This is worrisome

[Pax_Vobiscum_57]

Our archdiocese is training the laity to do funeral vigils, burial services at church, and the rite of committal a the cemetary. Previously done only by clergy. I know some of the people who went for the training, and they are all feminist agenda driven.

Isn’t there enough trouble in the Church? This just smacks of another scandal, because the people I know who went there want women’s ordination.

This makes me very sad. We have 160+ active deacons in our archdiocese. I feel the need to write the cardinal, but not sure how to say it without sounding “uncharitable.”

 

[Sam_Maloney]

Are the priests there [where ever ‘there’ is] stretched so thin that they can’t perform these services?

If not, it is good that someone will be able to do so…

If not, then perhaps these ‘trainees’ will never be called upon.

I don’t blame you for being worried, and my diocese [Helena MT] is also working hard to train lay people to take over whereever possible.

But then again, they are also working hard to block orthodox seminarians and encourage orthodox priests to ply their trade elswhere. So very few of our priests are under 60, and we are on track for a clergy free future.

But maybe it will all work out. God does miracles.

 

[DJgang]

Well, if we get too clergy free we might as well be Protestants! Laity running everything is not a good thing! I’ve been through ALL those Protestant denominations and get more and more people over these type of things, there will be problems.

It really makes no sense. Sounds like they need to spend some effort in encouraging men to become deacons.

So, you think because the people who attended saw it all as another step toward their agenda to have women ordained? Why don’t they just go to the ECUSA? They would be very happy there! But you know, even clergy takes care of all those duties that this training included.

Just be honest. Write a letter and be honest. And get any others, who feel as you do, to do the same.

 

[benedictgal]

Our archdiocese is training the laity to do funeral vigils, burial services at church, and the rite of committal a the cemetary. Previously done only by clergy. I know some of the people who went for the training, and they are all feminist agenda driven.

Isn’t there enough trouble in the Church? This just smacks of another scandal, because the people I know who went there want women’s ordination.

This makes me very sad. We have 160+ active deacons in our archdiocese. I feel the need to write the cardinal, but not sure how to say it without sounding “uncharitable.”

I would actually write to the Cardinal on that one because nothing precludes the deacon from presiding over the Vigil, Funeral (without Mass, of course) and the burial. In fact, that is what sometimes happens in my diocese. Remember, too, that if someone dies during Triduum, they cant’ have a funeral Mass, so, the priest does a simple service.

In Austin, I had that problem when my grandmother died. Having to make long-distance arrangments was bad enough and then the funeral home didn’t get someone to recite the Rosary. I wound up doing that and my PV drove up all the way from Laredo to celebrate the Funeral Mass. Out of fairness, this was at my request because when her pastor had celebrated my step-grandfather’s funeral Mass, the homiily turned into a canonization of sorts which upset both my father and me (for reasons that would take posting in another forum).

The funeral home loused up when we transported my grandmother to Fort Sam Houston and I had to find a deacon in San Antonio to do the commital service.

Bottom line is that inasmuch as the Rosary, in theorgy, could be led by the faithful, it is so much better to have clergy there, especially for the family. This is the time when we need them the most, especially for those of us, like me, who have no siblings. It was a comfort to have the priest for my mother’s entire service. Inaxmuch as people will say, “Well, you’re supposed to have faith in the resurrection” and other things, the pain, shock and grief are difficult to bear. Furthermore, it is probably one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, thing that a family undergoes, especially a small one.

I think that dioceses need to take that into consideration when making decisions like the one presented by the OP. Now, I’m not discounting the laity; however, the priest, by virtue of his ordination, receives the graces to serve his people. Burying the dead is also a corporeal work of mercy.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Pax_Vobiscum

I feel the need to write the cardinal, but not sure how to say it without sounding "uncharitable.

Well its being run by your dioceses which means, the Cardinal(is he the Bishop of your dioceses) already knows about it.

Perhaps your misunderstanding what the actual role of these people being trained will be?

I know that in my dioceses, the Bishop cracked down on eulogies at Mass, for they were getting out of hand. Priest and funeral home directors, complained about the amount of time some of these eulogies were taking up.

So, it might make sense to have some sort of service outside the Catholic Mass, for people to do their eulogies and such?

Maybe this is the purpose of the training that is going on.

Jim

 

[frommi]

To train laypeople to preside at the vigil-wake service is appropriate and within the bounds of liturgical law.

In fact, in the order of Christian funerals there are distinctions made for the prayers at such a service (one who is a priest/deacon does a, one who is another minister does b).

Our burial rites are manifold. There should be a vigil-wake service, a funeral mass, and a rite of committal…and that is at a minimum.

(I should note that nowhere in the rites does it say we have to have a rosary, which is of course laudable as a devotion, but it’s not part of the burial rites of the church).

To execute all of these services, it requires many hours of one person’s time. Those are hours that many priests don’t have (unfortunately) to spend with a family. So to train the laity to preside at the wake and the rite of committal is a prudent course of action.

 

[benedictgal]

To train laypeople to preside at the vigil-wake service is appropriate and within the bounds of liturgical law.

In fact, in the order of Christian funerals there are distinctions made for the prayers at such a service (one who is a priest/deacon does a, one who is another minister does b).

Our burial rites are manifold. There should be a vigil-wake service, a funeral mass, and a rite of committal…and that is at a minimum.

(I should note that nowhere in the rites does it say we have to have a rosary, which is of course laudable as a devotion, but it’s not part of the burial rites of the church).

To execute all of these services, it requires many hours of one person’s time. ***Those are hours that many priests don’t have (unfortunately) to spend with a family. *** So to train the laity to preside at the wake and the rite of committal is a prudent course of action.

Your final statement is most troubling. The priests and deacons in my diocese make the effort to preside at all of the funeral liturgies. While many of them do not know the deceased, they take the time to at least pray with the family and offer consolation. Furthermore, the “time” invested is, more often than not, spent at the funeral home with the staff. In my diocese, the funeral home calls the parish and makes the arrangements. Sometimes, the family takes a proactive stand and gets involved in planning the entire liturgy (as in my case), or, they leave it up to the priest. The only thing the family will specifiy is whether or not the Rites will be in Engilsh or in Spanish. Sometimes, they don’t even opt for music.

Excuse me, but, this is the time when the family needs the priest the most. This is part of their ministry. The need pastoral care from their pastor. That is what he is there for. I do have very strong objections to have a lay person lead the committal service. They do not have the authority to bless the gravesite (if the burial doesn’t take place in a Catholic cemetery). While there are allowances for the Vigil of the Deceaed (in this part of Texas, the default is the Rosary) that the laity can read, a deacon should, at the very least, make some effort to be there.

 

[puzzleannie]

part of the larger problem of “lay ministry training” which is undergoing revision or under moratorium in several dioceses because it has been hijacked by the agenda-setters. in some places lay people have even been trained to anoint the sick with blessed oil (not that used in the actual sacrament) and the distinction and meaning of that sacrament has been destroyed.

 

[Pax_Vobiscum_57]

Are the priests there [where ever ‘there’ is] stretched so thin that they can’t perform these services?

I don’t blame you for being worried, and my diocese [Helena MT] is also working hard to train lay people to take over whereever possible.

But then again, they are also working hard to block orthodox seminarians and encourage orthodox priests to ply their trade elswhere. So very few of our priests are under 60, and we are on track for a clergy free future.

But maybe it will all work out. God does miracles.

My husband is a permanent deacon. That’s how I found out about it. I was a little iffy about mentioning it before. There will be 12 priests ordained here this month, and approximately 14 permanent deacons later this year. Almost every parish has a priest and deacon, and there are one or two under the administration of a deacon, but Mass is offered each weekend. Not to mention the clusters.

And yes, even though there are very good men applying for the seminary, until the last five years or so, the more openly orthodox were denied ordination. There was a deacon in my husband’s class who kept getting “deferred,” because he was very orthodox. They tried to make him quit. They made him sit out a year because they (formation team) claimed he needed a year of psychotherapy. He complied, and was found to be emotionally stable. Then they changed the classes needed, which pushed him back another year. He complied uncomplainingly. Finally after SIX YEARS of formation, the cardinal determined there was nothing to hold him back.

Well, if we get too clergy free we might as well be Protestants! Laity running everything is not a good thing! I’ve been through ALL those Protestant denominations and get more and more people over these type of things, there will be problems.

It really makes no sense. Sounds like they need to spend some effort in encouraging men to become deacons.

So, you think because the people who attended saw it all as another step toward their agenda to have women ordained? Why don’t they just go to the ECUSA? They would be very happy there! But you know, even clergy takes care of all those duties that this training included.

Just be honest. Write a letter and be honest. And get any others, who feel as you do, to do the same.

I’ve heard Fr. Neuhaus address the “clericalization of the laity” being “troublesome.” We’re headed for the 1970s again.

part of the larger problem of “lay ministry training” which is undergoing revision or under moratorium in several dioceses because it has been hijacked by the agenda-setters. in some places lay people have even been trained to anoint the sick with blessed oil (not that used in the actual sacrament) and the distinction and meaning of that sacrament has been destroyed.

B-I-N-G-O!!!

 

[Lazerlike42]

I think the problem is that some people (like myself) are living in diocese where there isn’t a need for this sort of thing, whereas others are living in diocese where it’s not a matter of the priests giving it their all, 110%, or any such thing, it’s just not humanly possible.

There are diocese where if every single priest was a St. John Vianney, they couldn’t possibly attend to all they needed without lay ministers. It’s not how it ought to be, and it needs to be corrected, but it can really only be so through vocations!

 

[benedictgal]

part of the larger problem of “lay ministry training” which is undergoing revision or under moratorium in several dioceses because it has been hijacked by the agenda-setters. in some places lay people have even been trained to anoint the sick with blessed oil (not that used in the actual sacrament) and the distinction and meaning of that sacrament has been destroyed.

Amen, my South Texas hermana! In fact, Rome came out with a document that specifically addressed the problem of the confusion between the duties of the ministerial priesthood and the laity. Unfortunately, some people haven’t gotten a round to reading it.

 

[scylla]

The solution, make babies, raise orthodox kids, encourage vocations, be faithful and make more Catholics. For Priests this means evangelize, convert and be a Father to all bringing them closer to Christ, through the Mass, Sacraments and living fruitful Catholic lives.
That is your assignment, being Catholic is exciting and fun, especially when you have a mission.

Eventually the faithful will outlive the unfaithful and the Church will flourish.

A younger Church will outlive the older hippy Church.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[frommi]

Even if we had a plethora of vocations, using lay presiders at wakes is not something that would be ‘wrong’.

For example, a lot of the folks who journey with the dying are members of the laity. Nurses, hospice workers, some hospital chaplains. It’s just as valuable for some families to have those folks intimately involved with the funeral rites as a priest.

It seems like everytime the laity get trained or empowered to do anything people start harping on the ‘clericalization of the laity’. In this case, that’s a straw man argument.

More recent documents from our bishops have pointed to the laity as ‘co-workers’ in the vineyard. This is a good expression for ministry to the bereaved. A lay associate is perfectly capable of presiding and preaching at the vigil wake. An ordained minster has an ‘ordinary’ role in presiding at the funeral mass, and either can certainly preside at the rite of committal.

Remember, funeral rites are not a ‘sacrament’. There is no real ‘ordinary’ minister for them per se outside the context of a Euchartisic celebration.

I understand Benedictgal’s desire to have a cleric preside at all aspects of her loved one’s funeral rites. This is of great value to her. However, there is nothing inherently wrong with a parish making a different decision about how ministry to the bereaved will be handled.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Having just gone through this for a very close family member, YES, a priest or deacon needs to be at the Rite of Committal, at the very least, and preferably for all the funeral rites.

While my DH and my aunt were in the same Catholic hospital, there was indeed a priest who served as chaplain. There were also several laity, Catholic, who were “chaplains” employed by the hospital.

I had to ask one in particular, “Are you Episcopalian?” Sadly, that’s how she behaved. When I requested my DH be annointed at one point, she was quick to point out that her prayers were just as effective as any priest’s. She also made it her business to hand out advance directives and try to get patients to sign them, conscious or not. I found the copy she tried to get my husband to sign right after he came out of his coma (we already had an advance directive and power of attorney, but apparently it didn’t suit her). I had her hiney for that, let me tell you!

It was a comfort to have the priest there when my aunt died. Even though my cousins opted for a funeral of their own making (the Episcopal priest was there only as a concession- and he was pretty good), it was a relief to know my aunt had been properly annointed prior to death, and that it was a Catholic priest who led the prayers for the dying that early morning. I was able to tell my mother with confidence, that yes, her sister had the Last Rites of the Church, the real Last Rites, and a real Catholic priest had been there when she died.

Death is the apex, the pinnacle, and brings home what this life is all about, which is the Next Life. It is definitely a time when the family members start to contemplate their own Next Life. One local funeral home I know even has a private room priests use for confessions! So, what happens when a lay funeral chaplain stops in and people want or need confession?

It would not kill a diocese that contains 160 deacons within its walls to make sure they do funeral duty. It might give retired clergy who are stillambulatory, priests and deacons, something to do.

Write your cardinal. Simply tell him how much it means when a loved one has died to have a real member of the clergy present, and not some pseudo-wannabe-clergy.

 

[frommi]

I’ve met a lot of the lay folks who do these wakes, and they are not ‘wannabe clergy’, that’s just an unfair assessment of what they do.

I think one’s preference for these things is more in how you were brought up, and possibly your relationship with your parish priest.

Again…the thread is about whether or not it’s troubling to use laymen and laywomen in some of these roles for funeral rites.

Let’s be clear, this is not an ‘extraordinary role’ for them. There is no ‘ordinary minister’ of the wake or of the rite of committal. The books are quite clear about this.

So, there is nothing ‘wannabe’ about this. If trained appropriately and with the right formation, the ministry they perform is valid and licit.

 

[JimG]

And yes, even though there are very good men applying for the seminary, until the last five years or so, the more openly orthodox were denied ordination. There was a deacon in my husband’s class who kept getting “deferred,” because he was very orthodox. They tried to make him quit. They made him sit out a year because they (formation team) claimed he needed a year of psychotherapy. He complied, and was found to be emotionally stable. Then they changed the classes needed, which pushed him back another year. He complied uncomplainingly. Finally after SIX YEARS of formation, the cardinal determined there was nothing to hold him back.

This is what is truly worrisome–that men who accept the teachings of the Church (handed down by Christ) are considered in need of psychotherapy.

 

[JimG]

Having just gone through this for a very close family member, YES, a priest or deacon needs to be at the Rite of Committal, at the very least, and preferably for all the funeral rites.

While my DH and my aunt were in the same Catholic hospital, there was indeed a priest who served as chaplain. There were also several laity, Catholic, who were “chaplains” employed by the hospital.

When my wife was near death in the ER of a Catholic hospital, the nurse asked if I would like to see the chaplain. I said yes. Shortly a young man appeared who was apparently neither a priest nor a Catholic, but had been hired by the hospital for a chaplaincy position. He offered to find me a priest to administer the sacrament of anointing of the sick. But her own pastor had already done that, so I declined. Somehow I had expected to find a Catholic priest as chaplain in a Catholic hospital.

 

[benedictgal]

OutInChgbrbs, you raise some very, very valid points in your post. Death is something that all of us must undergo. God didn’t even spare His own Son from death. The fact that the Church has rites in place to take care of the person who has died as well as the survivors is something that is too precious and too important to be left to the laity to do.

In fact, the incident that you mentioned regarding the lay woman who wanted to pray over your husband reminds me of a document, Instruction on Prayers for Healing, that was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. In this document, which is an authoriative document from the CDF and where he writes, in his capacity as Prefect, Ratzinger notes that:

The Church has never ceased to celebrate this sacrament for its members by the anointing and the prayer of its priests, commending those who are ill to the suffering and glorified Lord, that he may raise them up and save them.»(9) Immediately before the actual anointing takes place, in the blessing of the oil, the Church prays: «Make this oil a remedy for all who are anointed with it; heal them in body, in soul, and in spirit, and deliver them from every affliction»(10) and then, in the first two prayers after the anointing, the healing of the sick person is requested.(11) Since the sacrament is a pledge and promise of the future kingdom, it is also a proclamation of the resurrection, when « there shall be no

Although this document speaks to healing services, Ratzinger makes specific mention that the prayers of the sacrament are reserved for the priest and/or bishop.

Doing some research, I found a 1997 document issued by the Congregation for Clergy which highlights the issue of collaboration between the ministerial priesthood and the laity. The document says in part that:

The ministerial priesthood is therefore necessary for a community to exist as “Church”: “The ordained priesthood ought not to be thought of as existing (…) posterior to the ecclesial community, as if the Church could be imagined as already established without this priesthood”.(42) Indeed, were a community to lack a priest, it would be deprived of the exercise and sacramental action of Christ, the Head and Pastor, which are essential for the very life of every ecclesial community.

Thus the ordained priesthood is absolutely irreplaceable. As an immediate consequence of this there is the necessity for a continuing, zealous and well-organised pastoral promotion of vocations so as to provide the Church with those ministers which she needs and to ensure a proper seminary training for those preparing for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Any other solution to problems deriving from a shortage of sacred ministers can only lead to precarious consequences.

This last section certainly applies to the situations mentioned both by my Illinois sister and the OP. In OutinChgbrbs case, and, perhaps in the OP’s case, this section, too, is applicable:

It*** is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as “pastor”, “chaplain”, “coordinator”, " moderator" or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest.(58)***

Now, this particular section addresses exactly what the OP is facing:

Leading the Celebration at Funerals

In the present circumstances of growing dechristianization and of abandonment of religious practice, death and the time of obsequies can be one of the most opportune pastoral moments in which the ordained minister can meet with the non-practising members of the faithful.

It is thus desirable that Priests and Deacons, even at some sacrifice to themselves, should preside personally at funeral rites in accordance with local custom, so as to pray for the dead and be close to their families, thus availing of an opportunity for appropriate evangelization.
The non-ordained faithful may lead the ecclesiastical obsequies provided that there is a true absence of sacred ministers and that they adhere to the prescribed liturgical norms. (111) Those so deputed should be well prepared both doctrinally and liturgically.

Therefore, this certainly negates the arguments regarding the clergy’s time.

 

[benedictgal]

The name of the document that I quoted is "On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithfu in the Sacred Ministry of the Priest.

If I may, I will re-post the quote that is central to the questino raised by the OP (due to a time lapse, I could not edit my own post):

***Leading the Celebration at Funerals

In the present circumstances of growing dechristianization and of abandonment of religious practice, death and the time of obsequies can be one of the most opportune pastoral moments in which the ordained minister can meet with the non-practising members of the faithful.***

It is thus desirable that Priests and Deacons, even at some sacrifice to themselves, should preside personally at funeral rites in accordance with local custom, so as to pray for the dead and be close to their families, thus availing of an opportunity for appropriate evangelization.

***The non-ordained faithful may lead the ecclesiastical obsequies provided that there is a true absence of sacred ministers ***and that they adhere to the prescribed liturgical norms. (111) Those so deputed should be well prepared both doctrinally and liturgically.

Now, the diocese in question could be using this last section as a loophole; however, the real kernel is the segment I noted in red. With 160 deacons, I don’t think that this would constitute a true absence of sacred ministers. This particular section would best be applicable to missionary outposts where the priest comes in on a staggard basis (like in a missionary territory).

 

[frommi]

“Now, the diocese in question could be using this last section as a loophole; however, the real kernel is the segment I noted in red. With 160 deacons, I don’t think that this would constitute a true absence of sacred ministers. This particular section would best be applicable to missionary outposts where the priest comes in on a staggard basis (like in a missionary territory)”

You’re forgetting how it notes ‘local circumstances’, something a bishop has the authority to oversee and determine.

Even if 160 deacons are available, that does not mean they are all available or capable of bereavment ministry.

Regardless, this takes us away from the point of the thread.

It is not worrisome or problematic to utilize the non ordained for some funeral rites. Some lay ministers are commissioned specifically for such ministry.

I’d also note it points out that priests should be present at ‘some’ sacrifice to themselves. The parish I work in averages about 4 funerals a week…so that means he has to do a wake 4 nights a week, 1 funeral a morning (maybe taking Monday off), and a trip to a cemetery. Somewhere in there he can run the parish, visit the school, see the shutins, and possibly say a daily mass.

I’d also note that a good number of people are comfortable being led in prayer by the non-ordained faithful. Frankly, I’d take many of the lay ministers I know over some of the deacons (keeping in mind that most of the lay ministers have the same education as the deacons, they just lack ordination).

Benedictgal is confusing the issue by bringing up the document regarding the collaboration of the ordained and the non-ordained. That document specifically reprobates the idea of the non-ordained ‘play acting’ like the ordained, a problem to be sure.

However, let’s be clear, the church herself provides prayers to be used by the non ordained in all of the situations listed above in regards to the funeral rites. The church drew the line of licitness and most follow it.

I know people get fired up about the environment of ‘anti clericalism’…but the opposite can be true in some of these postings, there seems to be an aversion to allowing a layperson carry out duties that they are allowed to do.