Religious funerals for prominent nonbelievers

Can't imagine too many priests in the parishes in his diocese were too impressed with that brain fart of his.

smacl wrote: »

No doubt true, but for many other people their main concern will be for those they care about that they're leaving behind, as with this poster who believes that they will predecease their parents. My question was very explicit in asking why not "if it gives those involved the solace they require without upsetting anyone else". While funerals are about the dead, you clearly can't upset the dead, so if no one else is upset yet your nearest and dearest gain some solace, I'm struggling to see what harm is done.

In situations were someone, who otherwise might not want anything to do with religion, has already said that they are fine with whatever funeral their family wants once it gives them solace, then whatever funeral they will be given by their family will be following their wishes so there is no problem. Their wishes are being respected so I have no major issue.

I am talking about situations were the deceased had previously made it known that they did not want a religious funeral under any circumstances (or they specifically did). If you really want to mourn them, then you should follow their wishes and take solace that you are doing so.

beauf wrote: »

Lot of outrage about people who you don't know and a pageant you believe has no meaning.

I guess next time you can run into the funeral shouting objections. See how that works out.

MOD
There is an interesting discussion going on here and I, for one, would like to see it continue in a civilised and mutually respectful manner.
With that in mind please dial down the snark and before you hit post on any future comments consider whether or not they add anything of value to the discussion.
More value less snark going forward.
Thanking you.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Of course in Ireland with our cultural Catholicism the case is often that people are given religious funerals because that how it's done in Ireland.
...
It's positively Pythonesque.

I agree it's comical, but I don't think there's any malice, or even any specific thought about symbolism forefront in most peoples' minds.

It's that they literally do not know how to do it any other way. In the aftermath of a sudden death and in the absence of any specific requests from the deceased, those left behind will just do whatever it is other people tell them to do, or if they've buried someone before, they'll do what they did last time;

Call the funeral home, pick a church, arrange the day, done. My mother in law once mentioned that a funeral "wasn't very religious" because the priest gave no sermon about the deceased (the homily was given by the family), and the music played and sung wasn't religious.

The fact that it was in an enormous church building with religious chants and prayers throughout, apparently doesn't count as "religious". And that's because for most people, that's the baseline. That's what a funeral is, it's what you do. Irish people who've lived lives where every major life ceremony takes place in the church, cannot conceive of ceremonies without it. It's like their brain malfunctions; you may as well be asking them to don a straw thong, take a shield and a spear and take part in a traditional African funeral.

My brother got married in a humanist ceremony just over a decade ago. For most of the guests there, it was the first time they'd ever gone to a wedding that wasn't a catholic one. The bride's mother had an actual panic attack before the wedding about the ceremony. She was concerned that she wouldn't know what to "do"; where to sit, when to stand, whether to clap, etc etc.
For all intents a purposes, a humanist ceremony in Ireland is the exact same as a catholic one, just omit any mention of god or jesus, omit the chants and the spooky bread. But still, such an idea is absolutely foreign to those who spent the first 5-6 decades of their lives going to a church for everything.

So while I find it disappointing that someone would choose a church funeral for a "out" non-believer, I am very sympathetic to the bind they may find themselves in, especially if they're in the haze and turmoil after a loved one has died.

seamus wrote: »

I agree it's comical, but I don't think there's any malice, or even any specific thought about symbolism forefront in most peoples' minds.

It's that they literally do not know how to do it any other way. In the aftermath of a sudden death and in the absence of any specific requests from the deceased, those left behind will just do whatever it is other people tell them to do, or if they've buried someone before, they'll do what they did last time;

Call the funeral home, pick a church, arrange the day, done. My mother in law once mentioned that a funeral "wasn't very religious" because the priest gave no sermon about the deceased (the homily was given by the family), and the music played and sung wasn't religious.

The fact that it was in an enormous church building with religious chants and prayers throughout, apparently doesn't count as "religious". And that's because for most people, that's the baseline. That's what a funeral is, it's what you do. Irish people who've lived lives where every major life ceremony takes place in the church, cannot conceive of ceremonies without it. It's like their brain malfunctions; you may as well be asking them to don a straw thong, take a shield and a spear and take part in a traditional African funeral.

My brother got married in a humanist ceremony just over a decade ago. For most of the guests there, it was the first time they'd ever gone to a wedding that wasn't a catholic one. The bride's mother had an actual panic attack before the wedding about the ceremony. She was concerned that she wouldn't know what to "do"; where to sit, when to stand, whether to clap, etc etc.
For all intents a purposes, a humanist ceremony in Ireland is the exact same as a catholic one, just omit any mention of god or jesus, omit the chants and the spooky bread. But still, such an idea is absolutely foreign to those who spent the first 5-6 decades of their lives going to a church for everything.

So while I find it disappointing that someone would choose a church funeral for a "out" non-believer, I am very sympathetic to the bind they may find themselves in, especially if they're in the haze and turmoil after a loved one has died.

Not a word there I would disagree with.

I suppose what irks me is that it shows how ingrained the RCC (in particular) is in Irish life when we, as a people, cannot 'do' birth, death, or marriage sans Church involvement without people having conniptions.

It's also why I will find a way to haunt those who organise my funeral if it is religious. :P .

Religion is part of my life only to the extent that it keeps trying to butt in (thanks to aforementioned ingraining esp at State level) and I am forced to push back just to be left 'free from religion' as is my Constitutional right. I'll be damned (pun intended) if it weasels it's way into my death.

smacl wrote: »

Leaving a glass of whisky on the coffin and sharing a few words with the recently departed.

When my dad died we put photos of his grandchildren in the coffin with him, along with a nagin of whiskey. It struck me that we were resurrecting (sorry) an ancient burial practice, but it seemed appropriate, as the photos had in his hospital room with him before he died, and we had joked about smuggling some whiskey into the hospital for him. I think it was my idea to include the photos, and my brother's idea to add the whiskey. I'm an atheist, he isn't. Our mother, the most devout Catholic in the family, liked the idea of Dad's "afterlife survival kit".

beauf wrote: »

I think for many there are associations with a building you can't ignore.
Its why they they often torn down instead of re-purposed.

I'd be interested to know of any in Ireland which have been demolished. The unlovely 1960s aircraft hangar in Finglas is due to be, but it'll be replaced with a much smaller and cheaper to run (and hopefully less ugly and freezing and leaky) church.

Many deconsecrated Protestant churches in Ireland have been converted - some into offices, a few into residences, one off Mary St in Dublin is now a pub.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'd be interested to know of any in Ireland which have been demolished. The unlovely 1960s aircraft hangar in Finglas is due to be, but it'll be replaced with a much smaller and cheaper to run (and hopefully less ugly and freezing and leaky) church.

Many deconsecrated Protestant churches in Ireland have been converted - some into offices, a few into residences, one off Mary St in Dublin is now a pub.

The last humanist wedding we were at was in a deconsecrated Protestant Chapel. I'm sure there's more of them being used this way.

This one:

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/church-annunciation-finglas-celebrate-final-15245402

One of the many large unsightly monuments around the city to John Charles McQuaid's ego. What is it with absolute rulers and the desire to erect massive ugly buidlings

smacl wrote: »

Rationally speaking, I agree entirely that this is what we should do. I don't however think that those involved necessarily behave in a rational manner at this time. Where no harm is done or upset is caused to other close friends or relatives, to my mind the preference of those most deeply affected is far more important than the ideals of an external 3rd party. You or I might see this as disrespectful of the dead but in what sense is it any of our business?

The deceased, the person who died and who the funeral is supposedly about, is an external 3rd party?

smacl wrote: »

The external 3rd party I'm referring to is anyone other than those closest to the deceased who are seeking to influence a funeral ceremony in a manner contrary to the wishes of those closest to the deceased. The only exception I'd consider reasonable here is an executor operating on previous written instruction by the deceased. Outside of that I don't believe the manner of the funeral arrangements are anyone else's business.

Edit: Just add some rationale to the above, the alternative would be to demand we respect the unwritten wishes of the deceased to the best of our understanding even if that runs contrary to the wishes of the bereaved. My take on this is that personal human rights extend from birth until death (i.e. not the 'unborn' nor the dead), so the rights that take precedence here are those of the bereaved.

I'm talking about the situation were the deceased made it clear and known beforehand that they didn't want a religious funeral. If the bereaved aren't giving the funeral that reflects the life and wishes of the deceased, then they aren't mourning them, it's just pageantry (usually for the sake of the church). The deceased wanted their funeral to be a specific way, I'm saying the funeral should follow their wishes, the next of kin want to disregard that - who is really 3rd party here?

I am not actually suggesting we bring in laws around this or anything, I see this as a domestic social issue, not something that outside parties should need to interfere with. What I am hoping is that people actually talk about this stuff with their kids or parents, let their wishes be known and respected. The only other poster, other than you, who responded against me in this thread made an argument that entirely amounted to "don't think about it, just get over it". That is whats wrong.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You are. And I am. We are not the deceased, and we are not his immediate family who are organising his funeral. We are further away from the situation than they are. The fact that we express views, one way or another, not about what we should do but about what the people who have both the right and the responsiblity to organise his funeral should do marks us out as third parties so far as the organisation of the funeral is concermed.

My view is simply that we should follow the deceased wishes for their funerals. I am not adding a different notion of what the funeral for someone to be, and the deceased certainly isn't, so its the people who disregard the deceased wishes that are.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How is it respecting the occasion (the occasion being the loss of a particular person) to ignore something they found important in their life? If you aren't respecting their wishes from when they were alive, then how are you respecting the occasion of the remembrance and celebration of their life when they die?
Is the extent of your argument really "I don't want to think at all about this"? Because that is monstrously selfish and disrespectful to the deceased person who you are claiming to mourn.

Oh, I've thought about it and my position is the dead don't care as I've said quite a few times and we do what we believe they wanted or as best as we can do. If we don't like what is being done but are not those who are making decisions then we can choose to show respect or just stay away from it.

The alleged "offence" to the dead person's memory is the living taking umbrage at what they imagine to be an affront. None of us are the ultimate arbiter on what a person who cannot respond really wanted but we set ourselves up that way.
In the heightened emotions of the aftermath of a death there are as many regrets about the departed as there are over how people behave towards each other in their own sense of what was right and wrong about how it was treated.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. That would also be my view. But their view may be that they should hold the funeral which will be most effective at providing solace to the bereaved, and that this will be a religious funeral. And their view will (and should) prevail over the views of third parties such as you and me.

smacl wrote: »

Yes, but this is something people who care about such things need to make explicitly known and agreed with those that are going to look after the funeral arrangements, as opposed to a matter of speculation for those that aren't. My main interest would be to make the whole proceedings as easy as possible to those nearest and dearest that I leave behind. In my case they're all atheists, but for the sake of argument if they were Christians, Muslims or latter day Vikings, I'd be perfectly happy to have them see me off in accordance with their own tradition if that is what they wanted. I'd hope the majority of people would treat the deceased in the manner they'd like to be treated, but for those that don't for whatever reason, it is really none of my business.

You are both arguing for a point I already conceded.
If someone has said that they want people to give them the funeral that best helps the bereaved, regardless of their own views on the specific type of funeral, then that is of course completely fine. If someone never made their views on their funeral known, and the bereaved choose a funeral that best helps them, then I not criticising that either.

I am talking about something like my situation, where my family knows what I want - for my body to stripped for parts when I die, given to whoever needs them for transplants or medical science, anything left can be cremated or composted or whatever is environmentally soundest, with my family and friends getting together in a house party with lots of games to remember me by (if they want). I do not want some religion claiming anything over me, I don't even want a humanist event. I do not begrudge any of my relatives doing their own religious or spiritualist thing, but I do not want it to be an obligatory group event, pretending it represents me.

smacl wrote: »

I also don't buy the notion that going into a church on that rare occasion of a funeral or wedding will have any significant detrimental effect on kids, any more than entering the golden arches for a big mac once or twice a year will lead to coronary problems. Kids aren't particularly fragile and in my opinion this level of over-protectiveness does them more harm than good.

It puts in their head that churches are automatically an integral part of those events, regardless of whether of not the follow anything else the church declares. It's what is helping cultural catholicism last so long, allowing the church (even just the building) impregnate the important events of our lives. It might not be too detrimental on an individual level, but it makes it much harder to make societal level changes when so many people will defend the church on traditional or "never did me any harm" levels (see any discussion about removing religion from schools, or religious oaths from politics etc.)