Did anybody read the VERY carefully worded PR piece put out on the sspx.org website regarding the funeral Mass provided for Erich Preibke?
All I've read about Erich Preibke is that he was some sort of convicted nαzι war criminal. Beyond that, I have no further knowledge of the man or what he did.
That said, I am disgusted by the SELECTIVE outage expressed by the usual, supposedly "tolerant" and "compassionate" liberal mob and their media lapdogs and the embarrassingly WEAK and almost apologetic response put out by the SSPX.
If the man was reconciled with the Church, why not boldly rejoice at his conversion and proclaim the message of TRUE mercy in a full-throated manner? Why let the wolves out there put you on the defensive?
There is nothing to apologize for . . . or sound apologetic about. This PR tip-toing is most unworthy of what the SSPX allegedly stands for!
That the Vatican kept its distance from the man and refused him a Catholic funeral is, of course, nothing new--very "pastoral" a la the "loving" Spirit of Vatican II, I guess.
On the other hand, what wouldn't they do for dead pro-abort politicians who probably died with more blood on their hands than did Preibke?
The typical cowardice, hypocrisy and selective outrage never ceases to outrage!
During World War II he carried out a reprisal massacre of 335 Italians. After the was he escaped to Argentina. Many years later (1980s) he was discovered and was extradited to Italy to answer for this massacre. His apparent lack of remorse (his defense was that he was just following orders) didn't help him. I am curious as to what are the standards as to what constitutes beinbg a "notorious sinner" that prevents one from being buried by the Catholic Chuch. I have heard of one person who was a mafia kingpin and he was buried. they said that is was because he was reconciled to the Catholic Church. Then there are other people who were also reconciled but were not allowed a Catholic funeral. They were not famous for being mafia people or public dissenters or anything like that and yet somehow they decided that their sins in life were greater than the reconciliation which they had apparently recieved.
Notorious sinners are to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial, yes, but they are excused from this penalty if they show a sign of repentance. As I wrote on another forum about this:
Persons Excluded from Ecclesiastical Burial. The following are deprived of ecclesiastical burial, unless before death they gave some sign of repentance:
1. Notorious apostates from the Christian faith, or persons who notoriously belong to a heretical or schismatical sect or to a Masonic sect or other society of the same sort;
2. Persons who are excommunicated or interdicted, after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence;
3. Those who killed themselves with deliberate purpose;
4. Those who die in a duel, or from a wound received in a duel;
5. Those who gave orders that their body be cremated;
6. Other public and manifest sinners.
In any of the above cases, if a doubt arises, the Ordinary should be consulted if time permits; if the doubt persists, the body sould receive ecclesiastical burlial, but in such a way that scandal be avoided.
Notes. 1. The privation of ecclesiastical burial by this canon has the nature of a penalty, and hence is to be strictly interpreted; moreover, any sign of repencance before death excuses from the penalty; this means some positive sign, such as calling for a priest, kissing a crucifix, and express desire not to die without the sacraments (Bouscaren & Ellis, 1946, pp 618-619, underlining added, all other emphasis in original)."
For this case, only numbers 1 & 6 concern us, as 2-5 obviously don't. Even if it could be said that the gentleman in question falls into either of these categories, his positive sign of repentance (calling for a priest, desiring the sacraments) remits the penalty. He deserved a Catholic funeral, and the priest who gave him last rites and organized the funeral was doing the right thing.
Topic: Damage Control Regarding Erich Priebke? (Read 9083 times)