Religious funerals for prominent nonbelievers

Loafing Oaf

lazygal wrote: »

There's been few occasions more uncomfortable in my 38 years on this earth than having to sit through a religious funeral for someone who was actively hostile to religion. Shows a tremendous lack of respect for the dead person.

Do you think respect arises in the other direction too? If someone who has loudly and publicly rejected religion in their life requests a religious funeral at the end, should they not at least consider whether this is fair to the clergyman who will be conducting the service?

lazygal

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do you think respect arises in the other direction too? If someone who has loudly and publicly rejected religion in their life requests a religious funeral at the end, should they not at least consider whether this is fair to the clergyman who will be conducting the service?

Absolutely it works both ways.

Mark Hamill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Funerals are for the living yes- but they are to remember the life of the person who just died.

Exactly, if you aren't respecting the person themselves by having the funeral the way they wanted, then who and what exactly are you mourning? If the funeral doesn't reflect the deceased then you are not mourning their life and you are being disrespectful of them and all of their other family and friends who shared in that part of their life.

igCorcaigh

lazygal wrote: »

Absolutely it works both ways.

It absolutely does, and makes me think why I haven't been planning my own funeral matters. Bit unfair to everyone really.

Does anyone have any guidance of where I even start with this?

I don't have any form of insurance, but starting a new job soon that includes life assurance.

is_that_so

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Exactly, if you aren't respecting the person themselves by having the funeral the way they wanted, then who and what exactly are you mourning? If the funeral doesn't reflect the deceased then you are not mourning their life and you are being disrespectful of them and all of their other family and friends who shared in that part of their life.

The dead are gone and don't care what we do. Funerals are a mixture of what the living need and want and what we imagine the dead wanted, but they are for the living only. In my own experience you get a sense of how those close to the deceased wish to proceed and you go with that, with no judgement. Religious funerals offer great rituals, which are comforting at that time.

igCorcaigh

is_that_so wrote: »

Religious funerals offer great rituals, which are comforting at that time.

To a limited extent.
I don't think the repeated rosaries at a removal serve much purpose to most of the bereaved, even the religious ones.

Mark Hamill

is_that_so wrote: »

The dead are gone and don't care what we do. Funerals are a mixture of what the living need and want and what we imagine the dead wanted, but they are for the living only. In my own experience you get a sense of how those close to the deceased wish to proceed and you go with that, with no judgement. Religious funerals offer great rituals, which are comforting at that time.

Isn't it funny how this has always been presented in terms of giving a non-theist a religious funeral, as that's nice for the religious living? What about the other way around?
What if a very religious person dies, they have one next of kin, maybe a somewhat estranged son or daughter, who has no religion. Now, the deceased was an active part of a strong religious community, who want to follow the religious persons wishes. Is it really ok if the estranged son or daughter overrides that and gives them the funeral that suits the son/daughters a-religious views? What if the child had converted to a different religion, would it be ok then? An estranged Muslim-convert child of an actively devout Catholic has a Muslim funeral for a parent they hadn't seen in 10 years, or vice-versa? It's very easy (and frankly cliched at this point) to say "put up and shut up" when its an atheists wishes who are ignored in favour of a christians.


If the funeral doesn't reflect the life and wishes of the deceased, then it is purely be for the benefit of the subset of the living that wanted the deceased' funeral to follow their own whims. If you don't respect them enough to follow someones funeral wishes, then what are even mourning at the funeral?

smacl

is_that_so wrote: »

Religious funerals offer great rituals, which are comforting at that time.

Only if the family and those closest to the deceased are religious. In other cases I'd personally find them miserable and there to serve the church as much as the family of the deceased. My opinion is that people tend to attend funerals out of a sense of duty as much as of care and disappear afterwards. I think you do far more for the grieving with a visit and a chat in the following weeks and months.

is_that_so

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Isn't it funny how this has always been presented in terms of giving a non-theist a religious funeral, as that's nice for the religious living? What about the other way around?
What if a very religious person dies, they have one next of kin, maybe a somewhat estranged son or daughter, who has no religion. Now, the deceased was an active part of a strong religious community, who want to follow the religious persons wishes. Is it really ok if the estranged son or daughter overrides that and gives them the funeral that suits the son/daughters a-religious views? What if the child had converted to a different religion, would it be ok then? An estranged Muslim-convert child of an actively devout Catholic has a Muslim funeral for a parent they hadn't seen in 10 years, or vice-versa? It's very easy (and frankly cliched at this point) to say "put up and shut up" when its an atheists wishes who are ignored in favour of a christians.


If the funeral doesn't reflect the life and wishes of the deceased, then it is purely be for the benefit of the subset of the living that wanted the deceased' funeral to follow their own whims. If you don't respect them enough to follow someones funeral wishes, then what are even mourning at the funeral?

As I said it's all about the living and that response as clearly articulated in this. You seem to have a lot of thoughts on it. I'm afraid I don't, beyond you decide on a ceremony, do it and move on with your mourning. If people want to cause family rifts over it I have no sympathy. As for the estranged well being blunt it's their problem. As the remaining living part of that rift they need to be an adult and pay their respects.

is_that_so

smacl wrote: »

Only if the family and those closest to the deceased are religious. In other cases I'd personally find them miserable and there to serve the church as much as the family of the deceased. My opinion is that people tend to attend funerals out of a sense of duty as much as of care and disappear afterwards. I think you do far more for the grieving with a visit and a chat in the following weeks and months.

Yes, it's a ritual but it's not about you unless you are family. If that's what they've decided you respect it. I like the remembrance efforts made and the selection of materials chosen to read as they can reflect the person.

is_that_so

igCorcaigh wrote: »

To a limited extent.
I don't think the repeated rosaries at a removal serve much purpose to most of the bereaved, even the religious ones.

Removal is just that, a short brief ceremony and a ritual, it's what comes after that in theory offers comfort, although I'm no fan of it myself.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you don't respect them enough to follow someones funeral wishes, then what are even mourning at the funeral?

People are mourning their own loss. If, like me, you consider one aspect of many religions to be a denial that death is truly terminal, a religious person giving a non-religious a religious funeral is simply an extension of that denial. You might see that as disrespectful and nonsense and I might agree, but if it gives those involved the solace they require without upsetting anyone else, what of it? The problem arises when you've got conflicting beliefs among those involved where my take on it would be to go with the wishes of those most deeply affected by the loss while trying not to trample too much on the wishes of the rest. It can be a real ball ache and I reckon very often is.

Loafing Oaf

Here's an interesting article on how this issue is handled in Italy
https://www.italymagazine.com/italy/religion/catholic-weekly-justifies-pavarotti-funeral
Apparently denying a religious funeral to those who reject the church is a thing there, something I've never heard off in Ireland

Seemingly some of the more-Catholic-than-the-Pope readers of a religious magazine were up in arms about the decision to grant Pavarotti full honours in death, despite him being divorced.
The magazine director suggested that Church authorities "probably judged that not giving a religious funeral to a personality so prominent on the world stage would have been an even bigger scandal", which suggests the Church would be even less inclined to deny a Catholic funeral to a bigshot atheist than to an ordinary joe...

lazygal

igCorcaigh wrote: »

It absolutely does, and makes me think why I haven't been planning my own funeral matters. Bit unfair to everyone really.

Does anyone have any guidance of where I even start with this?

I don't have any form of insurance, but starting a new job soon that includes life assurance.

Your next of kin are responsible for disposal of your body. There is no legal requirement to have a funeral of any sort, ritual etc. The body has to be legally buried or cremated and the death registered. That's it. One of the more morbid reasons we got married was for these next of kin rights. My parents would default to a Catholic funeral, no doubt about it, if I wasn't married and they had responsibility for it. We had a humanist wedding so a humanist funeral is the way we'd probably go, my husband wouldn't care too much but I would. I would prefer cremation, as would he. I don't want a grave or headstone.

igCorcaigh

lazygal wrote: »

Your next of kin are responsible for disposal of your body. There is no legal requirement to have a funeral of any sort, ritual etc. The body has to be legally buried or cremated and the death registered. That's it. One of the more morbid reasons we got married was for these next of kin rights. My parents would default to a Catholic funeral, no doubt about it, if I wasn't married and they had responsibility for it. We had a humanist wedding so a humanist funeral is the way we'd probably go, my husband wouldn't care too much but I would. I would prefer cremation, as would he. I don't want a grave or headstone.

Yes, thank you.

My dad is a "put me in a bag and bury me in the back garden" person. As I would be, if I had a back garden.

Yet I know the default will happen, unless I make explicit plans for it.

Just wondering how I go about it. I'm 46 and my parents are still alive.

is_that_so

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Yes, thank you.

My dad is a "put me in a bag and bury me in the back garden" person. As I would be, if I had a back garden.

Yet I know the default will happen, unless I make explicit plans for it.

Just wondering how I go about it. I'm 46 and my parents are still alive.

I think you have a conversation about it and drill down into what they'd like, especially on the burial v cremation options. It can be done in a light-hearted way around selections of music and the like! Also a good idea now to check with any siblings on their views, as such stuff can rear its head in dramatic ways when people do die.

beauf

igCorcaigh wrote: »

To a limited extent.
I don't think the repeated rosaries at a removal serve much purpose to most of the bereaved, even the religious ones.

That's really about does religion or ceremony or prayer have any purpose. Does a funeral have any purpose. Maybe we should just say goodbye at the hospitial and leave it at that.

On reading about it the rosaries is not intended as vain repetition but meditation using familiar words or prayers. As such there are lots of different forms of this in different cultures and/OR religions.

https://genius.com/Monty-python-holy-hand-grenade-of-antioch-annotated

As for funerals,

"The funeral usually includes a ritual through which the corpse receives a final ..disposition.[2] Depending on culture and religion..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funeral

beauf

Really you decided what you want. If you leave it to others, then I think you don't respect your own beliefs.

My own attitude is if you weren't explicit, and your next of kin really wants something, then I see no reason to to object myself.

beauf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Here's an interesting article on how this issue is handled in Italy
https://www.italymagazine.com/italy/religion/catholic-weekly-justifies-pavarotti-funeral
Apparently denying a religious funeral to those who reject the church is a thing there, something I've never heard off in Ireland

Seemingly some of the more-Catholic-than-the-Pope readers of a religious magazine were up in arms about the decision to grant Pavarotti full honours in death, despite him being divorced.
The magazine director suggested that Church authorities "probably judged that not giving a religious funeral to a personality so prominent on the world stage would have been an even bigger scandal", which suggests the Church would be even less inclined to deny a Catholic funeral to a bigshot atheist than to an ordinary joe...

Kinda close to head office in Italy aren't you.

igCorcaigh

For me, it's about the people who are left behind. My family and friends are not religious.

I'm thinking I should make some plans, and at least have money for those plans, to cater for them.

It's just a thought, and one I have never really had.

lazygal

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Yes, thank you.

My dad is a "put me in a bag and bury me in the back garden" person. As I would be, if I had a back garden.

Yet I know the default will happen, unless I make explicit plans for it.

Just wondering how I go about it. I'm 46 and my parents are still alive.

I think you have to have the chat. And be pragmatic, my parents hadn't heard of a humanist way of getting married before we did. So if you want a ceremony of some sort, leave the contact details somewhere people know to get them after a death, along with stories/poems/songs/whatever you want done or said etc. Grief isn't the time for people to have to dig around for something they're not sure about. That's one huge reason so many have the funeral they know already for a dead person, which is a Catholic funeral where all you really do is agree to a reading or two and show up having had a cuppa with a priest and imparted a few anecdotes if it's really a big deal to personalise it.

smacl

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Yes, thank you.

My dad is a "put me in a bag and bury me in the back garden" person. As I would be, if I had a back garden.

Yet I know the default will happen, unless I make explicit plans for it.

Just wondering how I go about it. I'm 46 and my parents are still alive.

Same, though I kind of like the whole tree pod idea and would be cool about helping feed the worms in any old forest if the back garden wasn't a runner. I wonder if you got replanted as an apple tree would it make those eating the apples cannibals by proxy? Fun thought for the day

igCorcaigh

Yet still, a part of me says, feck them. I don't want that organisation controlling my disposal.

They've done enough harm to me when I was alive.

igCorcaigh

smacl wrote: »

Same, though I kind of like the whole tree pod idea and would be cool about helping feed the worms in any old forest if the back garden wasn't a runner. I wonder if you got replanted as an apple tree would it make those eating the apples cannibals by proxy? Fun thought for the day

I think my dad would love that idea. And me too.
I'm going to research that one. Thank you.

lazygal

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Yet still, a part of me says, feck them. I don't want that organisation controlling my disposal.

They've done enough harm to me when I was alive.

This is my thinking. I used to think 'whatever, I'll be dead' but not any more. We give enough control over hatches, matches and dispatches to this toxic cult as it is. They got me for baptism, communion and confirmation. They're not getting me in death.

Loafing Oaf

beauf wrote: »

Kinda close to head office in Italy aren't you.

Yeah, but I was under the impression they went in for a worldly and laissez faire brand of Catholicism over there; I think they have the lowest birth rate in the EU or something.

I suppose Pavarotti's mistake was to try to 'regularise' his relationship with his second wife. If he'd maintained the facade of just the one marriage and carried on womanising nobody would have had a problem...

igCorcaigh

lazygal wrote: »

This is my thinking. I used to think 'whatever, I'll be dead' but not any more. We give enough control over hatches, matches and dispatches to this toxic cult as it is. They got me for baptism, communion and confirmation. They're not getting me in death.

Exactly. This is why I need to make plans now. Just not sure how.

beauf

You can get Funeral insurance and inheritance insurance.

beauf

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Exactly. This is why I need to make plans now. Just not sure how.

As was covered before. You can make requests in your will and you executor is obliged to follow them, you have to will then your next of kin. If they can't find anyone, then good luck as to what happens.

https://www.thejournal.ie/sylva-direct-provision-death-burial-funeral-4668250-Jun2019/

A WOMAN WHO died at a Direct Provision centre in Galway in August 2018 was buried last month without ceremony or prior notice to friends.

...The Department had made it known to gardaí that her body should be released to friends for burial but nine months later, An Garda Síochána told the coroner they had exhausted all options to find a next of kin.

Sylva was then buried, but nobody she knew in Ireland was able to be present.

BarryD2

robinph wrote: »

It is a stupidly fast turn around in Ireland, anyone would think that it was a hot country without access to refrigeration.

Maybe quick here but that's a damn sight better than the weeks that seem to pass by over in England between death & any sort of funeral ceremony.

As regards the OP, I've always thought that funerals were for the living - the family, neighbours and general community. Whatever suits them.

smacl

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Yes, thank you.

My dad is a "put me in a bag and bury me in the back garden" person. As I would be, if I had a back garden.

Yet I know the default will happen, unless I make explicit plans for it.

Just wondering how I go about it. I'm 46 and my parents are still alive.

Just going back to this, your dad seems to be of a mind with Chuang Tzu here, see http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-humor-of-zhuangzi-self-seriousness.html

Hotblack Desiato

is_that_so wrote: »

Religious funerals offer great rituals, which are comforting at that time.

Religious rituals just bring back a lot of unpleasant childhood memories for me. I've decided I'm not going to step inside a catholic church ever again, not even for a funeral. F**k that criminal organisation and everyone who continues to enable it.

Hotblack Desiato

beauf wrote: »

As was covered before. You can make requests in your will and you executor is obliged to follow them, you have to will then your next of kin.

:rolleyes:

Third time of my pointing out on this thread that in Ireland, wills aren't generally read before a funeral. "Arrangements" are usually put in train in the first 24 hours which leaves no time to track down a will, retrieve it from the solicitor's office etc. and in any case nothing you can put in a will legally obliges anyone to carry out, or not carry out, any particular type of funeral.

Why are you posting the same nonsense again and again? I addressed your post directly the last time.

whippet

When my auld fella died last year we knew exactly where he stood regarding the church - he despised the church and it was no secret. So we had our own service, cremation etc .... It was a really nice ceremony - run by ourselves and said what ever we wanted. However, it was so obvious that his immediate family and close friends really missed the religious part of the whole thing - these are people in their 70s and 80s who have been practicing catholics all their lives.

So when it came to interring the Ashes we choose to do so in a church columbarium wall .. and there was a small service that day with the parish priest (who on a wink conveniently ignored the fact that he didn’t have a church funeral and make no secret about it) ... it was a great day for the family who felt in the absence of a church funeral they didn’t get a chance to say a final goodbye.

I’m not religious - however I respect other peoples beliefs and wishes ... and this drove home to me how much some people take comfort from religion.

Mark Hamill

is_that_so wrote: »

As I said it's all about the living and that response as clearly articulated in this. You seem to have a lot of thoughts on it. I'm afraid I don't, beyond you decide on a ceremony, do it and move on with your mourning. If people want to cause family rifts over it I have no sympathy. As for the estranged well being blunt it's their problem. As the remaining living part of that rift they need to be an adult and pay their respects.

You have missed the point of my analogy. In my analogy, it is the estranged that set the tone (religious or otherwise) of the funeral, even though it was at odds to the living people who actually shared the religious life and views of the deceased. Someone who didn't share the life and religion of the deceased, but by virtue of biological relation, gets to ignore the wished of the deceased and all of the deceased community. Is that really right? Maybe you should try putting some thought into this at all.

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

People are mourning their own loss. If, like me, you consider one aspect of many religions to be a denial that death is truly terminal, a religious person giving a non-religious a religious funeral is simply an extension of that denial. You might see that as disrespectful and nonsense and I might agree, but if it gives those involved the solace they require without upsetting anyone else, what of it? The problem arises when you've got conflicting beliefs among those involved where my take on it would be to go with the wishes of those most deeply affected by the loss while trying not to trample too much on the wishes of the rest. It can be a real ball ache and I reckon very often is.

For a lot of people, their funeral wishes are going to be an inherent part of who they are (or were). That might be a desire for a christian coffin burial, a spiritualist cremation and dispersal, or donation of the body to science with just a simple get-together celebrating them and their life. If you aren't going to respect their wishes in this respect, then you aren't mourning them and you are denying everyone else the opportunity to mourn them too. Funerals might be for the living, but they are not about the living, they are about the dead. They are about the mourning of the loss of their life and the loss of them from your life. If you don't even respect the deceased enough to follow their wishes for their funeral, then what have you lost that you actually had in the first place?

Bannasidhe

Mark Hamill wrote: »

For a lot of people, their funeral wishes are going to be an inherent part of who they are (or were). That might be a desire for a christian coffin burial, a spiritualist cremation and dispersal, or donation of the body to science with just a simple get-together celebrating them and their life. If you aren't going to respect their wishes in this respect, then you aren't mourning them and you are denying everyone else the opportunity to mourn them too. Funerals might be for the living, but they are not about the living, they are about the dead. They are about the mourning of the loss of their life and the loss of them from your life. If you don't even respect the deceased enough to follow their wishes for their funeral, then what have you lost that you actually had in the first place?

That's very much how I feel about it.

My Dad was a terrible father, made our childhood miserable at times. But he came good in the end and was a wonderful grandfather. All of this was spoken about at his funeral - in the church and at the crematorium.
His wishes were that we had a good laugh. I was going to joke at his cremation that I'm not sure he'd appreciate that we gave him a roasting at his own funeral (he would have found that extremely funny) as I knew there were those there who would have been 'offended' by my 'bad taste' - not his children or grandchildren mind, we would have been snorting with laughter.
One of the last things he said to me was to keep being honest - that was the day I told him he was dying.

The point was this was about the life that had been lived by the person in the coffin - he had a blast - but at the expense sometimes of others so that was acknowledged too.

I find most religious funerals generic and devoid of the life of the deceased. Some priest who possibly didn't even know them uttering formulaic platitudes that are responded to automatically. It could literally be any body in the box.

My Dad got his Catholic funeral, in a church ringing out with laughter (my brother is both honest and witty and his eulogy was both frank and affectionate). There could be no doubt who's life - good and bad parts - we were gathered to celebrate.
It was about us saying goodbye to a particular person who drove us crazy and whom we loved deeply - how dishonest and disrespectful it would have been if his personality, foibles, beliefs, good and bad qualities hadn't been spoken about.

His 3 children (2 Catholic in name only and 1 atheist defector) organised a Catholic funeral as he was a Catholic - not because it gave anyone succor.
It was our final act of respect to the man who was our father.

is_that_so

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You have missed the point of my analogy. In my analogy, it is the estranged that set the tone (religious or otherwise) of the funeral, even though it was at odds to the living people who actually shared the religious life and views of the deceased. Someone who didn't share the life and religion of the deceased, but by virtue of biological relation, gets to ignore the wished of the deceased and all of the deceased community. Is that really right? Maybe you should try putting some thought into this at all.

I think you've put far too much unnecessary thought into something that is about showing respect to the deceased. Neither the dead nor the "deceased community" care about any of this.

I've been to enough funerals, family and otherwise to know not to do anything other than respect the occasion. I've also learnt not to second guess whatever things may be in people's heads as regards commemorating the dead. As for people becoming estranged, well that's par for the course with funerals. Nothing like a living relative to make a funeral all about them!

Hotblack Desiato

A few years back didn't some bishops try to stamp out eulogies and non-religious music at funerals? Got a lot of pushback at the time.

Bannasidhe

beauf wrote: »

Why because someone asked. Also I can repeat it 100 times unless a mod ask me to stop. If you have an issue with a post you can report it. The way to ignore it is not to keep quoting it. That keeps it alive.

MOD

You have made your point. Back on topic please.
And that goes equally for anyone quibbling with your point - they have also made their point.
Let's not derail this in to a bickerfest.
Thanking you.

beauf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

...I find most religious funerals generic and devoid of the life of the deceased. Some priest who possibly didn't even know them uttering formulaic platitudes that are responded to automatically. It could literally be any body in the box.....

I assume you don't mean the eulogy, which is usually delivered by the family. Rather you find the rest of it impersonal. I'm not sure how you get around that other than not having a mass etc, at all.

Bannasidhe

beauf wrote: »

I assume you don't mean the eulogy, which is usually delivered by the family. Rather you find the rest of it impersonal. I'm not sure how you get around that other than not having a mass etc, at all.

I have been at many Church funerals where the eulogy was delivered by the priest and the readings done by members of the family.
So it may be 'usually' but it's not exclusively. Some people just can't face standing up and not only speaking in public, but delivering a speech that have written themselves. It's easier to read a few scripted lines.
We are perhaps unusual in that 2 out of 3 of us have no problem with public speaking. If had been only my sister she couldn't have done it. She was able to do a reading.

Or, indeed, occasions where there was no eulogy at all.

It's perfectly possible to make a religious funeral personal - it just means those organising it have to take control and inject personality and not settle for generic.


My sister had a long meeting with the Parish Priest where it was made clear what we wanted. This included her saying 'No - we are not using the readings from your approved list - we have already decided", by 'we' she meant I had decided - the only member of the family who has actually read the Bible. He was quite agreeable if surprised.
The whole process is all very 'people usually do this, say this, then go there' - and if you go along with that you get the 'usual' i.e generic, formulaic, and lacking personality.

Turned out on the day the PP wasn't even available and we met the Priest who conducted the Mass for the first time 5 minutes before it started. So if he had been doing the eulogy it would have been based on a 3 minute conversation with the people sitting in the front pew.

beauf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have been at many Church funerals where the eulogy was delivered by the priest ...

Not disputing that. I've just not personally seen it for a very long time. I had a assumed it had mostly died out.
Any I've been at in recent years, there been one or even a couple of people (family or friends) who give a quite a lengthy eulogy.
(bit too long IMO, become almost like a best mans speech, but its their gig).

The days of priest knowing everyone in the area are gone. Often one priest is covering multiple parishes and the day is coming soon where there are no priests available.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A few years back didn't some bishops try to stamp out eulogies and non-religious music at funerals? Got a lot of pushback at the time.

Here's a 2008 Sindo article by Emer O'Kelly hailing a bid by priests in Monaghan to lay down the law in this area

But please, don't be a hypocrite. Unless you are a believing, practising Catholic, accepting the Church's teachings on faith and the after-life, don't look for a Catholic funeral. And if you do accept those teachings, then accept the rulings of the Church on the sacred burial rites of the faith.

She actually goes further and urges the Church to actually refuse burial to avowed atheists, but as there is no tradition of this in Ireland I can't see even hardline clergy starting it now...

Hotblack Desiato

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

She actually goes further and urges the Church to actually refuse burial to avowed atheists, but as there is no tradition of this in Ireland I can't see even hardline clergy starting it now...

Sounds like your typical Sindo mouth-foaming clickbait.

Anyway, found some links:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dumbing-down-fears-lead-to-ban-on-eulogies-29491151.html

FUNERAL eulogies including songs, poems and readings which are not within strict religious guidelines are to be banned in one of the country's largest Catholic dioceses.

Bishop of Meath Dr Michael Smith has issued the new directive to priests in his diocese, which includes most of counties Meath and Westmeath, plus parts of Offaly, Longford, Louth, Dublin and Cavan.

The bishop warned against "dumbing down'' at Catholic funeral services, and emphasised that priests must uphold the "integrity of the Mass''.

Appreciations or eulogies should not take place in the church, he says.

However, they may take place after the Rite of Committal in the cemetery or at a later stage.

The guidelines also state that secular songs, poems and texts, devoid of a Christian content are out of place in the funeral liturgy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/forbidding-eulogies-at-funerals-harsh-according-to-dublin-s-catholic-archdiocese-1.1492300

Guidelines to counter the “dumbing down” of Catholic funerals issued by the Bishop of Meath appear to contradict those from the Archdiocese of Dublin.

Guidelines for the conduct of funerals from Dr Michael Smith were circulated in the Meath diocese at the weekend. They said there should never be “any kind of eulogy” and families should reserve tributes for the cemetery or family gatherings. But a document by Rathgar parish priest Fr Joe Mullan published on the Dublin archdiocese’s website on May 29th states that while the church’s Order of Christian Funerals forbids eulogies, it seems to have been referring to them replacing the liturgical homily.

“To forbid someone speaking seems unnecessary to me, harsh even; why not allow one of the community to speak about the deceased and the way in which their life was God’s gift to the world,” it said. “The length of the address, the choice of person to deliver it and the general tone can all be discussed often with some pretty firm guidelines laid down.”

Fr Mullan said the most contentious item is often the choice of music for the liturgy.

“From time to time the so-called ‘favourite song’ is requested with a strength that suggests that to demur would be a grave affront to the family. Okay, so be it, either find a place for it, suggest an alternative or put the priestly foot down and explain that you are very uncomfortable with that choice. You win some, you lose some, that’s life,” he writes.

In 2000 Catholic primate and yet-to-be cardinal SeBrady made the position clear. According to the church’s manual for conducting funeral rites, “a brief homily based on the readings should always be given at the funeral liturgy, but never any kind of eulogy”, he said. “Requests by members of the family to speak after the prayer after Communion should be firmly but sensitively refused,” he added.

But the issue came back spectacularly to the fore in August (of course) 2008 after Ronnie Drew’s funeral. One angry letter writer to this newspaper complained how the previous year his family had been “absolutely refused” permission to have some of their father’s favourite music played at his funeral Mass or to have a short tribute at its end.

He was “enraged therefore to see that Ronnie Drew had a ‘send-off’ like no other, complete with a congregational rendering of Weela Weela Wallia, and all presided over by an auxiliary bishop of Dublin. Perhaps celebrity ensures an appropriately robed bishop as chorus master.”

In 2010, following the funerals of Bob Geldof snr and RTE presenter Gerry Ryan, one letter writer claimed both deceased men were afforded “bespoke” services by the Catholic Church.

She said she had been refused permission to deliver a eulogy at her mother’s funeral a short time beforehand and was also told that a favourite song her mother had chosen “could not be sung by the soprano I had engaged”.

“If you want a funeral that goes to the terminus of your dreams, then make sure you are rich, powerful, a celebrity or closely related to one,” she wrote. “Meanwhile the ‘little people’ will be told exactly where to get off.”

Hmm wouldn't have had aul' Gerry down as one for the big religious send-off.

beauf

If you that bothered about it you'd just go somewhere else.

Also the church is determined to hasten its own end. People should just stand back and let it implode. its doing a better job than anyone else.

is_that_so

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sounds like your typical Sindo mouth-foaming clickbait.

Anyway, found some links:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dumbing-down-fears-lead-to-ban-on-eulogies-29491151.html




https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/forbidding-eulogies-at-funerals-harsh-according-to-dublin-s-catholic-archdiocese-1.1492300


Hmm wouldn't have had aul' Gerry down as one for the big religious send-off.

That Irish Times piece is nearly 7 years old! Found none of that and priest was happy to follow our lead. He did put a 10-15 minute limit on the eulogy!

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

For a lot of people, their funeral wishes are going to be an inherent part of who they are (or were). That might be a desire for a christian coffin burial, a spiritualist cremation and dispersal, or donation of the body to science with just a simple get-together celebrating them and their life. If you aren't going to respect their wishes in this respect, then you aren't mourning them and you are denying everyone else the opportunity to mourn them too. Funerals might be for the living, but they are not about the living, they are about the dead. They are about the mourning of the loss of their life and the loss of them from your life. If you don't even respect the deceased enough to follow their wishes for their funeral, then what have you lost that you actually had in the first place?

No doubt true, but for many other people their main concern will be for those they care about that they're leaving behind, as with this poster who believes that they will predecease their parents. My question was very explicit in asking why not "if it gives those involved the solace they require without upsetting anyone else". While funerals are about the dead, you clearly can't upset the dead, so if no one else is upset yet your nearest and dearest gain some solace, I'm struggling to see what harm is done.

Hotblack Desiato

is_that_so wrote: »

That Irish Times piece is nearly 7 years old! Found none of that and priest was happy to follow our lead. He did put a 10-15 minute limit on the eulogy!

Yes, that's because the event it describes happened nearly 7 years ago.

If you read it you'd have realised it's only one bishop who tried to ban them. There is no consistency.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes, that's because the event it describes happened nearly 7 years ago.

If you read it you'd have realised it's only one bishop who tried to ban them. There is no consistency.

A church courting extinction for want of bums on seats and a rogue bishop trying to keep people out of the church for one of the increasingly few occasions people regularly show up at church. Gotta love the irony.