Very early in the so-called "renewal of the Church and her liturgy" bishops and priests thought that the laity should be involved in designing liturgies, especially themed liturgies. All kinds of liturgical abuse came from this mentality.
The worst thing, though, was that the laity were given the idea that they could pick and choose and creatively design their own funeral and nuptial liturgies.
Thus all kinds and styles of music, sometimes even secular music, was demanded. They wanted this, that or another Scripture reading or substitute a Scripture passage for a poem or other reflection.
They wanted non-Catholic and sometimes non-Christian family or friends to read the Scriptures and intercessions, which the family developed. Anyone was allowed to give eulogies and sometimes more than one person.
Over the course of my priesthood, I made many liturgical mistakes. Some notable mistakes, disgraces and scandals were:
1. I allowed a bride to play a tape of a popular song that was to thank her father. It was a Nuptial Mass and horrible. I cringe to this day. But I was pastoral.
2. Within the first year of ordination, I planned a Catholic funeral Mass for a motorcyclist who had been murdered. He was Catholic but not practicing, although his family was. I did not realize he belonged to a motorcycle gang, like Hell's Angels and their criminal activity and feuding lead to his murder. The Church was filled with this motorcycle gang and the procession to the cemetery included about 100 motorcycles. In hindsight, I should have simply offered a funeral home liturgy outside of Mass or just a graveside, but no Church service.
3. For most of my priesthood I allowed a family member or members to speak at funerals about the deceased. This took place after the Prayer after Holy Communion. While some were beautiful, focused on the good works and Catholic Faith of the deceased, some were just awful, rambling, emotional and a source of venting for the person giving it. The worst one was the son of the deceased bragging about his dead dad's sexual encounters. Finally, I simply did not permit these reflections any more in the Church, period!
I never had a situation like the one Saint Patrick's had. My suggestion is to follow current Church liturgical law as it concerns the funeral liturgy.
1. No flowers or mementos in the nave of the Church or near the sanctuary. The Cathedral funeral was cluttered with artifacts, and I suspect some pornographic. No images of the deceased and certainly not depicted as a canonized saint!
2. The parish provides all liturgical ministers from their parishioners--no substitutions
3. No reflections by any family member or friend. Period! No canonization of the deceased by the priest or deacon at the homily!!!!
4. The music is planned by the parish music director with some options available. No musicians or singers can be used without approval of the Music Minister and his/her supervision.
5. No prelude entertainment
6. Scriptures are chosen by the priest/deacon celebrating the Funeral liturgy
My problem with St. Patrick's funeral liturgy isn't so much who the funeral was for or who came (although the Cathedral should not have allowed scandalous dress that exposed butts and other body parts).
My problem is that someone in the family organized and planned the whole thing and all the scandalous creative parts of it.
If the Cathedral had been in complete control of that liturgy according to what I recommend above and doing only the black and red, I don't think there would have been the outcry there has been. That funeral would have gone unnotices, no anti-Catholic ideologies promoted nor a political agenda or striving to force the Church to eat the "pork" of mortal sin.
Catholic funerals are not the celebration of the life of the deceased. It is the celebration of God and what He does for us in His Son and by His Divine Mercy.
Yes, bury the dead, but don't let the dead bury themselves or plan their funeral or anyone not under a formal ministry of the parish.
It really isn't that hard!
15 comments:
I will continue to allow flowers or mementos in the nave. These are usually placed tastefully, under my direction, near the casket or the table holding the cremains. Often a photo of the deceased is placed on a stand nearby. There is no good reason to disallow these things.
I will continue to allow a family member or friend of the deceased to speak after communion. I ask these such comments be written and last no longer than 2 or 3 minutes.
I will continue to allow family members to choose the music they wish to use at the funeral liturgy. I do tell them it must be found in our parish hymnal.
I will continue to allow the family to choose the Scripture readings. I provide a planning form that includes all the options given in the official "Order of Christian Funerals" that is approved by the Church. I think a priest who restricts what the Church allows is overstepping his proper bounds.
Contemporary Catholic funerals and weddings are playgrounds of the idiotic.
I will continue to allow the violation of what the church has put in place for reasons that are good enough for me. The TLM is the problem not the clergy who think they can play fast and loose with the rules. That is the situation in a nutshell; clergy who assume superpowers and become a law unto themselves.
Indeed! It is called clericalism
Williiam,
Presided over by the Father K Orwell’s of the world. Perfect pairing
An "apostrophe s" indicates ownership.
Orwell's cat, Orwell's bank account, Orwell's silly notions of superiority, etc.
To pluralize Orwell, one simply writes Orwells.
Breaking news: avowed violator of liturgical law is ruthless enforcer of grammatical rules!
monkmcg, you got it right on the money. And what could possibly go wrong when clergy are laws unto themselves? Oh, probably nothing.
Nick
Breaking News: Reminding others that grammar matters is hardly "ruthless."
Were it so, then reminding people of the dangers of sin would be a ruthless act, while, in fact, it is an act of mercy.
Fr. K Orwell, who votes for the Party of Moloch, grammar has been the subject of some epic takedowns by John Nolan.
TJM - "Epic Takedown?" Really?
I'm glad there are people who can correct my mistakes. I may not like to admit it, but errors do creep in.
Your errors have been corrected, too. Maybe you should be grateful.
Now, if only you would stop voting for the party of Sexual Abuse ("Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M,") and Fraud ("Trump hit with $354.9 million penalty, 3-year ban in NY civil fraud case,") you'd be well on the road to full recovery.
Fr K Orwell,
If you had any intellectual honesty and reasonable reasoning skills you would conclude those are junk charges and verdicts. But what is beyond peradventure is Clinton’s use of the Oval Office for sex was horrendous and the Dem’s love affair with abortion places you with some very questionable company.
Jonathon Turley, noted US Constitutional Lawyer had this to say about the "fraud" case:
Below is my column in The Hill on the $355 million verdict against Trump and his corporation in New York. The damages in my view are excessive and absurd after the court acknowledged that no one lost a dime in these exchanges. Indeed, the “victims” wanted to do more business with Trump and made handsome profits. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has rushed to assure businesses that there is “nothing to worry about” after the corporate public execution of Trump and his company. The assumption seems to be that you have nothing to fear from confiscatory actions unless you are Trump in New York. That is precisely why the New York Court of Appeals should act to redeem the integrity of the legal system by setting aside or drastically reducing this award."
This is the ultimate in election interference, something they do in Banana Republics. But a priest who slavishly votes for the Party of Moloch would never acknowledge this. You truly are a sick man, intellectually and spiritually.
How about we agree that both sides of politics are flawed. And instead say- I am for God.
Kathryn,
The difference is the Democrat Party supports intrinsic evil, the Republican Party does not, there is no moral equivalence. But Satan wants you to think there is
TJM - Turley's argument - "No one lost a dime in these exchanges" - is completely irrelevant. You and Turley and any lawyer ought to know this.
Although it will not get into your Cult-Closed mind, I offer this analogy:
A man buys $10 million worth of diamonds from a source outside the USA. The man pays a fair price and the seller is pleased. That man then smuggles those diamonds into the United States where he sells them for a handsome profit. The people who bought them, in turn, re-sell them for a handsome profit.
Now, not one of the people in this scheme LOST A DIME IN THESE EXCHANGES, and everyone involved wants to do business again in the same way.
HOWEVER, that "no one lost a dime" and that everyone wants to do business again doesn't alter in any way the illegality of the manner (smuggling) through which the diamonds made it onto the market in the USA.
Hochul's assertion that honest businesses have nothing to worry about is true. Trump violated the law and has been punished. Anyone else who violates the law, regardless of his or her name, should be worried.
Are you enjoying your $399 Trump sneakers yet?
Post a Comment