I agree with the criticisms of the funeral. Had I been the celebrant I would have been appalled. However, as a priest I need to point out that once a funeral starts rolling the options for the celebrant are very limited. They did well to switch from a mass to a liturgy. In particular, when the eulogy takes place we are hostages to fortune. The Church used to insist on impersonal funeral rites with a strong emphasis on penitence and little or no personal remembrance (except, of course for cardinals etc). These days you have the family pushing for a 'celebration of the life of X' and eulogies to make the service more personal. To refuse or to limit the eulogies can alienate good people from the Church for life. But to accept them is to risk what happened at St Patrick's. Just sayin' ...
We have a policy in the parish, absolutely, under no circumstances can there be a eulogy at a funeral Mass.
There is some pushback occasionally.
But we simply tell families that they have asked for a Catholic funeral and the Liturgy belongs to the Church. So, here, we will do what the Church does.
While a eulogy might be allowed it can go on and on, be a source of distraction regarding the intent of a Catholic funeral and a spoken bull of canonization of the deceased.
Families are offered the option of having a eulogy after the Vigil/rosary, at the Mercy Meal or at the graveside after the rites.
Harsh as this might sound, if they leave the Church over not having a eulogy at a funeral Mass, (after the reasons are explained) they have made their choice. They are always welcome back.
I have been amazed at the significant number of devout Catholics who now have a funeral Mass solely for the immediate family and then a large gathering of extended family and friends at another time with maybe the parish priest as a guest and speaking role but certainly not in control. They are not leaving the Church over this matter, they are successfully implementing their own work-around.
Greetings to you down there in Arizona, a state I know well (I once intended to retire to Green Valley. Somehow I am still in harness.) Yes the eulogy is better at those alternative occasions. The fact remains however that except for what Kurt notes below, the funeral in church is still where people gather, especially Italian or Irish. Either I am too compassionate to adopt your course, or I lack the err requisite attributes of manhood as spoken in Spanish. That said I like your line about the canonization of the deceased.
Same in my diocese. Any words of remembrance, as the phrase goes, are to be strictly confined to the faith that the departed person held. This includes anything given at a funeral home service whether before or after the service. In the funeral mass, there are never any words of remembrance that are allowed.
It seems to me presumptuous for the diocese to regulate what is said by mourners at a funeral home before or after the Mass. If I may, what makes that the business of the diocese?
Whaat I mean is to give an answer to the question which you tersely asked me to answer, i.e., what makes it the business of the diocese to regulate what is said, by mourners at a funeral home before or after the mass.
My answer, which you didn’t understand, is what was told to me by my pastor before the funeral of someone very close to me. He said that the policy of the diocese/the bishop as far as words of remembrance are concerned, is to presume the liturgy ( before, during, or after a funeral mass or funeral home liturgy ) is a “singular“ setting for offering expressions of the faith of the departed person. The word singular was used.
Perhaps your confusion is born from my not saying that this all assumes a funeral liturgy (with the presence of a priest or deacon. ) Was I supposed to say that the Diocese or the bishop have nothing to say about words of remembrance if mourners hold the gathering at a funeral home without a liturgy? I would think that would be understood.
But just in case, I am supposed to say this to avoid confusion, in a secular setting anyone can do or say whatever their imagination dictates. (Just like the way the mourners expressed themselves at St. Patrick’s. )
Does that still seem presumptuous? I very much respect what my Bishop has done for this Diocese and I respect my priest, and what he says. It makes sense to me.
Add in, “that are not about the person’s faith” after , “ words of remembrance”.
The presumption is that the funeral liturgy is singular as the setting for offering expressions of the deceased person’s faith while anecdotal memories have ample occasions to be shared.
But you seem to be saying that the bishop has tried to restrict the telling of anecdotes or other personal memories/opinions, even when offered at a funeral home outside of the liturgy. Have I misunderstood?
No, I suppose the way I wrote it must have caused confusion. I’ll simply restate it. What the rule is in my diocese is that within a funeral liturgy, whether before, during or after a mass or before, during or after a funeral home liturgy service, words of remembrance are to be about the faith of the person. Outside of that of course people can do or say anything they want.
So are saying that when gross behavior and language is taking place in the sanctuary when Jesus is present the priest has no right to stop it? I realize St. Patrick’s is huge and thousands of people present it would take a very diplomatic response. If a half naked woman were to run down the aisle shouting obscenities the priest would have done something. Few if any of the attendees were practicing Catholics and perhaps chaos would have broken out. But, that funeral Mass should have been shut down and police should have been in attendance.
A few years ago, I had a seemingly devout woman (and I don't doubt her sincerity) who insisted on two Gospel readings, a third reading from "The Prophet" and two songs, one was "Annie's Song' by John Denver, the other, "Rambling Rose."
These readings and songs were part of the wedding Mass when the coupled married in the 1970's.
I said "no" and suggested the be done after the Vigil in the funeral home.
The wife and all 7 kids, one calling from Sumatra begged, then accused me of "taking away" their celebration of their father who had died.
While I did not expect this and the vehemence shown even after I explained the the Tradition of the Church regarding funerals, the family still thought it best to have a grandchild (who was a trained lector in the parish) read from "The Prophet" after agreeing not to do so.
I ignored that reading.
This was not the first time we had these problems.
But from then on, readers could only be people from the parish who read regularly at Mass. This corps of people see it as a ministry. Families may choose readings from the Lectionary only and there is a long list of a variety of suggested liturgical music to choose songs from.
The wife chose to go to another parish in protest, most of the kids in the "spirit of the age" (those who were nominally practicing) quit coming to church.
Was it worth it, yes. Will I answer to Christ for not going along with this? Maybe.
We have to stop accommodating all manner of nonsense at weddings and funerals.
If one wants a Catholic funeral they are asking for Catholic rites, not some concocted "creation" of their own.
There were plenty of options to do as they pleased in other situations and times.
And so, this family and the deceased father remain on a long list of people to pray for.
There is joy, prayers for the forgiveness of sins, blessed assurance and hope in the funeral rites of the Church. What else can a faithful Catholic ask for?
Pretty sure it's your canonical responsibility to do as you have done, Father. Although I'm sure we'll all have much to answer for on the day of judgment, I hope that upholding the rubrics of the rite won't be held against you---good grief, wasn't it considered a mortal sin to deliberately deviate from the rubrics up until the Novus Ordo?
When my own mother died I wanted nothing against any rubric, only certain hymns and a chance to thank those in attendance and give them directions to the repast afterward. Even though my mother had been daily communicant and was the sister of a late priest of the diocese, Msgr. Horzenfarht couldn't be bothered to return my phone call. Seven days and four calls later, (the last being when I asked the parish secretary if she had the phone number for the Lutheran Church since is it clear Father isn't calling me back,) I finally got my call returned. The songs were okay, but no layperson could speak. He said he would make the announcement about the repast (which he forgot to do following the funeral). Needless to say, after this experience I lost any instinctive respect for priests.
I don't think it's about saying the priest had no right to do something, just that by the time it was happening he didn't have great options available (and it's hard to think on your feet when something super unexpected happens)
When I've lived in large urban parishes where sometimes disturbances are reasonably expected, the protocol has usually been that someone else - ushers/security - handles it, while the priest basically tries to continue the Mass as if they're had been no interruption (including a memorable occasion when a large protest outside escalated rapidly, and the ushers barricaded the doors impressively quickly - you could not have told from the priest's demeanor that anything out of the ordinary was happening)
Assuming that's the typical response at St Patrick's too, I can see how this situation just... didn't fit people's mental models (the priest is prepped to ignore distractions and continue the service; the ushers are thinking 'this looks like part of the service, it's the priest's call to stop it, not ours". In hindsight, it shouldn't have happened - but I'm not at all surprised the priest wasn't sure what to do in the moment
Liturgical dancing...if you degraded the image quality to resemble an old video tape, those stills would be indistinguishable from the 80s and 90s. It feels like a fanatical reassertion of the "Spirit of Vatican II" in direct opposition to where most of the faithful are at now...an odd situation where the "revolutionaries" are now the entrenched status quo clinging to power.
My sentiments exactly, Patricius. I see about about a dozen females clothed like high priestesses, and one person who from the back appears to be male, burning incense at the altar of (McCarrick crony) McElroy, who is attended by someone badly in need of a haircut. When The Pillar confidently claims that "the Archdiocese of Los Angeles certainly wouldn't spend hundreds of man hours, and millions of dollars on this event if there weren't Catholics who expect this kind of thing will be a catalyst for deep discipleship and serious conversion," I have to ask, "conversion" to what?
I don't know if it's just me, but the staff at the Pillar seems to have a harder and harder time keeping the sarcasm cauldron from bubbling over recently.
There's some sarcasm, but I think they're also pointing out that there are people in powerful positions who are so genuinely clueless that they think this stuff is what will evangelize. The fact is that all that time and effort was expended precisely because there are people who actually think this is what the church needs.
100% reminds me of awful, dated liturgies from my childhood. I am amazed anyone is still doing these. Another reason more timeless and traditional elements should be maintained in liturgy- in 20 years it won’t just be the cringe fashion of one (cough, boomer, cough) generation.
There was “liturgical dancing” at my Confirmation Mass many, many years ago. It was performed by a dance studio whose director was not a member of the Church and whose dancers also performed pretty immodest dances in their secular competitions. I didn’t understand how my sacrament was supposed to be enhanced by a bunch of girls in satin pajamas dancing on the steps of the sanctuary. I still don’t get it.
As awful as the funeral at St Patrick’s was … this is much more frightening to me: “the understanding of human nature and moral reality upon which previous declarations of doctrine were made were in fact limited or defective.” - Cardinal McElroy.
Crazy how much that picture with the Cardinal looks like something straight out of a black-box performance of The Handmaid's Tail, right? I'll never understand the obsession of some prelates to be surrounded by their little cadres of ancillae.
I suppose there is some middle ground between this event at St. Patrick's and my own mother's funeral, for which the priest barely would speak to the family and so tightly controlled the Mass that no one in the family was even allowed to announce where the meal after the funeral would be. But while I accept the idea of a middle ground intellectually, one is some event in a city I do not live in and the other is my own mother's funeral. I know which priest I feel is the bigger jerk.
I think that's where I'm landing on the whole mess: we /could/ reduce the risk of something like this happening again, be more restrictive on who can have a funeral, etc - but it would not be worth all the collateral damage.
"That’s what’s happened in Germany, and it’s exactly what the Holy See has warned against.
But it will continue."
What are we to make of this? Should I take this to mean the Holy See isn't serious when it warns? Is the Holy See duplicitous? Should I take it that the Holy See is unpersuasive and toothless?
I know that you are reporting the truth, but I found todays newsletter very depressing. Disrespectful mourners, traditional Catholic values considered outdated, dancing at altars.....
Yep, not a lot of good news recently in the Church. I'm not optimistic that it will be any better in the near future either - if anything, we're in for even worse times within the next 1-2 years.
--> I love reading The Pillar articles, but there are some weeks when I think, maybe, I shouldn't. This week is one of them. The funeral, the Religion Ed. Conference, the German bishops .... not great news. But, I can count on the Pillar's reporting, analysis, and Explainers to help put it all in perspective.
--> Plus, I can always count on a bit of humor (or snark in Ed's case) mixed in with beautiful reflections in the Pillar Posts. And for that I'm grateful.
"I think our first job, often, is to accurately and dispassionately recount what has happened."
This is certainly an interesting approach to journalism. I just wonder if people will know how they should feel about a topic if you report the news like that? It just seems pretty complicated.
It's just the old-fashioned, responsible form of news reporting, which does not aim to tell people how they "should feel," but rather gives them enough information and context to make up their own minds. It only feels weird and complicated these days because it has become so rare (even from outlets who purport to report without bias).
It's been many years since the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence began disrupting Mass in San Francisco, approaching the altar for Communion in their outfits. I'm surprised and dismayed that the Church, especially in a big city, had no preparation for or plan to deal with this.
That was my thought when I saw this story last week. It’s NYC, not small town NY. In my cynicism I also assumed there was a large check written for the privilege. But acknowledge I am completely ignorant as to how one obtains a funeral at St Patrick’s.
I guess they are at least having a Mass for their deceased.
But this "family only" thing doesn't allow the witness of what the Church believes and prays for regarding death and tthe hope of resurrection.
We have had people enter the RCIA (and later the Church) after attending a Catholic funeral.
I see all this as another accommodation to the culture, we are ashamed of our faith, we want something else that is more "happy" and will not offend non-Catholics.
In response to Gioia’s excellent post on our emerging addiction economy, I was tempted to comment — if only there were practices in various cultures to deprive oneself purposely of sense pleasures for a fixed period of time, say, for a little over a month or so.
"In Italy’s Umbria region, it would have been sunny, and most likely in the mid or high 30s that Sunday."
Fahrenheit or Celsius?
lol.
Oh I definitely read that as Celsius!! 🥴
I agree with the criticisms of the funeral. Had I been the celebrant I would have been appalled. However, as a priest I need to point out that once a funeral starts rolling the options for the celebrant are very limited. They did well to switch from a mass to a liturgy. In particular, when the eulogy takes place we are hostages to fortune. The Church used to insist on impersonal funeral rites with a strong emphasis on penitence and little or no personal remembrance (except, of course for cardinals etc). These days you have the family pushing for a 'celebration of the life of X' and eulogies to make the service more personal. To refuse or to limit the eulogies can alienate good people from the Church for life. But to accept them is to risk what happened at St Patrick's. Just sayin' ...
We have a policy in the parish, absolutely, under no circumstances can there be a eulogy at a funeral Mass.
There is some pushback occasionally.
But we simply tell families that they have asked for a Catholic funeral and the Liturgy belongs to the Church. So, here, we will do what the Church does.
While a eulogy might be allowed it can go on and on, be a source of distraction regarding the intent of a Catholic funeral and a spoken bull of canonization of the deceased.
Families are offered the option of having a eulogy after the Vigil/rosary, at the Mercy Meal or at the graveside after the rites.
Harsh as this might sound, if they leave the Church over not having a eulogy at a funeral Mass, (after the reasons are explained) they have made their choice. They are always welcome back.
What I have found is a different course.
I have been amazed at the significant number of devout Catholics who now have a funeral Mass solely for the immediate family and then a large gathering of extended family and friends at another time with maybe the parish priest as a guest and speaking role but certainly not in control. They are not leaving the Church over this matter, they are successfully implementing their own work-around.
Greetings to you down there in Arizona, a state I know well (I once intended to retire to Green Valley. Somehow I am still in harness.) Yes the eulogy is better at those alternative occasions. The fact remains however that except for what Kurt notes below, the funeral in church is still where people gather, especially Italian or Irish. Either I am too compassionate to adopt your course, or I lack the err requisite attributes of manhood as spoken in Spanish. That said I like your line about the canonization of the deceased.
No, Father…your experience shows that it works well for you to allow a eulogy at Mass.
I’m probably just too strict about it.
Blessings!
Same in my diocese. Any words of remembrance, as the phrase goes, are to be strictly confined to the faith that the departed person held. This includes anything given at a funeral home service whether before or after the service. In the funeral mass, there are never any words of remembrance that are allowed.
It seems to me presumptuous for the diocese to regulate what is said by mourners at a funeral home before or after the Mass. If I may, what makes that the business of the diocese?
The bishop.
whaat do you mean?
Whaat I mean is to give an answer to the question which you tersely asked me to answer, i.e., what makes it the business of the diocese to regulate what is said, by mourners at a funeral home before or after the mass.
My answer, which you didn’t understand, is what was told to me by my pastor before the funeral of someone very close to me. He said that the policy of the diocese/the bishop as far as words of remembrance are concerned, is to presume the liturgy ( before, during, or after a funeral mass or funeral home liturgy ) is a “singular“ setting for offering expressions of the faith of the departed person. The word singular was used.
Perhaps your confusion is born from my not saying that this all assumes a funeral liturgy (with the presence of a priest or deacon. ) Was I supposed to say that the Diocese or the bishop have nothing to say about words of remembrance if mourners hold the gathering at a funeral home without a liturgy? I would think that would be understood.
But just in case, I am supposed to say this to avoid confusion, in a secular setting anyone can do or say whatever their imagination dictates. (Just like the way the mourners expressed themselves at St. Patrick’s. )
Does that still seem presumptuous? I very much respect what my Bishop has done for this Diocese and I respect my priest, and what he says. It makes sense to me.
Add in, “that are not about the person’s faith” after , “ words of remembrance”.
The presumption is that the funeral liturgy is singular as the setting for offering expressions of the deceased person’s faith while anecdotal memories have ample occasions to be shared.
But you seem to be saying that the bishop has tried to restrict the telling of anecdotes or other personal memories/opinions, even when offered at a funeral home outside of the liturgy. Have I misunderstood?
No, I suppose the way I wrote it must have caused confusion. I’ll simply restate it. What the rule is in my diocese is that within a funeral liturgy, whether before, during or after a mass or before, during or after a funeral home liturgy service, words of remembrance are to be about the faith of the person. Outside of that of course people can do or say anything they want.
Thank you again for clarifying!
So are saying that when gross behavior and language is taking place in the sanctuary when Jesus is present the priest has no right to stop it? I realize St. Patrick’s is huge and thousands of people present it would take a very diplomatic response. If a half naked woman were to run down the aisle shouting obscenities the priest would have done something. Few if any of the attendees were practicing Catholics and perhaps chaos would have broken out. But, that funeral Mass should have been shut down and police should have been in attendance.
A few years ago, I had a seemingly devout woman (and I don't doubt her sincerity) who insisted on two Gospel readings, a third reading from "The Prophet" and two songs, one was "Annie's Song' by John Denver, the other, "Rambling Rose."
These readings and songs were part of the wedding Mass when the coupled married in the 1970's.
I said "no" and suggested the be done after the Vigil in the funeral home.
The wife and all 7 kids, one calling from Sumatra begged, then accused me of "taking away" their celebration of their father who had died.
While I did not expect this and the vehemence shown even after I explained the the Tradition of the Church regarding funerals, the family still thought it best to have a grandchild (who was a trained lector in the parish) read from "The Prophet" after agreeing not to do so.
I ignored that reading.
This was not the first time we had these problems.
But from then on, readers could only be people from the parish who read regularly at Mass. This corps of people see it as a ministry. Families may choose readings from the Lectionary only and there is a long list of a variety of suggested liturgical music to choose songs from.
The wife chose to go to another parish in protest, most of the kids in the "spirit of the age" (those who were nominally practicing) quit coming to church.
Was it worth it, yes. Will I answer to Christ for not going along with this? Maybe.
We have to stop accommodating all manner of nonsense at weddings and funerals.
If one wants a Catholic funeral they are asking for Catholic rites, not some concocted "creation" of their own.
There were plenty of options to do as they pleased in other situations and times.
And so, this family and the deceased father remain on a long list of people to pray for.
There is joy, prayers for the forgiveness of sins, blessed assurance and hope in the funeral rites of the Church. What else can a faithful Catholic ask for?
Pretty sure it's your canonical responsibility to do as you have done, Father. Although I'm sure we'll all have much to answer for on the day of judgment, I hope that upholding the rubrics of the rite won't be held against you---good grief, wasn't it considered a mortal sin to deliberately deviate from the rubrics up until the Novus Ordo?
When my own mother died I wanted nothing against any rubric, only certain hymns and a chance to thank those in attendance and give them directions to the repast afterward. Even though my mother had been daily communicant and was the sister of a late priest of the diocese, Msgr. Horzenfarht couldn't be bothered to return my phone call. Seven days and four calls later, (the last being when I asked the parish secretary if she had the phone number for the Lutheran Church since is it clear Father isn't calling me back,) I finally got my call returned. The songs were okay, but no layperson could speak. He said he would make the announcement about the repast (which he forgot to do following the funeral). Needless to say, after this experience I lost any instinctive respect for priests.
I don't think it's about saying the priest had no right to do something, just that by the time it was happening he didn't have great options available (and it's hard to think on your feet when something super unexpected happens)
When I've lived in large urban parishes where sometimes disturbances are reasonably expected, the protocol has usually been that someone else - ushers/security - handles it, while the priest basically tries to continue the Mass as if they're had been no interruption (including a memorable occasion when a large protest outside escalated rapidly, and the ushers barricaded the doors impressively quickly - you could not have told from the priest's demeanor that anything out of the ordinary was happening)
Assuming that's the typical response at St Patrick's too, I can see how this situation just... didn't fit people's mental models (the priest is prepped to ignore distractions and continue the service; the ushers are thinking 'this looks like part of the service, it's the priest's call to stop it, not ours". In hindsight, it shouldn't have happened - but I'm not at all surprised the priest wasn't sure what to do in the moment
Liturgical dancing...if you degraded the image quality to resemble an old video tape, those stills would be indistinguishable from the 80s and 90s. It feels like a fanatical reassertion of the "Spirit of Vatican II" in direct opposition to where most of the faithful are at now...an odd situation where the "revolutionaries" are now the entrenched status quo clinging to power.
My sentiments exactly, Patricius. I see about about a dozen females clothed like high priestesses, and one person who from the back appears to be male, burning incense at the altar of (McCarrick crony) McElroy, who is attended by someone badly in need of a haircut. When The Pillar confidently claims that "the Archdiocese of Los Angeles certainly wouldn't spend hundreds of man hours, and millions of dollars on this event if there weren't Catholics who expect this kind of thing will be a catalyst for deep discipleship and serious conversion," I have to ask, "conversion" to what?
I don't know if it's just me, but the staff at the Pillar seems to have a harder and harder time keeping the sarcasm cauldron from bubbling over recently.
There's some sarcasm, but I think they're also pointing out that there are people in powerful positions who are so genuinely clueless that they think this stuff is what will evangelize. The fact is that all that time and effort was expended precisely because there are people who actually think this is what the church needs.
100% reminds me of awful, dated liturgies from my childhood. I am amazed anyone is still doing these. Another reason more timeless and traditional elements should be maintained in liturgy- in 20 years it won’t just be the cringe fashion of one (cough, boomer, cough) generation.
There was “liturgical dancing” at my Confirmation Mass many, many years ago. It was performed by a dance studio whose director was not a member of the Church and whose dancers also performed pretty immodest dances in their secular competitions. I didn’t understand how my sacrament was supposed to be enhanced by a bunch of girls in satin pajamas dancing on the steps of the sanctuary. I still don’t get it.
RE the Congress: Meanwhile SEEK continues to grow each year with 20k+ young people in attendance doing their best to foster reverence.
Amen
As awful as the funeral at St Patrick’s was … this is much more frightening to me: “the understanding of human nature and moral reality upon which previous declarations of doctrine were made were in fact limited or defective.” - Cardinal McElroy.
St Michael, pray for us.
Crazy how much that picture with the Cardinal looks like something straight out of a black-box performance of The Handmaid's Tail, right? I'll never understand the obsession of some prelates to be surrounded by their little cadres of ancillae.
I suppose there is some middle ground between this event at St. Patrick's and my own mother's funeral, for which the priest barely would speak to the family and so tightly controlled the Mass that no one in the family was even allowed to announce where the meal after the funeral would be. But while I accept the idea of a middle ground intellectually, one is some event in a city I do not live in and the other is my own mother's funeral. I know which priest I feel is the bigger jerk.
I think that's where I'm landing on the whole mess: we /could/ reduce the risk of something like this happening again, be more restrictive on who can have a funeral, etc - but it would not be worth all the collateral damage.
I'm sorry about your mom
"That’s what’s happened in Germany, and it’s exactly what the Holy See has warned against.
But it will continue."
What are we to make of this? Should I take this to mean the Holy See isn't serious when it warns? Is the Holy See duplicitous? Should I take it that the Holy See is unpersuasive and toothless?
None of the options seem good to me.
Thank you for linking the Fr. Akinwale piece; it was great, and reminded me of grad school. (We overlapped at Boston College.)
The liturgical dance photos are so so cringey. It needs to end at REC.
*It needs to end.
I know that you are reporting the truth, but I found todays newsletter very depressing. Disrespectful mourners, traditional Catholic values considered outdated, dancing at altars.....
Yep, not a lot of good news recently in the Church. I'm not optimistic that it will be any better in the near future either - if anything, we're in for even worse times within the next 1-2 years.
--> I love reading The Pillar articles, but there are some weeks when I think, maybe, I shouldn't. This week is one of them. The funeral, the Religion Ed. Conference, the German bishops .... not great news. But, I can count on the Pillar's reporting, analysis, and Explainers to help put it all in perspective.
--> Plus, I can always count on a bit of humor (or snark in Ed's case) mixed in with beautiful reflections in the Pillar Posts. And for that I'm grateful.
"I think our first job, often, is to accurately and dispassionately recount what has happened."
This is certainly an interesting approach to journalism. I just wonder if people will know how they should feel about a topic if you report the news like that? It just seems pretty complicated.
It's just the old-fashioned, responsible form of news reporting, which does not aim to tell people how they "should feel," but rather gives them enough information and context to make up their own minds. It only feels weird and complicated these days because it has become so rare (even from outlets who purport to report without bias).
It's been many years since the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence began disrupting Mass in San Francisco, approaching the altar for Communion in their outfits. I'm surprised and dismayed that the Church, especially in a big city, had no preparation for or plan to deal with this.
That was my thought when I saw this story last week. It’s NYC, not small town NY. In my cynicism I also assumed there was a large check written for the privilege. But acknowledge I am completely ignorant as to how one obtains a funeral at St Patrick’s.
I guess they are at least having a Mass for their deceased.
But this "family only" thing doesn't allow the witness of what the Church believes and prays for regarding death and tthe hope of resurrection.
We have had people enter the RCIA (and later the Church) after attending a Catholic funeral.
I see all this as another accommodation to the culture, we are ashamed of our faith, we want something else that is more "happy" and will not offend non-Catholics.
In response to Gioia’s excellent post on our emerging addiction economy, I was tempted to comment — if only there were practices in various cultures to deprive oneself purposely of sense pleasures for a fixed period of time, say, for a little over a month or so.