church’s fundamental respect for the free decision of a person to renounce their belonging to the Church.
Nevertheless, the Church recognises that people with certain behaviours undermining their communion with the Church can repent before death. Consequently, the law provides that they are denied funeral rites “unless they gave some signs of repentance before death” (Can. 1184 §1). As an ecclesiastical funeral is only a sacramental, canon 1185 provides that funeral mass is also denied to those who have been excluded from Church funerals. Three categories of Catholics to be denied ecclesiastical funerals are notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics (cf. Can. 1184 §1, n.1; Can. 751), those who, for anti-Christian motives, chose the cremation of their bodies (cf. Can. 1184 §1, 2°), and manifest sinners who cannot receive an ecclesiastical funeral without public scandal to the faithful (cf. Can. 1184 §1, n. 3).
Clearance-based Denial of Funeral in the South East: An Infringement of Human and Ecclesial Rights?
Canon 1184 §1, n. 3 affirms that for one to be denied a funeral based on this category, the person must be publicly known to be living in grave sin and that granting an ecclesiastical funeral would cause public scandal to the faithful. Do the deceased who have not completed their payments fall under manifest sinners?
First, Jesus willed that the Church should depend on the free support of the people. He showed this when he sent the disciples on mission (Matt. 10:9-14; Luke 10:1-11). In the early Church, donations from the Christian community supported the Church (Acts 4:32-35). This practice of freewill donation has continued to this day. Therefore, the obligation to support the Church is not restricted to payments levied to individuals and groups. Individuals contribute financially in various ways, such as through direct support to the priest or to a project in the Church. Many also dedicate their time and skills to supporting the Church and promoting evangelisation. Therefore, it is not opportune to argue that someone who did not pay a levy has not fulfilled the obligation to support the Church.
Furthermore, debt is part of life, and many circumstances affect people’s inability to pay their debts. Jesus told two parables regarding debt and how the master and creditor wrote the debts off. (Matt. 18:23-27; Luke 7:41-42). Therefore, while debt is not the ideal, debtors are not public sinners. No doubt, some debtors are simply malicious in refusing to pay. Yet, it is not sufficient to categorise them as public sinners.
This is where the issue of domicile and place of origin comes in. Many living in the Diaspora are active parish members, making contributions and paying dues. Since the Church is one, the obligation to pay in the parish of their place of origin is a double payment if the person pays in the parish of domicile. While some pay in both places, some cannot meet the double obligation. Moreover, those in the Diaspora sometimes contribute in bulk or directly to their parish of origin for projects.
Besides, three conditions must be met together for a sin to be mortal: grave matter, full knowledge, and complete consent (cf. CCC, 1857-1859). Debt is not a grave matter because it is not specified as a sin in the Ten Commandments or an offence in the Code of Canon Law. Many circumstances affect the peculiarity of each case of debt. The debtor may or may not know about the debt. This affects the consent to owe. Moreover, when one contributes at their domicile, they have fulfilled their obligation to God and the Church. Therefore, one cannot categorise debtors as manifest sinners on this first point.
The second point is that granting a funeral could cause public scandal to the faithful. Here, one recalls that the clearance issue evolved from the customs of Igbo communities where every community member, irrespective of where they reside, is obliged to contribute to their place of origin. The deceased’s family often pays the debts owed to the village community before the burial. However, they refuse to pay the debts owed to the Church.
Although the Church members are still members of the village community, they argue that debts to the village are for the village; the Church is a different institution. Although the parish priest knows that debt is insufficient to deny a deceased ecclesiastical funeral, the Christian community, through various associations, pressures the priest not to grant the funeral. They argue that others in the Diaspora have paid and that the deceased’s family have cleared the debts at the village. With this level of opposition, granting an ecclesiastical funeral would cause scandal to the faithful, who would consider such an injustice to those who pay and are committed to the parish in their place of origin.
Conclusion
A debtor is not one living in grave sin or a manifest sinner.
Therefore, non-clearance of debts is insufficient to deny Catholics an ecclesiastical funeral because it infringes on their human and ecclesial rights.
However, given the complex and sensitive nature of the situation, this does not mean that the parish priest should proceed with the funeral without considering the implications of such on the unity of the Christian community and his own welfare.
Bishops of the region have also refrained from making laws obliging priests to carry out funerals even if there are outstanding debts because it is counter-productive to the unity of the Christian community. Instead, they adopt a pastoral action by admonishing their priests to find a way to navigate the situation and proceed with the funerals, even if there are outstanding debts.
A viable option is to exclude the Christian community of the place of origin at the burial. Since funeral mass has been said for the deceased at the domicile parish in the city, the parish priest of the place of origin or domicile can bury the corpse without the presence of the Christian community in the village. In this way, the debt to the Christian community no longer becomes a problem since the community will be absent at the burial. In all, the salvation of souls and unity of the Church must guide pastoral action when such cases arise.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
