The sudden, and very sad, death of Justice Antonin Scalia also had a strange tail in the equally strange fact, amply publicised, that the apparently cold body received the “sacrament” of the “last rites” by a priest when he arrived on the scene.
I wasn’t on the scene, but when I read the piece I thought the same as most of you did: that the servants of the farm/mansion found Scalia, basically, dead as a doornail; or, as you might also put it, too cold to have any illusion that he might still be alive. I will assume, in the following, that this was the case. If this was not the case, well, the facts have not been reported accurately.
It is a mystery to me how a priest might consider that a man who is already evidently dead might not be dead; as if life were something that might be lying hidden, somewhere, in a cold, hard corpse. My first impression is rather that the priest either only performed a generic blessing over the corpse, or else that this was another example of abuse of a sacrament because of political correctness, in order to not exclude anyone from anything on any circumstance whatsoever. I wonder how pleased Justice Scalia is in knowing that strange, macabre rites supposed to be a sacrament have been performed on his corpse what appears to be hours after his death.
Now let us assume here that the priest was right, and political correctness is right, and even old theologians who, in past times, advocated for strange distinctions about when one is really dead after he has died are right. The result of this is that…the sacrament loses every meaning.
No more necessity to provide for ourselves before we die, lest we die unprepared; no necessity anymore, because our family will provide for it until we putrefy, which means anywhere between 12/24 hours and four weeks if we are, as pretty common today, deep frozen in salmon-style until a convenient day for the funeral is available. More importantly, we can, with this reasoning, be died-in-the-wool atheists and die unrepentant, but then our ass should be saved because our relatives will provide for those last rites we have always refused to be provided unless, literally, on our cold, dead body, and everyone is happy.
All this seems madness to me, and I must question the sanity of any theologian who thinks that the “last rites” could have been performed, in case of sudden death, on a corpse until the moment putrefaction begins, because you never know. It may well be that in those old and unscientific time the rites were conditional. But nowadays we don’t do “conditional” much. Nowadays, we try to find ways to get around the sacraments.
The way I always understood it is that the main element of the sacrament of the last rites is that the person who receive the sacrament wants to do so. We know of Schubert, Beethoven, and many others that they died with the Sacraments, because they chose to receive them in their last hour. This has great value, gives a solid intent to the confession related to the rites, and gives us a great deal of security that, in these example, these two great men died at peace with the Lord. But when a macabre rite is performed over someone everyone knows dead, who did not take any decision as to whether to take the sacrament, cannot repent of anything, cannot confess anything, and is just a corpse, and which is due to merely the decision of those around him, then I frankly wonder what’s happening.
Of course, the priest will be able to perform as many prayers and benedictions over the corpse as he wants; of course, it is reasonable to assume that the man asking for a priest and then dying before the priest arrives has not waited for the arrival of the priest for his perfect contrition; of course, we do not presume that one is in deep trouble just because he could not have the Last Rites; but hey, this cannot come to the point of administering the sacrament on a corpse and then delude ourselves he has received a sacrament, and inform the press of the fact. This is, if you ask me, as stupid as the mother asking that the dead baby be now baptised, because she realises now that this might have been a wise thing to do when he was alive.
Mors omnia solvit. Death puts an end to everything. This is not only valid for legal matters (death puts an end to a marriage, say), but it also applies to our life in general. At death, like at the roulette, les jeux sont faits, rien ne va plus.
I read these Scalia episode and can’t avoid imagining a Country in which it either has become common practice – or will soon become common practice – to call a priest to give the “last rite” to nominal Christians, but heathen in everything else, who lived and died in complete disregard of the Lord, and of which the relatives think that “they will be fine” because, four and a half hours after their car accident, a priest came and performed a “sacrament” over their dead bodies.
I must disagree, and I must encourage the mother, or father, or brother in question to warn the loved relative before the accident happens. Because once one is dead the game is over already, and the matter will not change if an entire Conclave performs serial “last rites” over him.
Memento Mori. There will be no extra time.
You often hear on the radio of a certain chap having died in the year so and so, or other references to his departure from this vale of tears. I can never avoid wondering whether the chap in question managed Purgatory, or not. Of some people we know they were solidly Catholic, and can be more than reasonably optimistic for them; particularly when we know that they saw their death coming, and it is improbable that they met it unprepared. For many others – and I mean here the baptised Catholics but the become agnostics, or atheists, or very tepid believers, or very public sinners – we might know that they died with the Sacraments, if this is a matter of public record (Beethoven and Schubert certainly come to mind). But for many others, particularly if they died recently, it is more difficult to know whether they died with the Sacraments, showing that a merciful God did not (very probably) deny them the grace of final repentance. The fact is, that nowadays receiving the Sacrament does not even seem much worthy of public records, whilst in the past it was something of the greatest importance.
We know that the Sun King died with the Sacraments, and Oscar Wilde too. But what about many others, some of them perhaps heroes of yours since early childhood? What about all those less than exemplary Catholics, but still clearly believers, who gave so much beauty to humanity? If they were Catholics, however bad ones, they had access to the Last Rites. Many of them saw their death coming, and would therefore have the possibility to ask for a priest. Did they? Did they die at peace with the Lord? Perhaps they did. Perhaps not.
It would be very good if there were a site collecting original sources concerning the departure of Catholic personalities in the realm of literature, music, or philosophy. Particularly in the case of recent deaths, as the old ones – see the above: W.A. Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven – are more easily recorded, even in the case of unexpected cases. Not a few would be surprised to know that, for example, Voltaire is reported to have died with the Sacraments (oh, the irony!) as it certainly was the case for another Catholic public sinner, Chopin.
You will say to me that there is no total security in that, either, and I would agree with you. But as the degree of security must be quite high for most people – you may think, if you are extremely cynical, that Voltaire might have wanted to mock the Church to the end; but you would not think this of, say, Chopin – it would be good to have sources focusing on the circumstances of the death of the thousands of notable Catholics – particularly those of questionable orthodoxy – all in the same place. For some bitter disappointment – one can read disturbing things about Elgar, for example; albeit Catholic propaganda might have its ugly beak in that – one could have many more joys and consolations.
If anyone knows of such a source, I would be grateful for a link. With a strong preference for sites reporting credible and verified sources rather than just saying what people seem to think.
And as you are there, please consider, in your charity, saying a prayer or three for Schubert and Beethoven; who, whatever their shortcomings, gave us such wonderful music, and wonderful sacred music to boot; and whose purgatory will, I am afraid, not be among the shortest.
And it came to pass a faggot recovered in the hospital after a heart attack told the priest giving him the last rites (I imagine the risk of death must have been rather serious, then…) how beautiful he found it that Francis is one who “does not judge” those whom he calls “gay”.
(Let us stop for a moment here. Several months after Francis' disgraceful slogan, this has become the banner of sodomites the world over. Francis does nothing against it. If he himself is popular, then clearly everything must be fine).
The fag allegedly asks the priest if he has a problem with him being a pervert. Allegedly, the priest says “no”, but then inexplicably – according to the report – refuses to administer him the Sacrament. If it doesn't seem to make sense, it's because it doesn't.
Let us, then, reconstruct how things very probably went, if Catholic priests do what they are supposed to do.
An obviously unrepentant fag is in the hospital after a heart attack, and is either looking for a fight and some headlines, or wants the priest to tell him that homosexuality is next to holiness. The priest might have been more or less orthodox and sensible, and might have told him – or not, as the case may be – what an atrocious perversion homosexuality in itself – qua homosexuality; not talking of the sin of the sodomites here – is.
At some point, though, the priest must have asked the fag if he is fine with his perversion; because you see, if one is openly impugning the known Truth he is clearly not in the position to receive the sacrament, and it is therefore fully irrelevant whether he has a live-in Elton at home or is rather like Daffyd, “the only gay in the village”.
Now, let us see the facts: a priest goes to the rather unusual step of refusing the sacrament to a man officially at risk of dying: was it because he didn't like his mug, or because the conditions weren't there? Yeah, I thought that, too…
You see again here how militant faggotry works: they attack Catholicism and try to force it to bend to their own perversion. They do so often with malice aforethought, so that it is certainly possible the man called the priest precisely in order to provoke him with the “are you fine I am a pervert” thing.
Last but not least, the idiot. This must be the man, or woman, or perverted mixture of the two, who told the press the hospital expects those “working” in the hospital to “adhere to our values”.
Which values? Sodomy? Should the priest have blessed the fag's perversion? Does he work for the hospital?
Or the value is “Tolerance”, perhaps? Well, if tolerance is a value, why it is not tolerated that a Catholic priest does his job? And what does this idiot think, that he/she/whatever can tell to a Catholic priest how to adhere to his own values?
Obviously, there might have been some supreme cock-up from the journalist here; this one here is able to say that the Church “suggests” that “gay couples” are “living in sin”. No she doesn't “suggest” it, you nincompoop. Stop getting your Catholic theology from nonsensical interviews. You're supposed to be a journalist, not the washerwoman.
So there you are: fags and their minions want to impose their own perversion on everyone, and be accepted – otherwise you are raping their “human rights” – as normal, or even good. Heck, they even think they can pick and choose which sacraments they can receive!
We must stop this aggressive militant faggotry at once. We must react as we did with the ” Man Made Global Warming” madness. It can be done. Just let us stop being the sensitive sissies, and the humous for outspoken journalists, politicians and even bishops will be created.
This, or prepare for a Nazi dictatorship of the most intolerant kind.
It won't be funny. Just look at what they do with each other's backside.