Many Catholics in New York and across the U.S. are left fuming after hearing the news of a funeral Mass being held at St Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC for the late trans and LGBTQ activist Cecilia Gentili. Gentili, a naturalized American born in Argentina, was a trans woman who was raised both Catholic and Baptist. As a child, Gentili was sexually abused by a neighbor, came out as gay at the age of 12, and later transitioned to being a woman. After migrating to the US, Gentili had multiple run ins with the law, including jail time for both drugs and sex work.  Throughout her lifetime Gentili struggled with religion and publicly declared herself to be an atheist. This is a person who had a lifetime filled with both tragedy and sin, ultimately living a lifestyle not aligned with the Church’s moral teachings. So how did she end up having a funeral Mass at one of the most revered churches in the United States? The sanctuary was filled with over 1,000 people, and one eulogy even described her as “Saint Cecilia, the mother of all whores.”

The representatives at St. Patrick’s have since publicly denounced the funeral, describing the family as having deceived the parish to host the funeral. Many Catholics believe this was an attempt to make a mockery of the Church and create a public display of rebellion against the Church’s social beliefs. It is important that we call out those at St. Patrick’s for their lack of effort in this regard. This was a well known activist in the New York area, and to claim ignorance is simply not sufficient. A simple Google search would have yielded more than enough information for the Church to make an educated decision. However, I must admit, I have mixed feelings regarding this situation. On one hand, I have previously encouraged the faithful to hold a more compassionate view of the trans and gay communities in my post on the sins of sexuality. On the other, I find it very disturbing that one would use the sacred funeral Mass as a means of protest. This is comparable to the disgusting anti-gay protesting of soldiers’ funerals that still occur across the country. At the end of the day, I cannot possibly know the true intentions of the family and those that attended the Mass, and despite what it appears like on the surface, it would be wrong to pass a judgement on family and friends who ultimately are mourning the loss of a loved one. Only they know their true intentions, and it is between them and God at this point. But this question remains: had the Church known about the circumstances of the deceased, should she still have been allowed to have a funeral Mass?

I believe we can break this down further into two separate questions:

1. Does a LGBTQ Catholic have the right to a funeral Mass?
2. Would a publicly declared atheist who received the sacraments of baptism and confirmation have the right to a funeral Mass?

According to Canon Law 1184, there are certain situations in which an ecclesiastical funeral can be denied for a deceased Christian unless they gave some signs of repentance before death:

1. Notorious apostates, heretics and schismatics
2. Those who chose the cremations of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith, and
3. Other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful

Note that the section declares “some signs” of repentance, not the sacrament of reconciliation, as the minimum. Self-awareness that we are sinners is a prerequisite to practicing the Christian faith. We know that despite our imperfections, the divine mercy of God will be given to those who repent and seek forgiveness. This is not limited to the sacrament of reconciliation, but also extends to personal prayer and actions. Because of this, I would contend that for those who attend Mass, practice personal prayer, and openly discuss their faith meet the requirement of repentance. For if it is not assumed that these actions represent a person’s desire for reconciliation with God, the majority of Catholics would have to be denied the right to a funeral Mass unless they start taking attendance at the confessionals. Therefore, in the case of a practicing LGBTQ Catholic, I believe that a funeral Mass should not be denied.

Now to the question regarding a Catholic that has declared themselves an atheist. It would seem this is more straight forward. Point (1) of the section of Canon Law outlined above is clear that those who have apostatized can in fact be denied a funeral Mass. To make this interesting, lets consider Gentili, who had publicly declared herself to be an atheist, however, in an interview with Interview Magazine from November of 2023, she spoke of how she had begun attending service at a Russian Orthodox church, and that she was actively trying to find a relationship with God and religion. So now you have an LGBTQ person, who for the sake of this argument received the sacraments of baptism and confirmation (I cannot confirm this point in the case of Gentili) who had apostatized but has since re-established a relationship with God. This is not so cut and dry, and the best I can do is say this would have to be a case-by-case basis. However, if I were the one who had to make said decision, I would think I would want to go into it wanting to grant them a funeral Mass, for to deny someone that rite would be a saddening decision. Regardless, a decision would have to be made not only for that person, but for the good of the faithful.

In the case of Gentili, I believe St. Patrick’s likely would have referenced point (3) and claimed public scandal to the faithful, and quite frankly would have been justified in doing so. Giving the funeral Mass to someone who had publicly denounced the faith in one of its greatest cathedrals would have tainted the sanctity of our practices.

However, I do not believe that the fact that Gentili was LGBTQ and a known activist should be the focus of the condemnation by the Church. To do so would strain an already fractured relationship between the Church and the LGBTQ community, further driving God’s children away from faith and reconciliation with him. This is in no way a statement against the Church’s social teaching, as I have stated in my previous post on sins of sexuality. This is a statement on the unity of Christ’s followers; to love and respect one another despite our shortcomings. I hope that one day we will move beyond politicized reactions, and instead focus on uniting in our faith in Christ.

God Bless.