Hey, there! Log in / Register
Reason #6 the Catholic Church is bureaucratic, elitist
By Anonymous on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 4:52pm
Questions about Kennedy and Catholicism
Q. Doesn’t the church prohibit so many speakers at a funeral?
A. Yes. The Archdiocese of Boston guidelines are quite clear, reading, “only one speaker, a member or a friend of the family, may speak for not more than five minutes in remembrance of the deceased.’’ Other speeches are supposed to take place during a wake.
This policy has often been unpopular, and it’s not clear how evenly enforced it is, but Cardinal Bernard F. Law famously insisted on the one-speaker restriction at the funerals of House Speaker Tip O’Neill and US Representative John J. Moakley. There were three speakers at yesterday’s funeral - the two Kennedy sons and President Obama. The archdiocese says an exception was made by Father Monan, the celebrant, and the Redemptorist fathers, who oversee the basilica. MORE
The Catholic Church is pretty good at asserting its authority by enforcing bureaucratic rules that are entirely irrelevant to matters of faith and church law.
At the same time Father Monan was extraordinary is his explanation of the of the Catholic Funeral Mass at yesterday's service. He explained it to all as you might explain it to a 4th grade non-believer and he was clear about the purpose and it made everyone feel better - he told them it was meant to. He was generous and compassionate. More of that please, and less authority-assertion by means of bureaucratic rules ...please.
Even the Catholic Church must understand picayune policy is an obstacle, not a feature, and that when you're in the service of redeeming souls, you should keep your eye on the big picture not the authority gambit. And the Catholic Church still wonders why the faithful think they're out of touch.
One person for not more than 5 minutes is the rule for Catholics who wish to have a funeral mass in the Archdiocese of Boston. So if you're writing your will, pick one person and tell them to keep it short.
"Other speeches are supposed to take place during a wake."
Most funeral homes do not have rooms large enough to hold all the people who come to pay their respects. Typically, a line forms and people pass through the room where the person's body lies in state. Moreover, it's common to choose to have two sessions 2-5PM and 7-10PM.
All of this is by way of saying that the church identifies an alternative that is not a practical accommodation.
When people plan a Funeral Mass, they typically chose a church that has ample room for all the people they anticipate will attend.
I find the Catholic Church's attitude extraordinarily inconsiderate, self-important and arrogant. They certainly don't set a good example when it comes to serving their faithful.
I can say this, if Ted Kennedy had anything to say about that rule - the 1 person 5 minute rule - it be revoked. As it stands, that rule is revoked for Ted Kennedy only.
Does anyone know? Can you get better treatment at the Episcopal church or Congregational church?
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Why anonymous?
You know, I think your point is excellent, but why are you hiding behind a cloak of anonymity? Tell us who you are, and take responsibility for your own (reasonable) views! Anonymity is a coward's way out, except in rare cases of real (or probable) intimidation or retribution.
Larry Davidson
Anonymous isn't more anonymous than most of us
It is a registered username, so "Anonymous" is the same person every time. "anon" is not.
Granted you and I have online presences that are easily traced to our actual info, while Anonymous doesn't, but usernames like "Kaz" and "Brett" and "Swirlygrrl" are just as anonymous as "Anonymous," and no one ever gives them flack about it. People are as anonymous or as transparent as they are comfortable with. I agree that people posting as "anon" should pick a username and own up to their views, but "Anonymous" has a registered screenname, so I see nothing wrong with that.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
True, I am the one and only
True, I am the one and only anonymous here but that particular pseudonym causes a bit of confusion. So to be accurate. we don;t post anonymously we post pseudonymous-ly.
[size=10]THE [color=#FF0000]C[/color][color=#FF9933]O[/color][color=#FFFF00]L[/color][color=#339900]O[/color][color=#3300CC]R[/color] OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS[/size]
Don't read too much into the
Don't read too much into the five minute rule. It has to do with the logistics of a funeral. From a parish standpoint, if a funeral was scheduled at 9:00 A.M. and the next one was scheduled at 10:30, there is a tight schedule. Imagine how you would feel if your funeral procession showed up to the church and there was nowhere to park, including the hearse (a great example is Mission where there are only two lanes) because someone was telling everyone about a camping trip they went on with the deceased in 1974. After morning funerals, the priest starts his day to visit sick, prisoners...
So what?
If you don't like it that much, then don't be a Catholic. Yes, the Church can be arrogant and elitist at times, just like any other organization. But frankly, when I go to a funeral Mass I'm not there to listen to a list of people go on and on for hours. It's not like a protestant funeral where there isn't an hour-long Mass to get through.
Trust me, Kennedy's kids will get much more media time in the near future as they're exploited in the name of his "legacy".
And finally, for all you liberals that are hostile to religion: leave us clingy, gun-toting fanatics to ourselves. It's called Liberty, and it's encoded in the Constitution. You might want to read it some time.
I know a priest who says
I know a priest who says mass in 8 and 1/2 minutes. You'd love him.
I believe that just as humans are capable of heartfelt atonement, change and redemption so is our Catholic Church. Sometimes you have to hold up a mirror to leaders to make them think (You know what I mean you clingy gun-toting freak?)
[size=10]THE [color=#FF0000]C[/color][color=#FF9933]O[/color][color=#FFFF00]L[/color][color=#339900]O[/color][color=#3300CC]R[/color] OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS[/size]
You start your reply by
You start your reply by stating that a priest can say a Mass in 8 1/2 minutes. That makes you a liar and from yor earlier statements, a very bitter person who needs to talk to a real priest. God bless you.
Liberals
@JC,
I respect your thoughts, but in case you didn't know... not all liberals are against religion.
I have to say, though, that many conservatives use the term "liberal" as an invective intending to divide. I am a progressive who is not religious. Indeed, I am conserative in many ways, including civil rights and budgets.
However, I don't like conservatives who use the term "you liberals" as some sort of blanket knee-jerk pavlovian reaction, or pre-emptive strike when they utter a conservative thought.
Be yourself, and make sure your statements are reasonable, well thought out, and are devoid of rancor or divisive statements. Respect is all that matters.
And to that, all I can add is this: Rest in Peace, Ted. You had a very full, eventful life. Good work was done.
Mik, in Montague, MA
Hey Mik, Montague is a
Hey Mik,
Montague is a lovely part of Massachusetts. I'm partial to Montague, Sunderland and Amherst, St Brigid's and St Mary's. Late summer and early fall are beautiful in the valley.
Good to see your comment. I hope to see you around here at UHub more.
[size=10]THE [color=#FF0000]C[/color][color=#FF9933]O[/color][color=#FFFF00]L[/color][color=#339900]O[/color][color=#3300CC]R[/color] OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS[/size]
Not Religion per se ...
Just religious institutions that 1)meddle in government and 2)think they have a right to own and control elected representatives.
Case in point: threats to excommunicate Catholic legislators who don't vote the Catholic line. Sorry, but we elected these people, not the church.
That goes just as much for every religion, big and small, who thinks they get to run a secular, democratically elected government.
Excommunication
Not really itching to get into this thread, but feel a need to here.
Excommunication is most certainly the province of the church, Swirly. Why do you believe that threatening legislators with excommunication, should they not vote along Catholic teaching lines, is wrong for the church to do? It would seem to me you have about as much right to tell the church its business in this regard as they do to tell the government what to do, which is to say none whatsoever.
Disclaimer: I WAS Catholic, I am still a Christian. I have many problems with Catholic hierarchy and teachings. However, I believe they have the right to tell those who profess to buy into their beliefs what consequences they could face if they make a public statement and/or vote defying those proscribed beliefs.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
It would seem to me you have
Does that mean you are against the church excommunicating politicians (or refusing to allow them to receive holy communion) becuase the politician did not vote consistently with Catholic dogma? (Take Kerry's abortion stand for example and the US Catholic Bishops chiming in on refusing him holy communion during the 2004 presidential election.)
[size=10]THE [color=#FF0000]C[/color][color=#FF9933]O[/color][color=#FFFF00]L[/color][color=#339900]O[/color][color=#3300CC]R[/color] OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS[/size]
Simple Answer
I am for churches doing whatever they want to do in accordance with their professed doctrine, so long as that action does not infringe upon anyone's rights as a citizen.
If the Catholic hierarchy chooses to deny some individual communion, that's their business. If a nominally Catholic politician takes a public stand that is at odds with Catholic dogma, he or she certainly knows that the likelihood exists that they'll be publicly called out by the hierarchy. In such an instance, they have to be ready to accept the consequences.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Does the church have an
Does the church have an obligation to not publicly nnounce the decision to deny the politician communion because that would be wading into the political sphere?
.
[size=10]THE [color=#FF0000]C[/color][color=#FF9933]O[/color][color=#FFFF00]L[/color][color=#339900]O[/color][color=#3300CC]R[/color] OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS[/size]
Good Question, Anonymous
Good question, Anonymous. I'll give you the answer I believe to be correct, but please understand that I'm neither God or The Pope :-)
I think it best for the church to announce such things publicly for their own sake. It tells the greater body of believers that the rules apply to everyone no matter how high a station they hold in secular society. As a business practice, in other words, it makes eminent sense.
As to the theological, it could be seen as butting into state affairs, but there isn't any strict forbidding of entering the political fray in Catholic dogma, so far as I can recall. If there were, then every Catholic who chose to run for office would have to excommunicated. That hasn't happened, nor is it likely :-)
Scripture could be interpreted as forbidding it, but it isn't crystal clear, IMHO.
Obviously, by publicly stating that so-and-so will not be allowed to receive communion, the church is stating that they don't believe that person is acting in a manner befitting a communicant. So, it would probably be extrapolated, by most churchgoers, that the church would rather they didn't vote for that person. However, that's a somewhat shaky bit of extrapolation for them to make, again IMHO.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Good answer
I cannot argue with your reasoning Suldog. Good answer.
[size=10]THE [color=#FF0000]C[/color][color=#FF9933]O[/color][color=#FFFF00]L[/color][color=#339900]O[/color][color=#3300CC]R[/color] OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS[/size]
I think the post wasn't
I think the post wasn't calling on the government to intervene it was stating that this could be why people are fleeing the church at an alarming rate. They are welcome to do what they please but for their own good they need to keep at least some people in the pews.
Oh, Sure, I Agree
My initial response was to Swirly, not the original post.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Once More with Example
We live in a secular society, with separation of church and state.
Here is an example of what I consider acceptable, and why I think the threats by the church against legislators are unacceptable.
Say legislator X is Catholic, but the desires of that legislator's constituency are at odds with Catholic teaching.
It is not inappropriate for the church to threaten removal of Legislator X if he PERSONALLY goes against the teachings of the church.
It is HIGHLY INAPROPRIATE for the church to threaten legislator X if he VOTES in a manner inconsistent with the teachings of the church, particularly if the legislator's constituents disagree with those teachings. Why? Because his vote is secular property and public property, not church property. Hard for a heirarchy to get that, true, but it is interference with the workings of the state.
In other words, removing him for cheating on his wife, etc. - okay. Using his religion to control his vote when it belongs to the people he represents is NOT okay.
That's the important difference, and why I feel that the Church massively overstepped with its little tantrum. My Senator works for me - not the Catholic Church.
I Disagree
Your Senator works for you. Agreed.
Does the Senator work for those who belong to unions of any sort? Those who belong to fraternal organizations? Those who self-identify as members of any group organized in such a manner as to possibly influence the election via bloc voting or monetary support?
He most certainly does. He works for them as individuals, but their support - or withholding of same - may be vital to his election or re-election. He must be accountable to all of his constituents, both individually and via whatever organizations they support, belong to, etc., if said organizations play what he considers a vital role in his district.
In your vision of separation of church and state, do church members have no right to have their opinions voiced in such a manner as to signify that they, as a whole, may choose to vote one way or another? Are their rights abridged in a way unlike those of union members, fraternal organization members, and others who choose to join an organization and who have brains enough to make the majority opinion of their membership known to a politician?
A church leader, when expressing what was expressed concerning Kerry, is only making the same kind of statement that a union leader might make if, say, Kerry had come out against collective bargaining agreements.
Your Senator works for you. Agreed. He also works for every other person, entity, organization, business, and gathering of any stripe within his district.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Why does the Pope get a vote?
Why does the Pope get to tell what a senator votes?We din't elect no pope. He's not american. He don't live here.
religion, politics and sex... where's the sex?
The nature and purpose of the church versus say a union is determinaive of how it should conduct itself and what is appropriate with regard to the treatment of its members in the public eye. Their nature is also determinative of what is appropriate and what is not in the way they advocate public policy.
In short, the church should feel free to advocate any public policy that concerns it but what it should not do is use its members by punishing them publicly as a means to advocate for a public policy position, not unless all members are publicly flogged for holding the same opinion about public policy.
Anything less is abusing that public official's membership in the church for political reasons.
The church does not own that person. The church has an obligation to be fair and even-handed in handing out punishment. Using the politician, simply because they disagree on a matter of public policy is a political act that is abusive of the person's membership.
Can we would agree that a catholic politician has a right to affirm a public policy that is not the same as the church's
position on an issue? See John Kennedy.
Unions are essentially politial organizations. They negotiate pay, benefits, terminations, training requirements, safety training requirements, and the administrate disability programs, etc. on behalf of its members. Unions exist to benefit and advocate for the members by allowing the members a collective unified voice in negotiation and issue resolution. They are political in their nature.
The church is spiritual in its nature. Its goal is the salvation of souls for life ever after. It invites people to participate as members in the sacraments, and to meet their obligations under their faith, but it is not in its essence a political organization.
It is reasonable for the church to highlight an elected official's position, say on abortion, but not to apply punishment for it publicly unless they treat the public official no more and no less differently than other members.
If they excommunicate Suldog for his position on abortion, then fine excommunicate Kerry too. Deny Suldog communion for his position on some other public policy then deny Kerry communion too. But when the Catholic church publicly meets out punishment only to politicians and not other public figures or rank and file members, it is singling them out for political purposes only, and not to save their souls.
Would not the Catholic Church have the same platform were it to use those same opportunities to declare their opinion of what the public policy should be without beating down their member? They publicly punish their own and for political purposes only. Shameful really.
[size=10]THE [color=#FF0000]C[/color][color=#FF9933]O[/color][color=#FFFF00]L[/color][color=#339900]O[/color][color=#3300CC]R[/color] OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS[/size]
The Church, Not Being A Union...
... can do any damn thing it wants to its members. They make up their own rules, and they don't give a damn what you or I have to say concerning them. Before we go any further, let's get that straight. Religious institutions do not have to conform to your view of what is correct or incorrect concerning their treatment of members. They may have some interest in your opinion, if you're a member - they should, if they wish to be representative of their membership - but they don't have to show any propriety whatsoever.
(Of course, I mean within the confines of what is allowed legally by the state.)
Anyway, that was my major point, lo, so many long comments ago. And, as interesting as it is to read some of your replies, I'm not interested in arguing the damned Church's side in this thing any longer. I am not a member of the church - voluntarily resigned from it - and it is not my idea of fun to spend every spare moment of my workday defending an institution that I gave up on years ago. If you all want to have a Catholic-Hierarchy bash, go for it. I have better things to do with my life than argue about something with as much relevance to reality as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
I just thought it was an
I just thought it was an interesting topic of conversation. I didn't mean to waste you time. Answer this only if you are interested. Why did you leave the Catholic Church?
[size=10]THE [color=#FF0000]C[/color][color=#FF9933]O[/color][color=#FFFF00]L[/color][color=#339900]O[/color][color=#3300CC]R[/color] OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS[/size]
Apologies! And An Answer.
I didn't mean to make it sound as though you personally were wasting my time. If it came across that way, mea culpa!
(*beats chest three times*)
(Har! That's a Catholic visual!)
I left the church because of doctrinal disagreements, mostly, as well as quite a few troubling instances of clergy not doing what they should have been doing (or doing what they shouldn't.)
Some things were more important than others, of course, but the straw that broke this camel's back was Bishop Sean O'Malley's refusal to wash any women's feet during Maundy Thursday services, citing the fact that Jesus only washed men's feet. Newsflash, Sean! You ain't Jesus! And the whole idea of the thing is to show subservience, not superiority.
The closing of parishes was disheartening and the reasons given disingenuous. The whitewashing of sex scandals. Many things, but that bit, piled on at the time, just disgusted MY WIFE and me so much that we told our parish clergy that we were quitting the church, immediately following our doing some lectoring at Easter Vigil services (which we had previously committed to and felt would have left some good folk in the lurch had we copped out before it.) Our local clergy were all good people, and that's why we stuck around as long as we did, but we could no longer ignore the hypocrisy of some of the higher ups.
Bit of a story having to do with it, if you're interested...
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com/2005/09/bullsht-bing...
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
You don't owe me an apology
You don't owe me an apology but I did love that Catholic visual. As a former church-going Catholic myself, I think that a big part of me will always be Catholic. You know... Once a Catholic, always a ...
Your summary of what divided you from the church is a stunning comprehensive and concise review of its most disappointing moments that affected the faithful in real and deleterious ways.
We live in a new age. They live in an old one. There is room in this new age for the Catholic religion in matters of faith but their steadfastness in manners of authority, defending wrong-doing by priests, not protecting the innocent, and their sense of self-importance have driven us from them. Enough about that.
It is a great day. Have you been able to get out and enjoy it? I'm off to a HS football scrimmage. A friend of mine coaches the team.
[size=10]THE [color=#FF0000]C[/color][color=#FF9933]O[/color][color=#FFFF00]L[/color][color=#339900]O[/color][color=#3300CC]R[/color] OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS[/size]
Have A Wonderful Time
I'm in the midst of editing some Mandarin Chinese voice prompts, and I don't speak Mandarin. Not to be overly euro-centric, but your day sounds like much more fun. Enjoy!
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
It's called Liberty, and
It's called Liberty, and it's encoded in the Constitution. You might want to read it some time.
Always love this line. Usually used by someone who hasn't read, looked at, or even contemplated the document and it's amendments since their last look at it in 4th grade.
It's a breathing, living contract between all of us. Liberty never has, and never will mean that everyone is superposed to cede to your opinions or views.
Well...
If you want "better" treatment (which it sounds like to you means that the service is prepared according to the wishes of loved ones of the deceased), you can certainly hold a funeral just about anywhere you want. The tradeoff though is that the person then isn't sent off into the next world in accordance with Catholic tradition. I would assume that the late senator and his family felt it was important for him to receive a Catholic funeral mass and burial, in which case they knew what guidelines that entailed.
I personally agree that it makes no sense at all to have limits on the number of speakers and the length of speeches at a funeral, but because of that, I wouldn't choose a Catholic funeral. I do know that there are Catholic priests who follow Papal orders to varying extents, so one could presumably find a Catholic priest who would perform whatever they wanted, so long as it wasn't disrespectful to the faith or anything like that.
As for other denominations, I think that only a Greek or Russian Orthodox funeral would be accepted by Roman Catholics as a valid ritual. I know that's the case for baptisms. Someone else might know better than I. But again, if it wasn't important for the family that it be done as a valid Catholic funeral mass and burial, then yes, of course they would encounter looser guidelines if they were to go to a more progressive church (or to a rabbi or ordained Buddhist or non-affiliated funeral director who is focused on providing whatever it is the loved ones want).
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
eeka, The photos in your
eeka,
The photos in your signature look so cute now. You could bake a cupcake with that mixer ... maybe, and a small margarita with that other mixer ... maybe ... and if you could, you might want a grain of salt for your little bitty tinny weeny margarita glass.
See my new (political) signature line? If you're interested, I wrote a post about FoxNews here. It's not sufficiently about Boston and its political, probably too political for this blog, so Adam chose to keep it off the front page which I totally agree with.
[size=10]THE [color=#FF0000]C[/color][color=#FF9933]O[/color][color=#FFFF00]L[/color][color=#339900]O[/color][color=#3300CC]R[/color] OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS[/size]
You're right about accepting
You're right about accepting their terms, except the elite (Ted Kennedy) doesn't have to accept the terms but many if not most other Catholics do. I'm saying if exceptions are good enough for the Kennedy's they're good enough for everyone.
Cardinal Law setup the rule apparently but he's gone now due to an unfortunate record of decades of child abuse (not that he's personally responsible just that he failed to stop it.) Hundreds of young catholic children had their trust and their sexuality abused. My point is that Cardinal O'Malley has chance to review these bureaucratic policies that are irrelevant to faith or church law and end them.
[size=10]THE [color=#FF0000]C[/color][color=#FF9933]O[/color][color=#FFFF00]L[/color][color=#339900]O[/color][color=#3300CC]R[/color] OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS[/size]
Not The Archdiocese
Our Lady of Perpetual Help (Mission Church) is under the auspices of the Redemptorist Order. It is not under the control of the Archdiocese of Boston.
You may have noticed that Cardinal Sean O'Malley was a guest, and not an officiant of the services.
Even so.... in almost any case of dignitaries, exceptions can be made.
More importantly... who cares?
The man passed, had a funeral, and the number of speakers at the lecturn really didn't have much impact on the average speed of the earth as it turned on its axis.
Bitch, bitch, bitch.
Geez.
As a former alter boy who
As a former alter boy who served in many capacities I would attribute the rule of 1 speaker for a certain period of time to be more of a "union" rule. Keep in mind that the people who serve you mass do it everyday, oftentimes twice a day, well the priest at least, others come and go. They do this while performing their other duties of being a parish priest which involves talking to people, running the church and a host of other things. They also work the weekends performing masses multiple times a weekend while the rest of us are out having a good time.
If every funeral were a huge funeral with multiple speakers they could easily draw on for hours. The priest has other things he needs to do and honestly would become fatigued if he had to endure such long funerals on a daily basis. So I chalk it up to a union thing, gotta keep the workforce (priests) running smoothly. Giving mass, especially a funeral, is not as easy as it looks from the pew. A good priest will elevate your spirit and be your emotional anchor, that is not easy to keep up for a long time.
Also you should consider yourself lucky. Most bereaved people do not have the same penchant for speaking as the people who spoke at the Kennedy funeral. A short speech about a person's life can be funny, meaningful and sweet. Take the same speech by someone with no training in giving speeches and make it four times as long and all of a sudden it is tedious, boring and just sad.
Perhaps there is some
Perhaps there is some confusion between a memorial service and a funeral Mass. There is not a lot of room for deviation in the rubrics of the Mass. As far as I know, it's not some rule that Cardinal Law came up with.
This is taken from the blog of Father Zuhlsdorf. (http://wdtprs.com/blog/)
The Rite of Christian Funerals 141 says: “A brief homily based on the readings is always given after the gospel reading at the funeral liturgy and may also be given after the readings at the vigil service; but there is never to be a eulogy.”
The 2000 GIRM 338 says: "At the funeral Mass there should as a rule be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind. The homily is also recommended at other Masses for the dead celebrated with a congregation."
The requiem Mass is for the repose of the soul - an ushering on to the next phase of life. But that part should not overshadow what the Mass truly is: the eternal and bloodless sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.
a number of good points
You make a number of good points that address the questions: What is the essential purpose and what latitude does the church choose for accumulation while still serving the essential purpose? Thanks Route 66 for sharing your knowledge and insights.
[size=10]THE [color=#FF0000]C[/color][color=#FF9933]O[/color][color=#FFFF00]L[/color][color=#339900]O[/color][color=#3300CC]R[/color] OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS[/size]
the point of a Catholic funeral .....
.....is to pray for the repose of the soul of the departed. The point isn't to memeorialize that person's life or laud someone's accomplishments. It keeps the funeral dignified and purposeful, and - as others have pointed out - from going on too long. Most Catholic churches are in fact pretty easy-going about eulogies at funerals.