Question re elderly atheist relative and funeral arrangements by Catholic family.

Pherekydes

mathepac wrote: »

@Pherekydes, take 100 lines: "Father Ted was not a documentary series", "Father Ted was not a documentary series" ...

I'm afraid I've never watched Father Ted, so the reference means nothing to me.

That's as bad as admitting being an Irish atheist! :eek:

mathepac

Dades wrote: »

Are you for real?? ....

Interpreting the US TV programme speak, and attempting to respond in kind, I guess so dude (-tte as appropriate)

Dades wrote: »

... Leaving aside the case in the OP for the moment - what you are suggesting is that people who have different beliefs should STFU and die without causing any hassle for the people left behind. .

That's an extreme and slanted interpretation (no surprises there) of what I wrote but in the ball-park. I said as the people concerned are already dead it cannot matter to them - they also have nothing to fear, unless of course after death they discover there is an afterlife and they've burned their bridges.

Dades wrote: »

... Basically, nobody cares if you weren't catholic [EDIT or Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu or any of those other words you guys seem to find so hateful] lets outsource the arrangements to a priest who's never met the deceased, and who can drone on about stuff that would probably kill him again with frustration if he weren't dead already. ....

No. If you exercised your reading skills rather than being so adept at running off at the keyboard, you'd have read I never suggested that. But reading and understanding a post before responding would be a massive change in the threads in this forum, where bully-boy tactics prevail.

By all means generalise about these priests you haven't met and forecast their behaviour; it's a unique skill

Dades wrote: »

... I suppose you'd be fine suggesting that to an atheist terminal patient who had the gall to suggest he'd prefer not to be boxed up in a church? ...

I can't be responsible for guiding the warped thinking you indulge yourself in. Why not ask me a question relevant to my post, rather than question me about your repulsive and fantastical meanderings.

Dades wrote: »

... Your response is symptomatic of the "catholic country" attitude that's been in the news recently...

In your opinion, but given the lack of deductive reasoning or rational thought evident in your response to my post, that opinion holds no value.

Dades wrote: »

... The discussion has drifted around the idea of how people might get their funeral wishes fulfilled, ....

Amongst other things.

Dades wrote: »

... though by the sound of it, you think dead people are selfish.

How would you know? You haven't read my post dude, or if you have read it, you've just earned NG in comprehension.

Turtwig

mathepac wrote: »

Interpreting the US TV programme speak, and attempting to respond in kind, I guess so dude (-tte as appropriate)
That's an extreme and slanted interpretation (no surprises there) of what I wrote but in the ball-park. I said as the people concerned are already dead it cannot matter to them - they also have nothing to fear, unless of course after death they discover there is an afterlife and they've burned their bridges.

No. If you exercised your reading skills rather than being so adept at running off at the keyboard, you'd have read I never suggested that. But reading and understanding a post before responding would be a massive change in the threads in this forum, where bully-boy tactics prevail.

By all means generalise about these priests you haven't met and forecast their behaviour; it's a unique skill

I can't be responsible for guiding the warped thinking you indulge yourself in. Why not ask me a question relevant to my post, rather than question me about your repulsive and fantastical meanderings.
In your opinion, but given the lack of deductive reasoning or rational thought evident in your response to my post, that opinion holds no value.
Amongst other things.
How would you know? You haven't read my post dude, or if you have read it, you've just earned NG in comprehension.

Whether or not Dades completely misinterpreted your post here is irrelevant in my eyes. It'd be far more constructive and useful to everybody if you refrain juvenile comments about a persons reading ability and just help clear up misunderstandings. If you can't do that in a rational and civil fashion, then take a break and come back and do it when you can.
Understand this: people aren't perfect, people misunderstand things. Sometimes you will be misunderstood, sometimes you could have expressed yourself better. It doesn't matter.

Think of it like everyone wearing sunglasses, except that not everyone is wearing the exact same shade of tint so words and meaning may be seen slightly differently. Sometimes posters will start off on different galaxies, but if they work with the discussion and remain civil eventually both sides points may be understood. They may never be understood, but which approach do you think has the best chance? Have patience, be friendly and the discussion will flow better. So please, less of the snide remarks.
Thanks

Turtwig

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm afraid I've never watched Father Ted

I had to recheck the charter. I double checked it, then I cried a little. You're on very thin ice in my eyes. :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

It is very insulting to suggest that a religious person can validly hold views about what should happen to their body after death, but an atheist cannot.

Peregrinus

Pherekydes wrote: »

If you can have a legally binding will as to how your estate is divided up after you become a decomposing bag of chemicals, why can't you have a binding agreement as to how that bag of chemicals is disposed of?

Because, surprisingly enough, you don't own your own body.

Legally, a human body is not something that can be owned, either while alive (that's why we don't have slavery) or when dead. And that's why your body does not form part of your estate, and cannot be disposed of by will.

What you can have is control over/responsibility for a body. And control over/responsibility for a dead body rests with the legal personal representatives - the next-of-kin/executor.

The way in which they exercise that control is, of course, not unlimited. There are rules about when and how people can be buried, for example, so they can't just put you in a bin bag and leave you out with the domestic waste. And there is a legally enforceable responsibility to dispose of your remains; if they neglect this the Health Services Executive will dispose of the remains and then bill them.

But, subject to those kinds of contraints, they can do what they want. You can express your wishes in your will, but if they ignore them there is no real mechanism for enforcing your wishes against them. (I've already suggested the closest you can come to this is a clause in your will which would penalise them for not respecting your wishes, by depriving them of their inheritance. But even that will be subject to any legal right to inheritance they may have as, e.g., your surviving spouse.)

Even if you've "left your body to science", it's actually up to your next of kin to decide whether to give your body to science, or have it creosoted and exhibited indefinitely in a highly ornamented shrine for popular devotion and the occasional miracle.

TwoShedsJackson

Peregrinus wrote: »

... or have it creosoted and exhibited indefinitely in a highly ornamented shrine for popular devotion and the occasional miracle.

I can feel a frantic re-writing of my will coming on...

Worztron

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But was his family aware of that?

Yes.

Worztron

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Did he explicitly say he didn't want a Christian burial ?
Maybe as a atheist he just didn't care.

As far as I know, no. I only saw him once every few years as he lived very far from me. He was quite and probably did not want hassle caused.

Worztron

ninja900 wrote: »

It is very insulting to suggest that a religious person can validly hold views about what should happen to their body after death, but an atheist cannot.

Yes, I think it is very ingenuous to hold a religious funeral for someone who was not religious.

TwoShedsJackson

Worztron wrote: »

Yes, I think it is very ingenuous to hold a religious funeral for someone who was not religious.

It shows a fundamental lack of respect for the person and their wishes but I think we all know someone like that in most families. Their problem is they're so terribly worried about what the neighbours etc. will think that they over-ride what the person who is being buried/cremated thought.

Dades

mathepac - perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify what you meant.

While your last post is filled with affront, I notice you're shying away from the subject matter.

mathepac

To me, obviously, my original post is self-explanatory, even self-evident.

Perhaps you'd highlight the parts that are obscure or need further explanation. Below is the entire post broken into discrete numbered sentences to aid analysis / discussion / explanation.

1. I'd like to go back to a point raised in some preceding posts that seems to have been dismissed or ignored.
2. The funeral rites in many cultures and religions serve a number of purposes including respecting and remembering the life of the departed person.
3. Another important purpose they serve is for friends and family of the departed to gather in commemoration of that person to share memories, anecdotes and grief (or glee, as the case may be).
4. The rites and ceremonies of any belief system or religion are for the surviving family and friends and serve to give them a template for the ceremonies and a formal, well-practiced means of bidding farewell to the deceased.
5. The "arrangements" can be safely left to 3rd-parties, funeral directors / clergy, so that the arranging doesn't impinge upon the loss and sorrow being experienced by the mourners.
6. Only an extreme control freak with a wish to exert malign influence and impose unnecessary hurt on survivors would insist on removing the comfort of the traditional rites from his family.
7. Typically, in this thread some atheists (already dead?) yet again want to impose their will on grieving families.
8. If you're an atheist, when you're dead you're dead.
9. Whatever religious rites happen in and around your decomposing chemical remains once the life-force is extinguished cannot effect you - or can it, hence the hullabaloo?

Rev Hellfire

Common decency would dictate that where someone had professed a particular preference the next of kin would where possible follow that.

Dades

mathepac wrote: »

Perhaps you'd highlight the parts that are obscure or need further explanation. Below is the entire post broken into discrete numbered sentences to aid analysis / discussion / explanation.

1. I'd like to go back to a point raised in some preceding posts that seems to have been dismissed or ignored.
2. The funeral rites in many cultures and religions serve a number of purposes including respecting and remembering the life of the departed person.
3. Another important purpose they serve is for friends and family of the departed to gather in commemoration of that person to share memories, anecdotes and grief (or glee, as the case may be).
4. The rites and ceremonies of any belief system or religion are for the surviving family and friends and serve to give them a template for the ceremonies and a formal, well-practiced means of bidding farewell to the deceased.
5. The "arrangements" can be safely left to 3rd-parties, funeral directors / clergy, so that the arranging doesn't impinge upon the loss and sorrow being experienced by the mourners.
6. Only an extreme control freak with a wish to exert malign influence and impose unnecessary hurt on survivors would insist on removing the comfort of the traditional rites from his family.
7. Typically, in this thread some atheists (already dead?) yet again want to impose their will on grieving families.
8. If you're an atheist, when you're dead you're dead.
9. Whatever religious rites happen in and around your decomposing chemical remains once the life-force is extinguished cannot effect you - or can it, hence the hullabaloo?

There you go. That highlighted bit up there. ^^

The bit that seems to suggest that non-catholics should not suggest or request a non-catholic funeral service to mark their own passing.

I, and many others, have stated that in event of sudden demise at a relatively young age that the arrangements be done as those left behind see fit. Traumatic circumstances do call for concessions.

But most of us expect to make it a bit further, watch our children mature, bury our parents. Can you clarify whether you have an issue with older, or terminally ill non-believers having a say in how their passing is marked? Has it occurred to you that, although dead at the time of the event, the planning and the knowledge that the service will be true to your beliefs might be a comfort to a soon-to-be-departed individual?

kylith

mathepac wrote: »

To me, obviously, my original post is self-explanatory, even self-evident.

Perhaps you'd highlight the parts that are obscure or need further explanation. Below is the entire post broken into discrete numbered sentences to aid analysis / discussion / explanation.

1. I'd like to go back to a point raised in some preceding posts that seems to have been dismissed or ignored.
2. The funeral rites in many cultures and religions serve a number of purposes including respecting and remembering the life of the departed person.
3. Another important purpose they serve is for friends and family of the departed to gather in commemoration of that person to share memories, anecdotes and grief (or glee, as the case may be).
4. The rites and ceremonies of any belief system or religion are for the surviving family and friends and serve to give them a template for the ceremonies and a formal, well-practiced means of bidding farewell to the deceased.
5. The "arrangements" can be safely left to 3rd-parties, funeral directors / clergy, so that the arranging doesn't impinge upon the loss and sorrow being experienced by the mourners.
6. Only an extreme control freak with a wish to exert malign influence and impose unnecessary hurt on survivors would insist on removing the comfort of the traditional rites from his family.
7. Typically, in this thread some atheists (already dead?) yet again want to impose their will on grieving families.
8. If you're an atheist, when you're dead you're dead.
9. Whatever religious rites happen in and around your decomposing chemical remains once the life-force is extinguished cannot effect you - or can it, hence the hullabaloo?

So since I'm an atheist it would be preferable for me to have a non-religious funeral for my mother, since her wishes mean squat because she's dead, regardless of what her friend's say about her desire to have a religious funeral?

Mark Hamill

mathepac wrote: »

Only an extreme control freak with a wish to exert malign influence and impose unnecessary hurt on survivors would insist on removing the comfort of the traditional rites from his family.

Would you be saying that if the deceased was, say, a christian convert and his family Jewish or Hindu?

mathepac

Dades wrote: »

There you go. That highlighted bit up there...

Eggssellent. I'm delighted to observe that the rest of my post has now passed muster with at least three posters so far. Is this a record?

Dades wrote: »

... The bit that seems to suggest that non-catholics should not suggest or request a non-catholic funeral service to mark their own passing. ...

That's your imagination and insecurity looking for things to criticise about a straight-forward statement, and "... seems to suggest... " is rather ephemeral.

I have already written that a big part of the rites, ceremonies, traditions and cultural observations around the death of a loved one are designed to give solace to the survivors of the departed. You'd want to be very hard-hearted and selfish to deny them potential sources of comfort after your death by insisting (somehow) that they do your thing.

I have mentioned nothing about Catholicism in making my point - mine was a general one. Just on a side note I have been branded religious in this thread and accused of Catholicism / Christianity. As I've made clear a number of times in the forum, I am none of those things. If pushed I'd describe myself, as I have previously, as a spiritual person - make of that what you will.

Dades wrote: »

... I, and many others, have stated that in event of sudden demise at a relatively young age that the arrangements be done as those left behind see fit. Traumatic circumstances do call for concessions.

But most of us expect to make it a bit further, watch our children mature, bury our parents. Can you clarify whether you have an issue with older, or terminally ill non-believers having a say in how their passing is marked? Has it occurred to you that, although dead at the time of the event, the planning and the knowledge that the service will be true to your beliefs might be a comfort to a soon-to-be-departed individual?

I don't think I have much to add other than to observe that this fixation with "me, myself and I" and "my wants, my needs, my wishes" even beyond the grave seems to permeate these atheist / agnostic discussions.

My family already knows that whatever way they wish to mark my passing (or not as the case may be ) is absolutely fine with me. The key is that it helps them with any grief they might feel and also help them to continue with their wonderfully fulfilling lives, some of which they were generous enough to share with me.

Finis.

mathepac

kylith wrote: »

So since I'm an atheist it would be preferable for me to have a non-religious funeral for my mother, since her wishes mean squat because she's dead, regardless of what her friend's say about her desire to have a religious funeral?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Would you be saying that if the deceased was, say, a christian convert and his family Jewish or Hindu?

Wagon jumpers please see above. Thanks.

Dades

That's possibly the most disingenuous response to a post I've read this year.

You obviously lack the courage of your convictions to clarify what you mean without rhetoric, question-dodging and petty swipes at the forum users. It's obvious to anyone reading this you have a severe issue with atheists, a view probably defined by the distance from the ground to your horse.

Turtwig

mathepac wrote: »

Eggssellent. I'm delighted to observe that the rest of my post has now passed muster with at least three posters so far. Is this a record?
That's your imagination and insecurity looking for things to criticise about a straight-forward statement, and "... seems to suggest... " is rather ephemeral.

I have already written that a big part of the rites, ceremonies, traditions and cultural observations around the death of a loved one are designed to give solace to the survivors of the departed. You'd want to be very hard-hearted and selfish to deny them potential sources of comfort after your death by insisting (somehow) that they do your thing.

I have mentioned nothing about Catholicism in making my point - mine was a general one. Just on a side note I have been branded religious in this thread and accused of Catholicism / Christianity. As I've made clear a number of times in the forum, I am none of those things. If pushed I'd describe myself, as I have previously, as a spiritual person - make of that what you will.
I don't think I have much to add other than to observe that this fixation with "me, myself and I" and "my wants, my needs, my wishes" even beyond the grave seems to permeate these atheist / agnostic discussions.

My family already knows that whatever way they wish to mark my passing (or not as the case may be ) is absolutely fine with me. The key is that it helps them with any grief they might feel and also help them to continue with their wonderfully fulfilling lives, some of which they were generous enough to share with me.

Finis.

First of all you basically reposted your original post verbatim. That's not constructive. If people didn't understand what you meant the first time what on EARTH makes you think they'll understand the exact same words correctly the second time?


If you expect people to automatically understand you, fine. I think that's a mistake but I can't change your expectations. However, I can ask you to refrain from such ridiculously snide and unnecessary remarks. By all means, believe whatever view you hold of this forum and its posters. But DO NOT include snide remarks unnecessarily into a discussion on this forum again. They're not constructive or helpful and only serve as a petty attempt to inflame people.
Consider this your final warning.

mathepac

You attacked my original post based on imagined content.

I responded indignantly to your trolling.

You asked for clarification / explanation of my post after a mod took me to task.

I reposted the entire content asking you to identify what exactly was unclear

You asked me about a single sentence out of the original 9 - a massive but understandable climb-down from your original tirade about stuff I hadn't written. (Maybe you didn't notice that)

I clarified and elaborated.

Now you're back with insults and a personal attack - remember, play the ball and not the man. But that's OK, your fellow mods will indulge you and forget about the charter. I do understand and can make allowances.

mathepac

Jernal wrote: »

First of all you basically reposted your original post verbatim. That's not constructive. If people didn't understand what you meant the first time what on EARTH makes you think they'll understand the exact same words correctly the second time? ...

I'm genuinely struggling here. I've used plain English and simple concepts to try to explain my position. I've asked posters to help by highlifgting in the numbered list what needed further explanation and I've tried to do that but I just came up with the same words and concepts.

Maybe there's nothing to explain, that my thinking about the topic is in terms as simple as I can make them - I am not a teacher but this would one of the few times in my life I have been at a loss for words other than those I've already used to explain my ideas further.

If someone wants to help, I'd appreciate it. What is foreign or alien or ambiguous about what I wrote originally? Am I trying to alienate someone's rights? What / where is the problem with my words?

Dades

Here's the thing. You have posited something I find unreasonable. I, and others, have suggested scenarios that would show this position to be unreasonable in certain cases.

You have studiously ignored these (even after quoting them) in your effort to simply repeat your stance. Could you please address these and at least openly reject them rather than standing off incredulously?

eviltwin

I really hope cases like the OP's example are in the minority. I'd like to think that regardless of the faith ( or lackof ) that a family would care enough about their loved one to follow through on their wishes re their burial.

Its so insulting to think that in the final act your family will do for you that they would just dismiss your views and do what they wanted.

Mathepac, non religious funerals are still funerals. You still have the same ritual of saying goodbye, remembering the person etc just without the religious bits. There will be plenty of opportunity for family and friends to honour the person as they see fit. Funerals are meant to be about the deceased, its meant to be not just a way of saying goodbye but of celebrating their life. Wouldn't it be completely fake and laughable to have a confirmed atheist - someone who has gone to the trouble of making an explicit request to have a non religious burial - buried in a Catholic setting?

Turtwig

mathepac wrote: »

You attacked my original post based on imagined content.

I responded indignantly to your trolling.

You asked for clarification / explanation of my post after a mod took me to task.

I reposted the entire content asking you to identify what exactly was unclear

You asked me about a single sentence out of the original 9 - a massive but understandable climb-down from your original tirade about stuff I hadn't written. (Maybe you didn't notice that)

I clarified and elaborated.

Now you're back with insults and a personal attack - remember, play the ball and not the man. But that's OK, your fellow mods will indulge you and forget about the charter. I do understand and can make allowances.

People will misunderstand you and you will be misunderstood that's just a fact of life. If you feel you're being trolled by a mod or admin you can still report the post. What you don't do is sink to level of snide remarks and insult people's reading comprehensions, accused them of warped thinking or bully boy tactics, being insecure etc. These remarks are totally unnecessary and not helpful. You said it best yourself play the ball and not the player. Just remember too that taunts are best reserved for Call of Duty.

mathepac wrote: »

I'm genuinely struggling here. I've used plain English and simple concepts to try to explain my position. I've asked posters to help by highlifgting in the numbered list what needed further explanation and I've tried to do that but I just came up with the same words and concepts.

Maybe there's nothing to explain, that my thinking about the topic is in terms as simple as I can make them - I am not a teacher but this would one of the few times in my life I have been at a loss for words other than those I've already used to explain my ideas further.

If someone wants to help, I'd appreciate it. What is foreign or alien or ambiguous about what I wrote originally? Am I trying to alienate someone's rights? What / where is the problem with my words?

In my experience if I think people misunderstood me, saying the same thing again word for word almost never works. I think you're finding that to be the case too.:)
Often times, what we write looks perfect to us but when others read it looks a tad less clear. Meanings of ideas and concepts can be clear to us but to others they be lost or seen in a different colour. We could chose to imply such people are stupid, or we could try to resolve the misunderstanding in a mature and rational manner.

I'm not going to look at the subject matter, but you tell me, if you were a student and a teacher was using these sort of remarks towards you how do you think you'd feel towards learning,understanding or discussing something with them?

mathepac wrote: »

...
No. If you exercised your reading skills rather...reading and understanding a post before responding would be a massive change in the threads in this forum, where bully-boy tactics prevail.
...
I can't be responsible for guiding the warped thinking you indulge yourself in.

mathepac wrote: »

That's your imagination and insecurity
...

Simply put these remarks don't contribute towards the discussions or help clear up any misunderstanding. If anything, they serve to belittle the poster you're replying to.
Your tone could also do with being a little less condescending but if you could leave these type of remarks out of your future posts it'd be a definite start.

jimd2

Worztron wrote: »

Hi guys.

A dear old relative of mine has recently died. I know he was an atheist. For the last 3+ years he has had deteriorating memory. Most of the family are "Catholic" but probably more out of tradition rather than truly believing in adult fairy tales.

My question is this. Will my relative get a Christian funeral (the thought turns my stomach) or is the only other way around this is if he made a will and stated he wanted a non-religious funeral?

After-all, the funeral is for him and not the relatives.

If you are next of kin, as others have stated, then you can make the decision or at least discuss it with other family members.

If you are not then keep out of it. Regarding your stomach being turned by a funeral if it is not your direct family then all I can say is get over it.

jimd2

Beruthiel wrote: »

My hubby and daughter are very well aware that my body should be brought no where near a church.

So, if your relative did not go to the trouble of being very insistent to the people around him, you would have to conclude, that he really didn't care enough about what happens to his body once he had passed away.
Perhaps you could let that be some comfort to you.

Agreed, well put.

mathepac

eviltwin wrote: »

... Mathepac, non religious funerals are still funerals. You still have the same ritual of saying goodbye, remembering the person etc just without the religious bits. There will be plenty of opportunity for family and friends to honour the person as they see fit. Funerals are meant to be about the deceased, its meant to be not just a way of saying goodbye but of celebrating their life. ...

My post and the posts attempting to clarify it have been reproduced and quoted a good few times above. How can you possibly have missed reading or mis-interpreting what I wrote?

eviltwin wrote: »

... Funerals are meant to be about the deceased ...

I have no issue with funerals, rites, rituals, ceremonies, cultural farewells being about the deceased, but when an atheist is the deceased, then obviously these funerals, rites, rituals, ceremonies, cultural farewells, etc are not for them, they are for the survivors, a point I've made repeatedly.

Worztron

jimd2 wrote: »

If you are next of kin, as others have stated, then you can make the decision or at least discuss it with other family members.

If you are not then keep out of it. Regarding your stomach being turned by a funeral if it is not your direct family then all I can say is get over it.

I said 'christian funeral' not just 'funeral'. A societal whitewash it is then.