Part of the problem with the modern Funeral Mass is allowing the grieving family to plan it and not informing them of the purpose of the Funeral Mass. It is not the place for psychology therapy and purging. It is not the place to make right all the wrongs heaped upon the deceased. It is not the place to assuage all the guilty feelings one might have toward the deceased or all the anger. It is not the place to trade banal anecdotes about the deceased no matter how humorous or poignant.
The preacher, be he a bishop, priest or deacon should not eulogize the deceased although examples from his life indicating his love for God, his acknowledgment of being a sinner in need of mercy and forgiveness and the good works they might have done in the name of Christ could be incorporated. But all should point to the Paschal Mystery which alone brings the gift of salvation which must be received by the sinner. Salvation is never imposed upon us. It demands acceptance in clear ways, primarily by one's active participation in the sacramental life of the Church and embracing the Church's teachings in the areas of faith and morals as well as Canon Law.
I posted Father Paul Scalia's magnificent homily for the Funeral Mass of his father on video in an earlier post. But now I post it in written form to be read and studied! It should be a must read for future deacons, priests and BISHOPS. It should be a must read for present BISHOPS, priests and deacons. It is a wonderful instruction on how to give a funeral homily or for that matter any homily!
FATHER PAUL'S FUNERAL HOMILY FOR HIS FATHER IS A MODEL OF WHAT A FUNERAL HOMILY SHOULD BE:
We are gathered here because of one man. A man known personally to many of us, known only by reputation to even more; a man loved by many, scorned by others; a man known for great controversy, and for great compassion. That man, of course, is Jesus of Nazareth. (My only comment: I was watching the funeral by myself and as I heard Fr. Scalia say these words I thought to myself is he setting us up, especially those who know what a funeral homily should be and then ironically giving it to us as he was making us believe this statement was about his father? Or was he setting the congregation and TV land up for what they thought the funeral homily should focus upon, the deceased himself, only then to make a hard right turn to the correct focus, Jesus Christ? When that focus became clear, I actually applauded and screamed out loud YES!!!! YES!!!! And the last paragraph I highlight in blue is a brilliant apologetic for the Mass. In fact all homilies no matter the context but especially on Sunday should conclude by pointing us to exactly what Fr. Scalia points, the Paschal Mystery celebrated on the altar, the Holy Sacrifice!)
It is He Whom we proclaim: Jesus Christ, Son of the Father, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified, buried, risen, seated at the right hand of the Father. It is because of Him, because of His life, death and resurrection that we do not mourn as those who have no hope, but in confidence we commend Antonin Scalia to the mercy of God.
Scripture says, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. And that sets a good course for our thoughts and our prayers here today. In effect, we look in three directions: to yesterday, in thanksgiving; to today, in petition; and into eternity with hope.
We look to Jesus Christ yesterday—that is, to the past—in thanksgiving for the blessings God bestowed upon Dad. In the past week, many have recounted what Dad did for them, but here today, we recount what God did for Dad; how He blessed him. We give thanks, first of all, for the atoning death and life-giving resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our Lord died and rose not only for all of us, but also for each of us. And at this time we look to that yesterday of His death and His resurrection, and we give thanks that He died and rose for Dad. Further, we give thanks that Jesus brought him to new life in Baptism, nourished him with the Eucharist, and healed him in the confessional. We give thanks that Jesus bestowed upon him 55 years of marriage to the woman he loved—a woman who could match him at every step, and even hold him accountable.
God blessed Dad with a deep Catholic faith—the conviction that Christ’s presence and power continue in the world today through his Body, the Church. He loved the clarity and coherence of the Church’s teaching. He treasured the Church’s ceremonies, especially the beauty of her ancient worship. He trusted the power of the Sacraments as the means of salvation—as Christ working within him for his salvation.
Although, one time, one Saturday afternoon, he did scold me for having heard confessions that afternoon, that same day. And I hope that is some source of consolation (if there are any lawyers present) that the roman collar was not a shield against his criticism. The issue that evening was not that I’d been hearing confessions, but that he’d found himself in my confessional line. And he quickly departed it. As he put it later, “Like heck if I’m confessing to you!” The feeling was mutual.
God blessed Dad, as is well known, with a love for his country. He knew well what a close-run thing the founding of our nation was. And he saw in that founding, as did the founders themselves, a blessing. A blessing quickly lost when faith is banned from the public square, or when we refuse to bring it there. So he understood that there is no conflict between loving God and loving one’s country, between one’s faith and one’s public service. Dad understood that the deeper he went in his Catholic faith, the better a citizen and a public servant he became. God blessed him with a desire to be the country’s good servant, because he was God’s first.
We Scalias, however, give thanks for a particular blessing God bestowed. God blessed Dad with a love for his family. We have been thrilled to read and hear the may words of praise and admiration for him, his intellect, his writings, his speeches, his influence, and so on. But more important to us—and to him—is that he was Dad. He was the father that God gave us for the great adventure of family life. Sure, he forgot our names at times or mixed them up; but there are nine of us. He loved us, and sought to show that love, and sought to share the blessing of the Faith he treasured. And he gave us one another, to have each other for support. That’s the greatest wealth that parents can bestow, and right now we’re particularly grateful for it.
So we look to the past, to Jesus Christ yesterday. We call to mind all of these blessings, and we give Our Lord the honor and glory for them, for they are His work.
We look to Jesus today, in petition—to the present moment here and now, as we mourn the one we love and admire, the one whose absence pains us. Today we pray for him. We pray for the repose of his soul. We thank God for his goodness to Dad, as is right and just. But we also know that, although Dad believed, he did so imperfectly, like the rest of us. He tried to love God and neighbor but, like the rest of us, did so imperfectly. He was a practicing Catholic—practicing in the sense that he hadn’t perfected it yet. Or, rather, that Christ was not yet perfected in him. And only those in whom Christ is brought to perfection can enter Heaven. We are here then, to lend our prayers to that perfecting, to that final work of God’s grace, in freeing Dad from every encumbrance of sin.
But don’t take my word for it. Dad himself—not surprisingly—had something to say on the matter. Writing years ago to a Presbyterian minister whose funeral service he admired, he summarized quite nicely the pitfalls of funerals (and why he didn’t like eulogies). He wrote, “Even when the deceased was an admirable person—indeed especially when the deceased was an admirable person—praise for his virtues can cause us to forget that we are praying for and giving thank for God’s inexplicable mercy to a sinner.” Now, he would not have exempted himself from that. We are here, then, as he would want, to pray for God’s inexplicable mercy to a sinner; to this sinner, Antonin Scalia. Let us not show him a false love and allow our admiration to deprive him of our prayers. We continue to show affection for him and do good for him by praying for him: that all stain of sin be washed away, that all wounds be healed, that he be purified of all that is not Christ. That he rest in peace.
Finally, we look to Jesus, forever, into eternity. Or, better, we consider our own place in eternity, and whether it will be with the Lord. Even as we pray for Dad to enter swiftly into eternal glory, we should be mindful of ourselves. Every funeral reminds us of just how thin the veil is, between this world and the next, between time and eternity, between the opportunity for conversion and the moment of judgment. So we cannot depart here unchanged. It makes no sense to celebrate God’s goodness and mercy to God if we are not attentive and responsive to those realities in our own lives. We must allow this encounter with eternity to change us, to turn us from sin and toward the Lord. The English Dominican Father Bede Jarrett put it beautifully when he prayed, “O strong Son of God . . . while You prepare a place for us, prepare us also for that happy place, that we may be with You and with those we love for all eternity.”
Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever. My dear friends, this is also the structure of the Mass—the greatest prayer we can offer for Dad, because it’s not our prayer but the Lord’s. The Mass looks to Jesus yesterday. It reaches into the past—to the Last Supper, to the crucifixion, to the resurrection—and it makes those mysteries and their power present here, on this altar. Jesus himself becomes present here today, under the form of bread and wine, so that we can unite all of our prayers of thanksgiving, sorrow and petition with Christ himself, as an offering to the Father. And all of this, with a view to eternity—stretching towards heaven—where we hope to enjoy that perfect union with God himself and to see Dad again, and with him to rejoice in the communion of saints.
Reverend Paul Scalia is a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia.
14 comments:
"I actually applauded and screamed out loud YES!!!! YES!!!!"
:^)
Well Father, I didn't scream out loud but I was doing some fist pumping and saying to myself, "Now this is what a funeral Mass sermon should sound like!"
I texted a friend as soon as Fr. Scalia was finished telling her about it. She, too, was watching and asked if we were seeing a future bishop. (hey, one can hope)
I also texted a priest friend of mine and he replied that he was watching it too and was most impressed.
It was simply fantastic.
Catechist Kev
Ironically, it was the homily which made up for the deficiencies of the OF funeral liturgy by mentioning certain things the reformers were careful to avoid.
It was great. I was disappointed to see Cardinal Wuerl receive communion in the hand.
I don't know if it says more about me or about the sorry state of things in the Church and its long-term shaping of my expectations, But he achieved utter and total surprise with the opening. A touch, I do confess it.
I give Fr. Scalia high marks for his presentation, especially in that he was burying his father, though I would not join the chorus in calling it “stunning” or “brilliant.” He does get high marks for the mechanics – his speaking voice is excellent, his pace moderate, and his preparedness is most evident.
His opening was excellent: Draw the audience in, and then deliver a surprise. This will grab their attention and they will think, “What else might he say that I am not expecting?”
The tripartite structure of the presentation – “Scripture says, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever” gave him a good, simple framework on which to build his talk. The recapitulation with modification of this structure in the final paragraph is well done.
He touched with appropriate delicacy on Justice Scalia’s “judicial philosophy.” “And he saw in that founding, as did the founders themselves, a blessing. A blessing quickly lost when faith is banned from the public square, or when we refuse to bring it there. So he understood that there is no conflict between loving God and loving one’s country, between one’s faith and one’s public service.” Enough said about that.
It was a good presentation in many ways, and that may have been Fr. Scalia’s goal. He knew his audience was far from typical; heck, it was national! So he may have taken a different tack than he might in a parish funeral liturgy.
What I found lacking – and for a homily this is, I think, essential - was a connection to the Scripture that had been proclaimed. The homily is to be an extension of the Scripture that has been read. Certainly the presentation was a good explanation of the Catholic faith regarding our beliefs about death and judgment. But in my own experience I have found that that connection to the Word of God is what gives a homily its real power. This connection is what can make a homily truly brilliant and/or stunning, or, more importantly, memorable and effective.
God be merciful for Justice Scalia and grant his family peace.
Fr. Scalia, though, was directly speaking to the Scriptures just proclaimed and chanted but in an implicit way. There is no need in the homily to reread the Scriptures just read or chanted. His homily was Scripturally based.
Could you be a little more explicit about your "implicit way" comment?
The Scalia funeral was a model for what a Catholc funeral should be with only minor concerns. I for one am glad that they choose the OF for the Mass to show that yes it can be said with reverence and devotion thus very powerful.
Now to what I took issue with during the funeral.
1. The chanting of the Introit was done as the procession, which moved slower than a snails pace, was done as the celebrant came from the sacristy to the body at the entrance of the church, then a hymn was sung as the sanctuary was approached. The procession should have moved much, much faster and in silence to meet the body and then the Introit should have been chanted after the body was greeted and the procession went to the sanctuary.
2. Cardinal Weurl's opening remarks should NEVER have happened. STOP with the welcoming of everybody at every Mass. I was waiting for that Msgr. Rossi to get up like he always does, even on Good Friday, to thank everybody and to point out that there are envelopes at the end of the pews to give a donation.
3. If Fr. Scalia wasn't permitted to exercise the option of wearing black vestments he should have worn purple which is pretty much the norm for the whole Catholic world except the USA.
4. That choir should have been put in the choir let where they belonged.
5. They should have used the original high altar and not that cheap, temporary wooden altar even though Bergoglio used it.
6. Justice Thomas should have proclaimed the reading from the lectionary and not brought out a piece of paper and noisily unfolded it in a distracting way.
7. Cardinal Weurl should have sat on the marble sedalia provided due to his being a Cardinal.
Well..the Washington Archdiocese is more liberal or moderate than the Arlington Diocese. I know of people who cross the Potomac from the latter to the former to attend church as Arlington is too far-right for them. So rubrics popular with conservatives are more likely to be observed on the Virginia side of DC, and not in DC itself.
Anon - I agree, the processions were intolerably slow. Blame the Thurifer (and the MC).
The order of the Chant and the Processional, when both are used, is a bit fluid I think. In my experience, when both are used, the Chant precedes the Hymn.
Cardinal Weurl is Archbishop of Washington, DC. His comments were appropriate. Nothing here contrary to Faith and Morals - or liturgy for that matter.
You don't have any idea if Fr. Scalia "wasn't permitted" to wear black or violet. You don't even know if he asked to do so.
Archbishops in choir dress who attend Mass do not sit in the highest liturgical chair. That is left for the presider/chief celebrant, in this case, Fr. Scalia.
Fr Kavanaugh, that is definitely how I feel about the homily and what its goals are. When a priest doesn't connect the scripture to it, even loosely, it upsets me and I feel like the priest made it the Fr X show (unless of course a grave topic must be addressed, I am aware of that exception in the norms/GIRM.) I am glad you said it here! Based on that it sounds like you get preaching and likely do it well yourself. If you had audio clips Id be curious to listen.
The official Introit for an Ordinary Form Mass is a bit difficult to place.
Here at St. Joseph every Sunday Mass begins with the Ordinary Form Introit chanted by the cantor and then into the processional hymn, thus the hymn is an extension of the Introit. We did experiment with the Introit being chanted after the hymn but two things occurred, it seem out of place as all waited for it to be chanted if the priest had already arrived at his chair and thus it became an extension of the Processional hymn. But usually the priest would forget to allow it to be chanted and he would launch into the Sign of the Cross, etc.
At our Ordinary Form Funeral, it is chanted after the Coffin is blessed with Holy Water and as the Pall is place upon it and then we sing a processional hymn.
However,in the EF Mass, be it funeral or otherwise, We sing a processional hymn and then the official Introit of the EF Mass is chanted as the priest and ministers recite the PATFOTA quietly and then the priest ascends to kiss and incense the altar. In this case the Introit covers action and is appropriate at this juncture.
'The official Introit for an Ordinary Form Mass is difficult to place'. It shouldn't be - GIRM 47 makes it clear that it accompanies the entrance of the priest and ministers. It is therefore a processional chant, and its replacement by a 'processional hymn' is the least favoured option. The most favoured option is the Introit from the Graduale Romanum (1974) and in the Praenotanda, cap. II (De ritibus in cantu Missae servandis) the same Graduale indicates how it can be lengthened by adding extra psalm verses, or shortened even to the extent of omitting both the verse and the doxology if the procession is short and the altar is not incensed.
There is no suggestion that there should be a hymn in addition to the Proper chant; it's a question of either/or. Ideally hymns should not replace sung Propers, and to insist (perversely) that one be sung at the Entrance is to vitiate the whole point of having an Introit (Introitus means Entrance) in the first place.
The Consilium which produced the Novus Ordo expressed the opinion that the singing of metrical hymns, which gave people something to do during the old Low Mass, was no longer appropriate in the reformed rite.
Music in the Mass communicates the spirit (soul?) of the sacrifice. Juxtaposing chant and secular language set to modern musical setting, even when not the offensive kind, is a risky undertaking. The Novus Ordo does not work not primarily because it is in the vernacular. Where chant is retained in the propers, and if the priest prays ad orientem as Fr. explains the custom at St. Joseph, the NO, ceteris paribus, can be perceived as reverent by most Catholics of good will, I believe. Needless to say the EF Mass is the genuine article.
Post a Comment