Priest convicted of murdering nun dies; diocese plans funeral Mass

[SecularMotion]

TOLEDO, Ohio — Though he was convicted of murder in 2006, the late Father Gerald Robinson remained a priest at the time of his death and as such his funeral is to follow "the usual protocol for a diocesan priest's funeral."

The announcement made in a diocesan statement issued July 5, the day after Father Robinson died in a prison hospital, was met with anger and hostility by some who criticized the decision to give a convicted murderer a priest's funeral. Plans for the funeral were still pending.

Father Robinson, 76, was serving a 15-years-to-life sentence for the 1980 murder of Mercy Sister Margaret Ann Pahl when he died in the custody of the Ohio Department of Corrections. After his conviction in 2006, the priest was not allowed to practice his ministry publicly, but he remained a priest of the Diocese of Toledo while his case was being appealed. The appeals process was not completed before his death.

Father Charles Ritter, diocesan administrator, attributes much of the uproar over the funeral announcement to a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Catholic funeral liturgy.

http://www.catholicsentinel.org/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=34&ArticleID=25786

[TexasProgresive]

1. An excerpt for his funeral homily by Fr. Thomas Extejt

....we should hold in our hearts and minds the Sisters of Mercy, who still grieve the horrific death of Sister Margaret Ann Pahl. May the Lord grant her eternal peace and happiness in His Kingdom.

We are gathered here not to accuse Father Robinson, or to excuse him. We are here to celebrate the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in which we sacramentally make present today in this place the same sacrifice Jesus offered on Golgotha two thousand years ago for the forgiveness of our sins. Specifically, we gather here to beg God that Father Robinson may be given a share in the sacrifice that takes away the sins of the world. The Church teaches that God permits our prayers to assist the final cleansing process that takes place in Purgatory, and so we offer them this morning in union with the great prayer of Jesus offered on the cross. The Catholic Church does no more, and no less for any of her children. When death comes for each of us, and the Catholic community gathers around us for the last time, you and I can expect no less and no more.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/07/god-was-not-done-with-gerald-robinson-the-priest-who-could-no-longer-minister/

[AtheistCrusader]

5. WOW

[rug]

9. That is a good and fitting homliy.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Disagree.

[trotsky]

2. Murder someone? Well, okay. You get a funeral mass.

YOU'RE GAY!?!? NO MASS FOR YOU!!!

Feel the love.

[Act_of_Reparation]

3. Could be worse

If you were the child of a single mother, you could have been tossed unceremoniously into a disused cesspit and forgotten about for half a century.

I would imagine the Bon Secours sisters received all the rights and ceremony of a traditional Catholic funeral, as well.

[rug]

11. Debunked.

[edhopper]

4. Rules is rules

who are you to question what God deems important?

[rug]

21. The same one who posts other equally ignorant information.

[beam me up scottie]

6. Grieving grandfather had to worry about a mass because murdered baby wasn't baptized...

Josh Beard Allegedly Punched, Stomped Girlfriend's Child To Death

A young Texas couple have been arrested in the murder of an 18-month-old child who was brutally abused before being stomped to death and buried under a bridge wrapped in a blanket, police said.

Joshua Beard, 20, and Alexis Botello, 17, had only been dating for a few months prior to the death of Botello's daughter, Tylea Moore, on July 4.

In an Arlington, Texas, police affidavit obtained by The Huffington Post, officers said that Beard had called the toddler a "little demon" while punching her and that he also abused Botello when she attempted to stop him.

***

Now, Ricardo Botello must bury his granddaughter. "We're Catholic, and the baby was not baptized, unfortunately," he said. "But we found a diocese who will conduct the service for us, and we're thankful for that."

Botello said the grief is overwhelming.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/11/josh-beard-child-killed_n_5578107.html?cps=gravity

What is wrong with this picture?

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Everything.

Everything is wrong with that picture. All of it.

[beam me up scottie]

8. Indeed.

The 17 year old mother moved in with her boyfriend (20) after dating only a few months. Her supporters claim she was in an abusive relationship, if that is true why did no one step in?

Kid never had a chance.

[rug]

40. What's wrong with this picture is that you think that's the salient point of this story.

A clue: it's not.

As to whatever point you were trying to make, it's not the grandfather's call. It's up to the mother, like it or not. The RCC doesn't go around subjecting children to rites without the parents' consent.

Of course, if it did, you'd complain about that instead.

[beam me up scottie]

41. "Questioning other posters and their motives is tiresome meta."

Hypocrisy makes Baby Jesus cry.

[rug]

42. So does dishonesty.

"Josh Beard Allegedly Punched, Stomped Girlfriend's Child To Death" is the headline of the article.

"Grieving grandfather had to worry about a mass because murdered baby wasn't baptized..." is the headline of your post.

If you don't like the answer you shouldn't ask the question.

[beam me up scottie]

43. Uh huh...

Keep digging.

[rug]

44. No need. What I see is entirely superficial.

[beam me up scottie]

45. No really, keep going, I find myself in need of entertainment tonight.

Your posts in this thread are fascinating.

Let's start with your "we are all sinners" thingy.

[rug]

46. That doesn't surprise me in the least.

[rug]

10. Would you prefer his head on a pike?

[edhopper]

12. It's not about his punishment

which the State saw to.
It's how the RC still honors him in death. It's about them, not him.

Since you jump to such an over the top reaction, I'll ask,
Would you like him canonized?

[rug]

13. No one is honored in death.

The RCC funeral acknowledges he was a sinner as are we all.

As to your question, it is simply stupid.

[edhopper]

14. As was your

"head on a pike" statement. That was my point, in case it went past you.

[rug]

15. Not based on the reactions in this thread.

[edhopper]

18. Really

Last edited Wed Jul 16, 2014, 08:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I just read every comment, and could not find one that said he deserved more than life in prison. Where do you see someone asking for torture or beheading?
The reaction is to the Church, not his punishment, show me the reactions that say different.

[rug]

20. A post about pretzels would evoke the same reaction from them about the RCC.

(They are symbols of prayer, you know.)

[edhopper]

23. Perhaps

and you have defended the RC as usual.
But you also attacked posters for
"wanting his head on a pike."
And i ask again, who called for a sterner, brutal punishment of the priest?
Whose reaction were you referring to?
If no one, perhaps an apology to the posters here is in order?

[rug]

24. Promoting accuracy is not defending.

Accuracy is the best way to separate fact from bullshit.

[edhopper]

27. that's a complete

non sequetor to my post.

Again who called for the priest's head on the pike, or anything similar.
Show me the post that talked about his punishment rather than the mass?

If you can't find one i suggest again you retract your statement.

[rug]

29. And that's a complete non sequitur (sic) to my initial statement.

I suggest you not mimic your colleagues by turning threads that fail in their mission to make gratuitous religious attacks into meta threads.

[edhopper]

32. Secular posted the OP without comment

You responded:

"Would you prefer his head on a pike?"

How is that an apt response since he said nothing, especially about the priest's punishment.

Then you said:

"Not based on the reactions in this thread."

Again, whose reaction do you refer to?

You are claiming something that is not here, and insulting those who posted.

I am trying to get you to realize this without alerting, which I very, very rarely do.

[rug]

36. This is pure meta.

You are claiming something that is not here, and insulting those who posted.

I am trying to get you to realize this without alerting, which I very, very rarely do.

If you think it's not, ask a jury.

[CBGLuthier]

34. speak for yourself buddy. I am NOT a sinner.

you and your imaginary friend can believe whatever the fuck you want but do not use the words "we are all" when doing so, mkay.

[rug]

35. The hell you ain't.

And until you realize it, keep your anger, arrogance and snark the fuck out of my face.

Call it whatever the hell you want, but you got it too.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. No, we don't.

We're not part of your little club, so we are not party to its by-laws.

Stop pretending you have a thing to say with any authority whatsoever, about people who are not electively members of your faith.
It's the core conceit of your religion, to be honest. To pretend that everyone needs saving, that everyone is a 'sinner' in need of salvation.

I am not. I do not. I am not alone.
I don't need your fetters or your crutch. Keep them to yourself.

[rug]

68. Speak for yourself.

What you fail to understand is the bullshit everyone, including you, inflicts on everryone else is fact. That religions also call it sin doesn't change those facts.

I'll repeat this to you directly: Call it whatever the hell you want, but you got it too.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. No, you're not getting away that easily.

"The RCC funeral acknowledges he was a sinner as are we all."

That has a very specific connotation, and it does NOT apply to me.

"In Abrahamic contexts, sin is the act of violating God's will.[1][2][3][4] Sin can also be viewed as anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God; or as any diversion from the ideal order for human living. To sin has been defined as "to miss the mark".[5]"

I am not, nor shall I ever be, a sinner. Unless your god wants to pop out and introduce himself or something.
I cannot violate a will that does not exist. I cannot violate a relationship that does not exist.

You don't get to pretend I have that relationship. You don't get to pretend I am subject to that will.

I, and many like me, are not 'sinners', and cannot be 'sinners'.

[rug]

71. That presupposes you're anywhere near me.

Sorry, was that arrogant?

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Deflect and spin away. I would too, if I were in your position.

[rug]

75. I doubt you could be in my position to make that determination.

Dang, I did it again.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Let me know when you feel like actually adressing post 70

[rug]

80. Sorry, your headline was designed to ignore what followed.

You accurately describe the concept of sin.

But, not to be repetitive, the activities it describes do exist. And I did tell you to describe them any way you want.

Returning to the OP, this dead priest deserves the same funeral as anyone else, murderer or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Murder harms someone.

I might accept a loose 'definition' of 'sin' under that context. But your religion holds a great many things to be 'sins' that are not 'sins' for me by any measure.

[rug]

85. If you make a list, you'd be surprised how much those lists mesh.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. I've already done the comparison.

I consider the overlap not very credible, given the list is supposed to be inspired by some supernatural all powerful thingy.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Your arrogance is astounding.

Stop pretending you know what I am and am not. Your 'sins' are not mine, and you have not a shred of authority to pretend I am, or were, or ever will be a 'sinner'.

[rug]

69. Your sensitivity is equally astounding.

Go read #68 again.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. I don't need to be 'sensitive' to your mischaracterization of my nature.

You don't own me. You don't define me.

[rug]

74. No shit.

The point remains: whether you reject the concept of sin or not, the activities it describes exist.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. No, they don't.

There you go again, pretending I have a relationship with, or am subject to the will of your god.

He's your imaginary friend, not mine.

[rug]

77. Read it again. I said activities, not relationship.

And those activities do indeed exist.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Yeah, I do things that your religion's source documentation specifies is a sin against your god.

But since he doesn't exist, there is in fact, no template, no standard, no relationship, no will to violate, therefore it cannot be considered a sin for me.

For you, fine. If you believe in that relationship to violate. If you believe in that will to disobey. More power to you.

But don't pretend that what is a sin for you is a sin for me. Sin doesn't exist for me. It is as unreal as your alleged god.

[rug]

81. Without prying, lots of sources, secular or religious, mainly denounce the same things.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. I have authorized the destruction of fertilized embryos.

I don't give a shit if you or your alleged god thinks that's a naughty thing to do or not. It isn't. Not for me.

I don't subscribe to your gods will, nor his newsletter. It is not a sin.

[rug]

84. Well, good for you.

Frankly, I don't give a shit if you give a shit. It changes not one fact.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. That it isn't a sin? Yes indeed. How pleasantly I characterize it has no bearing.

There is no negative connotation whatsoever to that act. It may be a sin for you, but not for me. The 'act' still occurs, but it has no downside, no harm, no violation of will or relationship to measure it against.

It was a calm, rational decision, made for appropriate reasons.

[aikoaiko]

37. And the jury results are in...

On Wed Jul 16, 2014, 05:12 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Would you prefer his head on a pike?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=140660

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The Op was an article posted without comment, yet this post claims he would like to see the priest in question suffer a brutal punishment, which is certainly insulting to say he would want something barbaric. Later he claims it was in line with the reactions on the thread, yet there is not a single post that says anything about the priest's sentence or punishment only about him getting a catholic mass. This is insulting the other posters. I asked for a retraction repeatedly, which was refused.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 16, 2014, 05:24 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Shakespeare comes to mind when reading this alert, "...full of sound and fury,signifying nothing."
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Post is rude, and hurtful. OP was an excerpt, and not necessarily the expressed opinion of the original poster.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If I thought hiding this post would keep this discussion from degenerating into petty, small-minded bickering, I'd vote to hide it. But it's way too late for that and the bickerers do seem to be enjoying themselves greatly, so who am I to take away their fun?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Given this is about a murderer, this comment is understandable, not over-the-top.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[rug]

39. Thanks for the update.

Too bad the alerter put so much effort into what is essentially a dishonest alert.

To juror #4:

[cbayer]

16. I feel like I am really missing the point here.

Are we supposed to take the position that this man and his family should not be entitled to a mass because of a crime he was convected of?

Does that not seem just really petty and unreasonable?

[edhopper]

19. Petty and unreasonable?

You mean like denying a mass for a gay man.

http://rainbowsashmovement.wordpress.com/catholic-parish-refuses-a-funeral-mass-for-another-gay-man/

http://www.catholicvote.org/california-parish-denies-funeral-mass-to-open-homosexual/comment-page-3/

What about the Arch-Bishop who wanted to deny Ted Kennedy a mass?

You don't see the hypocrisy in this and don't think it should be pointed out?

Really?

[rug]

22. Did you read your first link?

The Rainbow Sash Movement is glad to hear that the Diocese has over ruled the local priest and said the funeral mass could proceed.

Or your second?

Next, in a classic case of burying the lead, it turns out the Diocese of San Diego has actually decided to allow the funeral to take place after all (any folks with canonical training want to comment on this decision, considering how Canon 1184 reads?):

“The Diocesan office was notified about this situation earlier today… Diocesan Authorities have concluded that the funeral as scheduled at Our Lady of the Rosary Parish may take place. Plans for the ritual are yet to be made.”

… Sanfilippo’s family had already found another Catholic church for the funeral.

[edhopper]

25. Yes I did

and the initial refusal was petty, which is what I was pointing out.
cbayer seemed to be saying we shouldn't question this at all.
why the hell not?

[rug]

26. So, are you now attacking the individual pastor who refused or the Church that rescinded it?

[edhopper]

28. No I am saying

that questioning this is neither petty nor unreasonable.

And then pointing to acts of the church that could be seen as such.

cbayer thinks that questioning this is untoward, I don't.

[rug]

30. Questioning anything is fine.

Questioning other posters and their motives is tiresome meta.

[edhopper]

33. I wasn't questioning her motives, i was responding to her post.

[okasha]

47. I have personally attended funeral masses for LGBT persons.

Way too goddam many of them during the peak years of the AIDS/HIV epidemic.

[cbayer]

48. Denying mass for a gay man is clearly way beyond petty and unreasonable.

I think denying a funeral mass to anyone is wrong. It's a ritual and it is symbolic. It should be given to anyone or for anyone's family who wants it.

I see the hypocrisy, but that wasn't really the point of the article, as far as I could tell. There were articles that seemed to focus more on that aspect and less on how one might not deserve such a ritual if they had done something wrong.

We are just having a discussion here, right?

[edhopper]

49. Yes

Last edited Thu Jul 17, 2014, 10:51 AM - Edit history (2)

and to describe people who have a problem with it as petty and unreasonable is...well, unreasonable.

You can disagree with them without impugning.

[cbayer]

50. Impunity? I don't think that means what you think it means.

I do it completely with impunity. It's merely a disagreement.

[edhopper]

58. impugning

auto-correct typo.

Okay, you don't see anything wrong with calling people petty and unreasonable, I'll remember that.

[cbayer]

61. Remember whatever you like, but if you wish to be correct, remember that this

is what I was calling petty and unreasonable:

Are we supposed to take the position that this man and his family should not be entitled to a mass because of a crime he was convected of?

[edhopper]

62. You might not agree with that

but you don't think it reasonable for someone to ask if he is. Especially since members of the same church call into question others being entitled for things like being gay or supporting abortion rights.
Is it really petty and unreasonable to ask that?

[cbayer]

63. Again, I did not say that asking these question was petty and unreasonable.

You just appear to want me to have said that.

If you are trying to imply that I do not support glbt civil liberties or abortion rights, you couldn't be more off base.

Please don't try to make me fit your agenda.

[edhopper]

64. Why did you write this then?

"Are we supposed to take the position that this man and his family should not be entitled to a mass because of a crime he was convected of?

Does that not seem just really petty and unreasonable?"

Who are you saying is petty and unreasonable for asking if he is?

[cbayer]

65. OMG, do you think you could twist this around any further?

My question was about denying him a mass. Your issue is about how the church denies masses to others. I agree with you. I think it is petty and unreasonable to deny mass to people for whatever reason.

If you think this man should be denied a mass because of the crime he committed, I think you are being petty and unreasonable. If you think that there should be some note taken of the hypocrisy of granting him this while denying it to others, I agree with you.

Capiche?

[edhopper]

66. Capiche

I don't agree with you that it is unreasonable or petty to ask, but I understand what you meant:

It is petty and unreasonable to question denying mass to anyone, no matter who they are, I capiche.

[cbayer]

92. Thanks. I appreciate that.

[Act_of_Reparation]

55. Has anyone said he should be denied a funeral?

I think the point being made is that the church is more than willing to give a man convicted of an injurious crime a sacrament they have denied others for the "sins" of, for example, being gay... or a child born out of wedlock... or an unbaptized child... and so on.

[cbayer]

57. As I said, I don't think the article posted really made the point you are making,

which is a point I agree with, btw.

[Act_of_Reparation]

59. Perhaps not

But the Church's lack of consistency on these matters is at least topically relevant and worthy of discussion... if not a few pointed jabs to the midsection.

[cbayer]

60. I agree with you. There were articles available that really made those points.

This was no one of them.

[No Vested Interest]

17. It is an act of mercy to give this deceased man a funeral mass.

We are all sinners.
It's just a matter of degree.

[skepticscott]

38. Mercy? Please do explain

what has he been spared? What horrible fate awaited him if he DIDN'T get a funeral mass?

[AtheistCrusader]

54. No, 'we' aren't.

Speak for yourself.

[mr blur]

67. What detestable bullshit!

Listen to yourself.

We are all sinners.
It's just a matter of degree.

Infantile nonsense.

Murder? He's just a sinner, he can't help it.
Presumably you feel the same about child-molesting priests? Rapists? Suicide bombers? Assassins?
It's lucky we have smart people like you to decide whose "sins" are the worst and which sinner's body deserves to be honoured with some meaningless drivel.

[Lordquinton]

90. They don't kick you out for mere mortal crimes like murder and pedophilia

You have to personally offend god (in the church's eyes, God doesn't actually have a say in the matter) to be kicked out or, be denied services like a mass.

[hrmjustin]

31. Christians are supposed to forgive.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Part of the moral conundrum such faith presents, honestly.

I don't want the
mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She
dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she will,
let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her
mother's heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no
right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child
were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, what
becomes of harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who would have
the right to forgive and could forgive? I don't want harmony. From
love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the
unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering
and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a
price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to
enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I
am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And
that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I
most respectfully return him the ticket."

"That's rebellion," murmered Alyosha, looking down.

"Rebellion? I am sorry you call it that," said Ivan earnestly.
"One can hardly live in rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me
yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a
fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the
end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and
inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature- that baby
beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that
edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the
architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."

[Heddi]

88. I think that might have been a little, um, too deep

You'll probably get a response of TL;DR

even though the sentiment is right on:

Here's the short version for people with attention issues:

You cannot "forgive" someone for a crime/offense they have committed against another person. Only the victim can forgive. If the victim is dead, then that becomes a problem for the offender.

If my mother was killed, I cannot forgive the killer for that murder. I can forgive him for whatever crimes/offenses he has commited against me (taking my mother away, leaving bloodstains on the floor, whatever), but I fundamentally CANNOT forgive him for murder.

I was raped. Only *I* can forgive my rapist. You can't forgive him, because he did not commit a crime/offense against you. He may have made your neighborhood unsafe, or may have driven up crime rates, but he did not rape you. Therefore, forgiving the rape is up to me, not up to you, or a priest, or a Christian, or the community.

[edhopper]

89. I must admit ignorance

Tolstoy? Dostoyevsky?

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Dostoyevsky. From The Brother's Karamazov.