San Diego Bishop Behaves Very Badly

By Edward

Via Daily Kos

The family of a gay San Diego nightclub owner who died of heart congestion at age 31 is being denied a funeral in any of the the Roman Catholic diocese's churches by its Bishop because he disapproves of the business the dead man owned.

The owner of a popular local nightclub with a gay clientele can't have a funeral in the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego because the church has deemed his business "inconsistent with Catholic moral teaching."

None of the 98 Catholic churches in San Diego or Imperial counties will be allowed to provide services for Club Montage owner John McCusker as a result of the decision by San Diego Bishop Robert Brom.

The Church is hiding behind a very flimsy argument on this, IMO:

The diocese issued a statement yesterday, saying: "The facts regarding the business activities of John McCusker were not known by church officials when arrangements were requested for his funeral. However, when these facts became known, the bishop concluded that to avoid public scandal Mr. McCusker cannot be granted a funeral in a Catholic church in the chapel of the Diocese of San Diego."

Chancellor Rodrigo Valdivia, a diocese spokesman, said the bishop's order applies to all 98 parishes within the diocese's jurisdiction.

Valdivia wouldn't comment when asked to specify which of McCusker's business activities violated church doctrine. He emphasized that the church's decision had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of McCusker, who was gay. Instead, the decision was based on McCusker's "public activity" as a businessman, Valdivia said.

"We received information that the business he was involved with was inconsistent with Catholic teachings," Valdivia said.

But when pressed on how frequently the Church refuses funerals based on this policy, the spokesman said he couldn't recall any other examples. As one commenter on Kos noted, the Roman Catholic Church would not do this to a member of the mafia, but a gay nightclub owner, that violates church doctrine.

Sure to follow in the wake of growing fury this is causing in the gay community are further investigations into Bishop Brom's alleged molestation history:

[W]hile Brom was bishop of Duluth, Minnesota, in the 1980s, he and other members of the hierarchy had quietly settled claims with various students at a seminary in Winona, Minnesota, who had accused Brom and others of sexually abusing them. [Mark] Brooks [an abuse victim himself who's been interviewing priests accused of molestation] didn't simply take the priest's word for it. He contacted one of the alleged abuse victims, former seminarian Jeff Maras. In a series of lengthy phone calls spanning many months, Maras confided in detail about what had gone on at the Immaculate Heart of Mary Seminary in Minnesota, Brooks says. Maras told him that besides being molested by Brom, he had also been abused by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago. (Maras abandoned his priestly studies long ago and is living in South Dakota. He did not respond to numerous interview requests for this article.)

Another report outlines the allegations against Brom:

Bishop Robert Brom was accused of coercing a student into a sexual relationship at a seminary in Minnesota, where he once was rector and later headed the Diocese of Duluth. Church officials acknowledged multiple settlements to seminarians as a result of abuse allegations involving other members of the hierarchy and priests but deny the validity of the claims. Brom paid a confidential settlement (reported to be $85,000.00) to his accuser, who agreed to retract his claim against Brom. Brom has stated the pay out was "minimal insurance" to help his accuser of getting on with his life. The deal was reached in 1993 but didn't become public until this spring. Bishop Brom continues to deny wrongdoing and remains on the job.

I'm trying to be careful here, because I don't know whether Brom is guilty of sexually abusing anyone (the accounts here are from sources whose reputations I'm not familiar with), but one would think that even being accused of it would make Brom a bit more Christ-like in his response to other people's suffering. Instead, he's adding to their grief and in a way that's very public and heartless. It's a monstrous thing to do. And, if he is guilty of sexual abuse, his actions are worthy of that extra special place in Hell reserved for the worst of hypocrites.

In a more Christian response to the family's grief, a local Episcopal church offered some comfort:

After finding out about the diocese's decision, McCusker's family called Councilwoman Toni Atkins, who is lesbian. She steered the family to St. Paul's Cathedral.

"Our basic philosophy at the cathedral is whoever you are and wherever you find yourself on the journey of faith, we welcome you," said the Very Rev. Scott Richardson, dean of the Episcopal church on Sixth Avenue.

Richardson said Atkins called him Wednesday night to tell him the McCusker family "needed some help. We were happy to offer that."

Joe of Ameriblog nails the real scandal in all this:

I grew up Catholic, very Catholic. And I can tell you this, Catholics have a ritual to death....and it gives great pain to think of what that young man's family is going through. Not only is their 31 year old son and brother dead, but the place to which they turn for comfort, denies them.

Bishop Brom should be very ashamed that he couldn't find a more humane way to adhere to the church's teachings. Reportedly, McCusker's family members are devout Catholics, and his mother has taught catechism. That's some kick in the teeth when they're down.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

I'm not a Catholic. Not even (though reared as one) a Christian. But sex obsessed does seem the appropriate term for this.

[Wilfred]

Ah, my former church. Kill a bunch of men for the Cosa Nostra and no problemo but to pleasure one.... bada bing bada boom.

[Phil]

Rather than go on my usual rant about religion, I'll just note that this cannot possibly go well for anyone involved now, as it will lead to interested advocacy parties digging through the private lives of anyone of potential ill repute buried in a Catholic ceremony in any of this diocese's churches. Ugly, ugly, ugly. And stupid and venal and painful for the family. It takes a special kind of person to do this to a grieving family, and by "special" I mean "evil."

[Macallan]

I don't get this at all.

Sorry Bishop, but I imagine that if Mary Magdalene had met an untimely death prior to her expiation, I don't think Christ would have skipped her funeral on the grounds that her business was "inconsistent with Catholic moral teaching." If the concerns for this chap's profession are sincere, all the more reason to pray for his soul.

[cleek]

i'm there's s sick joke in there somewhere about Catholic priests...

[hilzoy]

I am, for once, with Macallan. Christ didn't scorn tax collectors and prostitutes on the grounds that he needed to avoid public scandal. When people asked him why he was consorting with those low-lifes, he told them where to get off. If bishops claim to be representing Christ, they might at least do him the courtesy of taking into account some of his more obvious views.

Plus, if one were going to get into the business of denying people funerals because their professional lives catered to sin, there are many better places to start than here. I think that the case for gay sex being wrong qua sex outside of marriage is a reasonable one, and this coupled with St. Paul's observation that it is better to marry than to burn has always seemed to me to form a good basis for Christian support for gay marriage. But the claim that gay sex, qua gay, is sinful is much more dubious; the clearest Biblical pronouncements on this score are in the Mosaic law which, according to Christians, Christ was sent to supercede.

But there are lots of other things that are plainly sins according to Christianity, and that some businesses cater to. Gluttony (McDonalds et al), anger (talk radio), vanity (too many candidates here to list), pride (ditto), and so on and so forth. When the Catholic Church starts denying burial to the heads of cosmetic companies, I'll disagree, but at least I'll be clear that they are being even-handed.

(I've always wondered why, with so many more serious sins around, so many contemporary Christians focus on the various sexual sins. My tentative answer is that they're the ones it's possible to not engage in through a simple act of will -- unlike pride or anger, say -- and thus allow greater scope for self-righteousness. When I was Christian, it seemed clear to me that pride, lack of generosity, vanity, and anger were far more serious threats to one's soul, and far harder to eradicate.)

[Don Quijote]

I've always wondered why, with so many more serious sins around, so many contemporary Christians focus on the various sexual sins.

Cause Corporate America, the Republican party & the Church don't get a cut of the profits!!!

[Macallan]

I am, for once, with Macallan.

Dang, bet that hurt...

[Bernard Yomtov]

According to this John Gotti was not given a funeral mass but was accorded a memorial mass and was buried in a Catholic cemetery.

Can someone explain what all this means?

[sidereal]

"I've always wondered why, with so many more serious sins around, so many contemporary Christians focus on the various sexual sins."

Ick factor. Same reason they obsess over gay marriage and don't spend any energy on divorce.

[Anarch]

Gluttony (McDonalds et al), anger (talk radio), vanity (too many candidates here to list), pride (ditto), and so on and so forth.

Usury!

[McDuff]

Oh well, voice of dissent.

The Catholic Church can do what it wants. It's a private religion and, since it's set itself up as the direct conduit of God to Man, what it says God wants, God wants. If The Church says the Mafia is OK but Queers aren't, there's no logical or rational appeal we can make about our own interpretations of Christ's life that would work -- the fact that we disagree with them makes us wrong.

I appreciate that it's hard to acknowledge that the religion you are a member of hates your guts, but for Gay Catholics I really don't see any intellectually consistent way of getting round it. It might seem harsh (and I admit a certain heretical bias), but I honestly think the best outcome for this would be more Catholics saying "you know what? I don't need this bunch of tired-out, sanctimonious child-molesters telling me what God thinks, thank you very much." The Church has long outstayed its welcome as a socially important institution on this planet -- it's time to relegate it to the level of Zoroastrianism.

[Jesurgislac]

On the whole I agree with you, McDuff: religions get to set their own rules for their own religionists, and, providing they make no attempt to change civil law, I don't see why they shouldn't have their own rules which people who want to belong to that religion must obey or leave.

(I profoundly disagree with religious schools, because while parents have, unavoidably, the right to bring their children up how they like, children ought to have access to information coming from outside the religion - otherwise they can't be said to making their own minds up.)

But I think in this case the Catholic church is actually breaking its own rules. The rule is (I believe) that since no one can know what's in someone's mind at the moment of death, no mortal priest has a right to decide for sure that a person died in a state of mortal sin: they may have made a perfect act of contrition at the moment of death. No one can possibly know, therefore everyone can be given the benefit of the doubt.

So, by its own rules, the Catholic Church should assume that John McCusker may have achieved a state of grace, however sinful Bishop Brom may think his line of business was, and he was due a full Catholic funeral.

[Tim H.]

Jes, IIRC, you get the benefit of the doubt unless you've been formally excommunicated, which doesn't apply here.

[Edward]

If The Church says the Mafia is OK but Queers aren't, there's no logical or rational appeal we can make about our own interpretations of Christ's life that would work -- the fact that we disagree with them makes us wrong.

Yes, religions can make any rules they see fit, but when those rules are clearly hypocritical, it's worth pointing that out, no?

[freelunch]

It appears that this bishop, along with too many other bishops, has confused what Jesus taught with what the Pharisees were being accused of doing. The Catholic Hierarchy appears to be intent on destroying the Church.

[McDuff]

The Catholic Hierarchy appears to be intent on destroying the Church.

Would that it were so, but if history teaches us anything it is that religions not only survive being administered by venal, corrupt hypocrites, they seem to positively thrive on it.

[Doh]

I saw on Americablog that the Bishop has actually apologized now, and promised to preside at a mass.

On the other hand, Jeanne D'Arc has a scary post about the Argentine Catholic hierarchy (their past, and perhaps current, support for throwing undesirables out of airplanes into the sea).

[JB]

If all of you that are quoting the bible saying, Jesus forgave tax collectors, and prostitutes you would always notice they were the repentant ones who reformed their ways. This guy not only did bad things but reveled in it and had not intention of stopping...that being said do I know if he went to Hell or not no nor does it really mean that much to me but I do know that by Church cannon he was not supposed to receive a funeral and bravo to Bishop Brom for standing up and doing what was right despite mainstream media's no one is really wrong attitude. He saw something that wasn't right and called it for what it was.