This is worrisome

[otjm]

Since when is obedience an outdated model, frommi? Furthermore, certainly if the laity want to be involved in funeral minstry, they can host a meal after the funeral Mass or do something outside of the liturgy without having to usurp the role of the clergy.

You seem to insist on having the laity take over something that does not belong to them (only in extreme cases, as outlined by Rome). There are certainly other things that the laity can do without intefering in those duties that belong to the clergy. What part of the document On Certain Collaborations do you not understand?

I think it is more what part of the document don’t you understand. It is clear from Rome that the laity may lead prayers at a wake or at the burial site. They are not the first or even second priority, but they most certainly are not forbidden.

You seem to keep going back to the issue that there are 160 deacons in the diocese. since I cannot determine from this thread what diocese we are talking about, it is impossible to say what 160 deacons really means to the area - how many are retired, how many have a full time job, where they are located (clustered in a big city; spread out), and how the bishop has assigned them and for what purposes.

It is up to the bishop to determine what “true absence” means. If the bishop determines that a deacon is to serve one parish, the burial rites are in need of someone and they are resulting from the burial of a neighbor parish, and the pastor at that parish is not able to go for whatever legitimate reason - conflict of schedule, then at that point there is a true absence.

If , on the other hand (and we have no evidence of it that I can see) the bishop has determined that neither priests nor deacons will hold graveside services, then the document has been ignored by the bishop. However, as I note, I find no evidence in this thread that such is the case.

There may be legitimate circumstances where a funeral Mass will not be said. There are also legitimate circumstances where there may not be a priest or deacon available. rome has set the priority, but it seems that you want this to approach absolute diminimis. The document doesn’t require that approach. And the ulitmate bottom line is that those who wear the collar, including the bishop, are going to be the ones who decide what “availability” means. Just because we don’t like it does not mean that they are being sloppy, or ignoring the letter or the intent of the the document.

I do not see Frommi being intent on having the laity take over anything. What I hear is that he says it is the decision of the bishop, and from that, the pracitical, day to day decisions of the priests and the deacons who may have first priority. Without further showing, I don’t think any of us can say that they - the bishop, the priests or the deacons - are derilict in ther duty because any individual or group of burials had a lay person presiding at the wake or committal.

 

[benedictgal]

I understand the document, please don’t insist that I don’t.

However, I have to use my local bishop as my reference point for things of this nature. Something you keep refusing to do (and you still haven’t explained how your pastoral judgment is somehow better than his…a good example of your insistence to take something that belongs to the ordained and make it your own…the spirit of governance).

I certainly am not insisting something ‘belongs’ to anyone. The question was whether or not the use of the laity was ‘worrisome’. My question is how can something permitted by law and rubrics be ‘worrisome’?

It can be worrisome when it is not used in the manner in which it was intended. The document defines very specific circumstances by which the laity may legitimately collaborate with sacred ministers. The kernel of the whole matter is in the “true absence of sacred ministers”, something that certainly does not apply in the case of the OP, where the Metropolitan Archdiocese has 160 deacons.

Furthermore, deaths do not occur in great and significant numbers unless there is some sort of catastrophe (be it illness, natural disaster of man-made). Therefore, there should be enough clergy (deacons and priests) to celebrate the entire funeral rites. The only instances that the document specifically addresses are when there is a true absence of sacred clergy, such as in some missionary territory or outpost, or, in a region where it is difficult for the clergy to visit.

The problem lies with the fact that there have been instances where the bishops have loosely applied these documents to fit and contort the meaning. That is why Rome has had to intervene, not just in this particular case, but in others.