Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Smacks wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The Catholic authority on such things ... has concluded (I assure you, not arbitrarily)

I don't feel very assured that it isn't "arbitrary". Did Jesus himself come back and decree it? I must have missed that on the evening news. It sounds to me like the very fething definition of "arbitrary", in fact some might say "completely made-up BS"... some might say.

The actual text from the Vatican can be found here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20160815_ad-resurgendum-cum-christo_en.html

I don't know if that is helpful at all, but it does allow us to read straight from the source without interpretation from news articles.

 d-usa wrote:
So to potentially over-simply this:

Yes bearing in mind that we are hugely oversimplifying something, almost to the point of treating theology like the rulebook to some child's game, you are generally speaking on the right track.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
I don't feel very assured that it isn't "arbitrary".

I don't feel very assured that you understand what the word arbitrary means. The competent authority reached a theological conclusion in the light of faith, reason, and tradition.

Well then there is no reason not to scatter people wherever the hell you like, is there?

The reason would be, because it is contrary to the faith of the deceased.

Let's cool it on the "X side/faction/group are all bigots" talk, it's hardly conducive to constructive discussion. Thanks.

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So to potentially over-simply this:

Yes bearing in mind that we are hugely oversimplifying something, almost to the point of treating theology like the rulebook to some child's game, you are generally speaking on the right track.

Well, I tried to see if I understand the very basic concept of it without getting stuck deep in theological mud .

Digging through the footnotes of the actual paper, I found it helpful to try and find a better understanding of the meaning of "ecclesiastical funeral" or "Christian funeral". Looking through the Code of Canon Law I found this as the most basic definition of what the Catholic Church considers such a funeral:

"§2. Ecclesiastical funerals, by which the Church seeks spiritual support for the deceased, honors their bodies, and at the same time brings the solace of hope to the living, must be celebrated according to the norm of the liturgical laws.

I don't know if some people have a problem with this ruling because they think that being refused this specific Catholic funeral is indicative of the refusal of the deceased's salvation in the eyes of the Catholic Church, but I was thinking that maybe this might help some of them.

So if I understand it correctly, "ecclesiastical funeral" does not mean "the only way of burying someone while retaining their salvation", but rather means "the specific way the funeral is conducted for those that survived and the church at large".

So, again to potentially over-simplify this, an "ecclesiastical funeral" might be viewed comparatively to a "military funeral"? With that I mean that if you qualify for the rites, and agree to conduct them in the way that is required, you get the rites. If you are catholic and agree to have your remains buried in a specific way, the local parish will conduct the appropriate song and dance for you, your survivors, and the community at large. If you are a military veteran and agree to have your remains buried in a specific way, the local veterans cemetery will do the fancy military ceremony during your funeral for you, your survivors, and the community at large. Not agreeing to the specific requirements of the catholic funeral just means that the catholic church won't conduct the funeral, it doesn't mean you weren't a catholic. And not agreeing to the specific requirements of the veteran funeral just means that you won't get a military funeral, it doesn't mean that you weren't a military veteran.

Am I even close to the ballpark there?

 Peregrine wrote:
So a person who chooses to have their ashes scattered because they can't afford a place in a cemetary or to be with their spouse who had their ashes scattered or whatever would still be given a Catholic funeral as long as they aren't doing it as some kind of anti-Catholic statement?

Sort of. The issue is, Catholics cannot legitimately justify the choice economically or semtimentally. But obviously there are cases where we are not talking about a choice at all, perhaps as a matter of ignorance or perhaps as a matter of some tragic circumstances like indigence. In these cases, I think we are talking about equities, to evoke a legal concept, and the bishop would probably dispense with the usual requirements/procedure. You have to keep in mind that the point of these things is not to harm the innocent but rather to preserve our faith. Even in the instruction in question, which strictly forbids the loved ones keeping thenashes at home, there is some mention of taking into account "grave and exceptional cases dependent on cultural conditions of a localized nature."

 d-usa wrote:
Not agreeing to the specific requirements of the catholic funeral just means that the catholic church won't conduct the funeral, it doesn't mean you weren't a catholic.

Well it certainly doesn't mean you are damned to hell. But I think it is tricky to say whether you have quite got it because part of being Catholic, I think a big part of it, is assenting to tradition on these matters. As a Catholic, I receive my values as they are handed down; not just on a "if I agree with it" basis. Sometimes this challenges me, no doubt about it. But ultimately, I believe that the Church has preserved and handed down more wisdom and insight than I have managed to acquire. It's a matter of faith, naturally. And reason. If the Church teaches, this is what the funeral rites are about and are like, as a Catholic I accept that. I am not going to reinvent these wheels. I think this is partly because for me, and I think this comes from reflecting on the history of Christianity and culture generally, these kind of things are not about self-expression as they clearly are for many contemporary Westerners (again, weddings are a great example).

Could find no mention of the pope in the bible or the Vatican, so what they has no bearing on true believers.

 Manchu wrote:
To me, the economic considerations related to cremation seem ... dystopian. At the risk of sounding Swiftian, surely selling off the corpses of loved ones to a cat food factory could be even more cost effective/eco-friendly.

Maybe they aren't looking so much for cheapest method but reasonably priced rather than paying church more than reasonable since they are holding kind of a monopoly on the thing and are looking to get even more. This ruling is just one more way for church to extort money.

Actually that has nothing to do with reality.

 Manchu wrote:
Actually that has nothing to do with reality.

So you claim they DON'T ask for big pile of money for the funeral? So for example another person in post was incorrect in statement that had " By cheaper I mean $5k - $10k cheaper. ".

If burial is thousands more expensive than crematory then that's pure greed by church.

Churches run funeral homes?

 d-usa wrote:
Churches run funeral homes?

And own all cemeteries, apparently. WAKE UP SHEEPLE

 Manchu wrote:
So let me just see if I understand the false dilemma: it's pay for all funeral costs or remain silent on the issue of funeral rituals?

Its the you break it you bought it belief. Frankly little baby Jebus didn't say jack about, so as far as I'm concerned its made up nonsense.
What about everyone who's ever died and not been buried in a consecrated graveyard?

EDIT: Join the Anglicans. We don't care what you do, and fully support being buried along with your favorite bottle of whiskey. I'm going with the last shot of TBone's special reserve rum I had made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WAKE UP SHEEPLE

I see what you did there.

 Manchu wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
The Catholic Church is so removed from Christs teachings it's hard to even blink at silly rules like this one. They're a corporation looking to squeeze more cash from a shrinking following.

 jreilly89 wrote:
As much as I enjoy bashing the Catholic Church, they're just a newcomer in a long line of con men.

You guys sound like teenagers explaining why you should get to sleep in on Sunday mornings.

Rather than posting a snarky gif, care to disagree like an adult? Trust me, I've spent plenty of my college time studying religion and it's impact on people, especially women. I know all about organized religion.

TBH that reply was far more than you deserved. If all you've learned about religion during your "college time" amounts to dismissing Catholicism and religion generally as some kidn of con then adult conversation isn't possible.

Childrinz play nice now.

"We will bury you!" -Khruschev

"Only in a proper graveyard!" -Vatican

#NoLivesMatter - Cthulu

 Manchu wrote:
TBH that reply was far more than you deserved. If all you've learned about religion during your "college time" amounts to dismissing Catholicism and religion generally as some kidn of con then adult conversation isn't possible.

Can you report a mod to a mod if you think they're overstepping it a bit?

Seriously though, neither of those responses were particularly helpful.

I'm not qualified enough to say whether the Catholic Church consists of a bunch of con men or not, but even so, that's a bit of a harsh label to apply to every commune that may practice the religion, isn't it?

 Frazzled wrote:
What about everyone who's ever died and not been buried in a consecrated graveyard?

What about them?

The issue here is much simpler: if you want a Catholic funeral, you can't choose to have your ashes scattered and the family members who survive you can't take your ashes home, barring exceptional circumstances, or turn them into trinkets or something similar.

It's sort of like, if you want to receive the Eucharist, you can't take it home, or wear it on a necklace, or throw it into a pond.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What about everyone who's ever died and not been buried in a consecrated graveyard?

What about them?

Nothing actually. I found where this is not a post facto law.

 Frazzled wrote:
Nothing actually. I found where this is not a post facto law.

This has come up before but I think people have the wrong idea - that not having had a Christian funeral somehow dooms the soul of the departed, such that this instruction might retroactively doom souls. But none of that is true or, more importantly, even relevant to the topic, which is only about denying Christian funeral to those who intentionally flout the Christian faith, which just makes sense. I'll repeat the analogy again because it is pretty apt: the Church is not going to allow you to take a Eucharistic host home, wear it on a necklace, or crumble it up and throw it in the dirt or in some water. If you receive communion, you consume it. The faith is just as serious about our bodies as the body of Christ, hence this teaching on funeral rites.

 Manchu wrote:
TBH that reply was far more than you deserved. If all you've learned about religion during your "college time" amounts to dismissing Catholicism and religion generally as some kidn of con then adult conversation isn't possible.

Isn't it? I stated before "It's great to be religious or spiritual, but be wary listening to anyone who claims to hear the voice of God". I have no problem with people who practice and believe, but I think organized religion is a joke. And yeah, all my "college time" did teach me was the many ways religion was used to suppress, extort, and hurt people. God forbid I have a bad view of the Catholic church.

 General Annoyance wrote:
I'm not qualified enough to say whether the Catholic Church consists of a bunch of con men

The only qualifications to make such a statement are hatred and ignorance.

 jreilly89 wrote:
God forbid I have a bad view of the Catholic church.

I snorted when I read this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
This has come up before but I think people have the wrong idea - that not having had a Christian funeral somehow dooms the soul of the departed, such that this instruction might retroactively doom souls.

It's not like someone on earth could say "Ope, no, that's not good," and then a bunch of souls just get ripped out of heaven and shot straight to hell. I have no dog in this fight, but it seems like a step back for the church, who have been seeming to me to become more "with the times," so to speak. Economical concerns for your worshippers should be considered, in my opinion, because you don't want people dropping out of your religion because "it's too expensive." I also realize it's theoretically not up to humans to decide this anyway, if you go in for such things, it's "word of God" whether you can afford it or not.

 Manchu wrote:
The only qualifications to make such a statement are hatred and ignorance.

Most likely; honestly I never keep up with most religions, being an agnostic, but even if I think one religious group within a collective is being unreasonable, I wouldn't pass that label onto everyone else in that religion. People seem to like doing that to a certain religious group that I won't mention here, for the sake of this thread staying open for another few pages.

Even so, the forefront of a religious group coming out and saying to all their followers that they've been doing something wrong all this time, is a little peculiar, and will certainly create even more divides within the group than those that already exist.

G.A

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
TBH that reply was far more than you deserved. If all you've learned about religion during your "college time" amounts to dismissing Catholicism and religion generally as some kidn of con then adult conversation isn't possible.

Isn't it? I stated before "It's great to be religious or spiritual, but be wary listening to anyone who claims to hear the voice of God". I have no problem with people who practice and believe, but I think organized religion is a joke. And yeah, all my "college time" did teach me was the many ways religion was used to suppress, extort, and hurt people. God forbid I have a bad view of the Catholic church.

I hear the voice of Dog every time someone comes to the door. They greet him by singing the song of their people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nothing actually. I found where this is not a post facto law.

This has come up before but I think people have the wrong idea - that not having had a Christian funeral somehow dooms the soul of the departed, such that this instruction might retroactively doom souls. But none of that is true or, more importantly, even relevant to the topic, which is only about denying Christian funeral to those who intentionally flout the Christian faith, which just makes sense. I'll repeat the analogy again because it is pretty apt: the Church is not going to allow you to take a Eucharistic host home, wear it on a necklace, or crumble it up and throw it in the dirt or in some water. If you receive communion, you consume it. The faith is just as serious about our bodies as the body of Christ, hence this teaching on funeral rites.

A tinge defensive (understandable) but I get it.
Now you can still have a memorial service with a priest correct? They are just saying priests following this rule can't provide official funeral services?

Jacksmiles wrote:
Economical concerns for your worshippers should be considered, in my opinion, because you don't want people dropping out of your religion because "it's too expensive."

Economic considerations don't trump the dignity of the human person. The Church has helped people with funeral expenses for 2000 years and it is no different today. This teaching doesn't price people out of Christian funerals. The issue is, the practice of scattering ashes (and taking them home and making trinkets from them) is at odds with Catholic practice, according to the competent authority. This also isn't set in stone forever. Cremation itself was thought to be at odds with Catholic practice until 1963. Scattering ashes was allowed by Italian bishops until just now. It's not the practice in itself that is the trouble so much as the heretical beliefs (such as pantheism) that become associated with them, but this is probably getting too deep into it for this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Annoyance wrote:
the forefront of a religious group coming out and saying to all their followers that they've been doing something wrong all this time

But that's not what happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Now you can still have a memorial service with a priest correct? They are just saying priests following this rule can't provide official funeral services?

I think you may still be looking at it the wrong way around. I think this is the situation the instruction envisions: Catholic person A insists on the scattering of their ashes contrary to the magisterial teaching of the Church so Catholic person A will be denied "Christian funeral," i.e., the various "public" (as it were) funerary rites of the Catholic Church. I know that in some cases, for example involving alleged heretics, some priests have willfully disobeyed their bishops and provided the rites anyhow (not that they themselves were not in turn punished). But there could also be "private" memorials, perhaps even surreptitiously attended or led by clergy (who knows?), notwithstanding a "public" ban.

There is some serious passion beyond what I expected about this if the thread is anything to go by.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Now you can still have a memorial service with a priest correct? They are just saying priests following this rule can't provide official funeral services?

I think you may still be looking at it the wrong way around. I think this is the situation the instruction envisions: Catholic person A insists on the scattering of their ashes contrary to the magisterial teaching of the Church so Catholic person A will be denied "Christian funeral," i.e., the various "public" (as it were) funerary rites of the Catholic Church. I know that in some cases, for example involving alleged heretics, some priests have willfully disobeyed their bishops and provided the rites anyhow (not that they themselves were not in turn punished). But there could also be "private" memorials, perhaps even surreptitiously attended or led by clergy (who knows?), notwithstanding a "public" ban.

Wow, ok. Thats amazingly harsh, considering the pronouncement is based on what testament of Christ again?

Catholic priests can't run a memorial service-with attendant prayers? Thats a pretty big you to the deceased and their family.

Dropped in to see how this seemingly innocuous topic turned into so many pages and, well, I think I'll turn around now and return to the civility of the US Politics thread.

@Frazzled

First, you seem to want to get into a chapter and verse quoting type race. Not gonna happen. Neither of us have the education to properly interpret the ancient texts in question.

Second, on topic, keep in mind the circumstances we are talking about; i.e., the decedent choosing funeral arrangements contrary to Catholic teaching. Are we talking about someone who even wants a priest leading prayers at some kind of vigil? The hypothetical person decided to break with Catholic practice as their last public act. And even if they do want XYZ for whatever reason ... ah well. Using the Eucharist analogy once again, Catholics consume the host at communion. Maybe you want to take it home and crumble it up and throw it all over your yard or some scenic spot but you don't get to do that.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Dropped in to see how this seemingly innocuous topic turned into so many pages and, well, I think I'll turn around now and return to the civility of the US Politics thread.

I know... right? Sheesh...

This is a religion ya'll... that's a commitment, not some joyride.