"Michigan couple: Priest, 'bully' coach ruined our son's funeral"

[otjm]

I have actually heard a priest suggest someone who had recently died was in Heaven enjoying a good game of golf. When priests say things like this, who will be taught or reminded of the possibility or even likelihood of Purgatory?

Being artificially jollified during the funeral Mass gets us halfway through the wake before we leave the church. This is not what the Mass is for.

I don’t believe anywhere in my comment that I suggested such should occur.

I do believe that I am echoing the reaction of the bishop to the matter; it appears the priest did not react in a compassionate way.

And yes, the Mass has a purpose; to pray for the deceased. It also has a second purpose, and that is to show compassion to and to console those grieving. They are not exclusive to one another, nor are they at cross purposes. One does not have to “jolly” the grieving to show compassion; it most certainly doe not have to paint pictures as if the deceased is the most recent canonized saint.

My comment was not directed to you, but to others, including but not limited to the post to which I replied.

 

[Jen95]

Have you read the recent articles about the lawsuit? The parents did indeed have a discussion with the priest and did not disclose the manner of their son’s death. I agree that is “hiding it from the priest”. What would you call it?
They refer to the homily in a way that indicates that they thought they got to dictate the content of it. Read the articles if you don’t believe me. “Shrug”.

 

[JanetF]

Personally, I think funeral masses are a good time to teach the concept of Purgatory and the scriptural basis for it. Though I wouldn’t necessarily dwell on it for too long, it’s a good time to bring it up, so that the attendees will be reminded of the decedant’s need for their prayers to get them to heaven.

 

[FossilResin]

Yeah I agree that the secular “celebration of life” circus is shallow, to say the least. But grieving is deeply human.

 

[FossilResin]

Funeral masses, when people are actively grieving their loved ones and finding solace in hoping they are no longer in pain, are an extraordinarily inappropriate time to teach about purgatory.

 

[Sarcelle]

The priest who wrote under the username Don Ruggero tended to be . . . rather disdainful of American Catholicism

I think he is seeing what I am seeing in American Catholicism. I see quite a hefty Puritanical/Evangelical/Fundamentalist influence on American Catholicism.

For those who grew up in it, it’s hard to see but for those who grew up outside it, it’s quite distinct.

 

[JanetF]

I would disagree since Purgatory is quite hopeful. Afterall, you won’t go to purgatory unless you are destined for Heaven.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t know about most of what is being said here. I would think it all has merit, but in the end, the priest is the one in the best position to judge what is appropriate, what is too much, what is not enough, and accept that aberrations like this that make the news do so because they are exceptional. I know I could not do the job of the priest.

 

[graciew]

I have actually heard a priest suggest someone who had recently died was in Heaven enjoying a good game of golf

It would sound very human and fine to me. Context is important. We are Catholic. Think of this: we know there is Purgatory, we know the priest knows there is, and we know we don t know where the person is . There is no harm done in that comment , it is hopeful, and warm. It wouldn t change a thing …

 

[JanR]

That was the whole point of my later post. I have admitted that I may have been a bit harsh on the priest, but he clearly showed a lack of sensitivity and compassion for the family’s grief, even implying, at such an inappropriate time and manner, that their son may be lost for all of eternity. It just wasn’t necessary. Much of what he said the congregation already knew and was probably pondering for themselves.

When someone is stuck in the black hole of grief, there is no reason to make that hole deeper and blacker.

That said, I’m not in support of the lawsuit. This doesn’t rise to the level of a lawsuit, and I feel it dishonors their son by trying to profit monetarily off of his death. The priest has been punished by the diocese, and the diocese has apologized. I think that for most people, that would have been enough.

 

[InThePew]

All funerals are sensitive areas requiring compassion and careful attention to the family’s grief. If the family chose to withhold the cause of death from the priest that is their right. Granted, confronting it may be better than leaving it as the elephant in the room but that’s ultimately a decision for the family to make.

A properly catechised family would not have taken offence. They would have taken comfort.

Rationally, yes but grief (and emotion) isn’t rational. It’s one thing to know, on an intellectual level, that all souls are commended to the Lord’s infinite love and mercy, it’s another altogether to apply that in a time of anguish and grief. Regardless, funerals are one of the most common times when the uncatechised come into contact with the Church - even if not the family, others present. For the reason pastoral sensitivity and flexibility are a must and most often that means going along with what the family want. So officially there’s no place for eulogies in a requiem mass or funeral service; unofficially, they happen all the time!

 

[Annie]

I put that badly. The priest suggested the man was in Heaven playing golf within days of the man’s death.

 

[otjm]

Whether or not the couple “hid” the fact that it was a suicide is irrelevant. Even presuming they did mote than hide it - assuming they lied and said he died of cancer, is irrelevant. The “why” is below.

Whether or not the couple acted as if they were going to dictate to the priest what the homily was to be is likewise irrelevant.

Why? The comments by the bishop clarify that whether they hid, and/or outright lied, and/or tried to dictate the homily does not excuse what the bishop determined was inappropriate at a funeral. Neither of us were at the funeral; it appears from the comments and reaction of the bishop that the priest was well off the rails as to his homily.

And I have a really strong suspicion that the Bishop knew enough details that his actions viz a viz the priest were justified and correct.

There are a number of comments in this thread, from others (not you), as to what the priest might have or should have said at the homily. As they come from people who have not been ordained (with all of its attendant training prior to ordination) and appear to be from people who have no training in dealing with grief, I will simply say that the bishop appears to have acted correctly and wisely.

 

[JulianN]

You don’t think everyone deserved to hear the Church’s thoughts on how God’s children don’t have to be separated from him, even in death through suicide?

Perhaps a change in scenario. Imagine this same homily, but in every single place it says ‘suicide’ replace it with ‘died of a heart attack while having sex with a woman other than his wife.’ Do we really think that’s the congregation’s business?

The priest could have talked about mercy. He could have talked about the hope of eternal life. In fact, he could have given the homily he did without mentioning the cause of death. Which was not his right to disclose.

 

[Jen95]

The point is, I bet all those people knew. Do they not deserve to hear that God can still give eternal life to someone who took his own life?
The comparison you give (a man having a heart attack in flagrante delicto), is not comparable. As bad and sinful as that act is, it’s not the same as suicide. You may not agree with me, but I think it would be immodest to give details in church if the death involved a sex act in any way. Call me old-fashioned!

 

[JulianN]

You may not agree with me, but I think it would be immodest to give details in church if the death involved a sex act in any way.

I agree. But I feel the same way about any cause of death. Not the priest’s business to share without the family’s permission.

I’ve had someone very close to me die by suicide—the priest gave a wonderful homily. He managed not to share information that was not his to share.

 

[otjm]

I agree with you on the lawsuit. It appears (in a non-psychological analysis) that they may be taking out their grief on the priest and the diocese. I am not sure what they are pleading as to harm; presumably intentional infliction of mental distress. Might be a hard case to prove; the other side of the coin may be how much exposure the Church wishes to endure in what is generally a hostile press.

Meaning, they may want a pound of flesh; or they may only be seeing a possible $$$ recovery. The information is at best sketchy, but there are enough details to lean towards a family that may have had a tenuous connection to the Church to begin with. That is not for us to decide.

 

[otjm]

The laity have a right to hear the moral issues surrounding suicide. That they hve this right does not indicate it needs to be done at the funeral. and it would appear this is the position of the diocese, given the response they had to the priest in question.

According to the Church, the deceased, in spite of the suicide, has a right to a Christian burial, and praying the funeral Mass of the deceased is not only a right but also an act of charity. The application of the Mass to the deceased is God’s problem, not the Church’s.

On the other hand, those left behind, including family and close friends need to be treated with compassion; which makes the matter of the issue of suicide and eternal results a matter for God to decide. If there are issues anyone has concerning the moral issues at hand, they can be treated in another setting at another time.

The Church is not exactly silent on the matter; there is ample written material people can be directed to at an appropriate time. It is not as if the funeral Mass is the only and specific time the matter has to be preached on. As to the fact that the individual may still have eternal life, it can be woven into the homily without bringing up the matter that suicide is the big “elephant in the room”.

 

[Jen95]

But how many of those people will seek out the information at a later date? Especially if they’re not Catholic? Why can’t we trust that the priest knew what his flock needed to hear?

 

[LilyM]

But how many of those people will seek out the information at a later date? Especially if they’re not Catholic? Why can’t we trust that the priest knew what his flock needed to hear?

If they are faithful Catholics they will attend Church every Sunday and the issue xam be raised then. If not, they likely will not care what the priest or the Church has to say. And indeed will be put off of.trying to find out by a ham-fisted delivery like.this.

In either case, no-one needs to hear any message delivered in an incredibly insensitive and distressing and off-putting way.