Liverpool - To Die For...

A few further thoughts on the Liverpool Funeral Mass controversy.

Helping to clarify this to someone who’d missed the point on Twitter, @PartTimePilgrim tweeted:

Opposition I've seen focuses on three issues.
1. The idea that a lay-led Funeral Service is as good as a Funeral Mass. It is not.
 2. The suspicion that there /are/ enough priests in Liverpool to have Funeral masses for those who die.
3. The un-Catholic nature of the Archdiocesan Planning a Funeral leaflet.

That’s a pretty good summary, and I just want to explore each in a little more depth.

1: Is a lay-led Funeral Service is as good as a Funeral Mass?  

This was what originally incensed me (terrible pun only half intended): the Herald quoted Archbishop Kelly as saying ‘the service they provide is “of the best quality” and was not seen by Catholics as “second-class”.’

I wrote a fair bit about this aspect in my first post on the subject, but would add this (which I wrote about in a comment on the Herald site).  

I think a large part of the problem here lies with the impoverished understanding of the Mass.  Once a priest got up early every day and offered the Sacrifice of the Mass.  

Perhaps some of his flock were there, perhaps they were all still in bed.  Nonetheless, he knew he had done something of inestimable value for the salvation of their souls (and his) and the conversion of the world.

Now he may say a 10.00 am Mass, the success of which is judged by the numbers who attend; and which may, apparently to everyone's complete satisfaction, be substituted with a lay-led service (which may be better attended as Mrs Cannybody's friends will all turn up...)

My contention is that such a decline in the valuing of the Mass seriously erodes vocations: current and future.

If that is part of the problem which has led to declining vocations, Liverpool's proposed solution exacerbates, rather than relieves, it.

2 Are there enough priests in Liverpool to have Funeral Masses for those who die?

I think that may depend on how high a priority it is considered to be, compared with other activities. Late last night, I tweeted: I dare bet a substantial sum that when ++Kelly dies, more than one priest from Liverpool will have time for his Funeral Mass.#cynicalme? 

That wasn’t a dig at Archbishop Kelly, so much as pointing out that when priests (or any of us) deem something important enough, we make time for it.  And I hope and pray that many priests turn up for Archbishop  Kelly’s Funeral Mass when he is called to his final reward. And that at least one is prepared to make time for my Requiem Mass, too.

My concern is that the tenor of the Liverpool leaflet, and Archbishop  Kelly’s reported comments, suggest that the provision of Masses, as opposed to lay-led services, is not seen as important.

Others have even suggested that there are those who welcome the withdrawing of priests from this ministry, as it gives laymen - and particularly lay women - more space to operate.

There’s also the risk of a sort of apartheid system: bishops, priests, deacons, EMHCs, parish worthies... will get Funeral Masses; the disposessed, friendless, alienated, (according to the leaflet, one criterion is how many Catholic chums you’ve got) will have lay-led services.

3. The un-Catholic nature of the Archdiocesan Planning a Funeral leaflet

A number of bloggers, such as Ttony have highlighted that the Leaflet is at odds with official Church documents.  

Certainly, when I read it, I thought it lacked any sympathy with those Catholic Instincts, whose absence I was lamenting in my first post on the subject, and my earlier post about Liverpool.

I have just noticed that the Order of Christian Funerals says:

‘When no priest is available, deacons, as ministers of the word, of the altar, and of charity, preside at funeral rites. 
When no priest or deacon is available for the vigil and related rites or the rite of committal, a layperson presides.’ 

Notice that only deacons (not laity, as proposed by the Liverpool leaflet) are authorised to stand in for (non-available) priest at the main funeral rites. Lay people are only allowed to lead ‘the vigil and related rites or the rite of committal.’

Throughout, the Order makes it clear that a Funeral Mass is the norm; anything else only as a serious exception, as I highlight here. The Liverpool leaflet strikes a very different note - could be one, could be the other, nothing to worry about...

If I were a bishop implementing such a change out of necessity, I would be stressing the difference, apologising for the crisis, assuring the faithful that every effort would be made...

Mark Lambert also highlights how the understanding of the Funeral itself, in the Liverpool leaflet, is at odds with Catholic belief, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

--

This is serious stuff: I can only hope that it is cock-up, not conspiracy, and that someone draws it to Archbishop Kelly’s attention.  I am assured he is a good and holy bishop (and he certainly does some good and holy things, like supporting the cause for Blessed Dominic Barberi). So I imagine that when he realises quite what is being done and said in his name, he will be keen to put it right, and assure his flock that their right to a Funeral Mass will be honoured  if at all possible.

Funeral Masses: What Does The Church Actually Say?

It seems I am not alone in my reservations about lay-led Funeral Services replacing Funeral Masses in Liverpool.  Several others have blogged and tweeted, both before and after me, raising a variety of salient points.

I will blog later on these, and further reflections of my own; but first I thought it instructive to look at what the official line is.  The paragraphs below are all taken from the UK Liturgy Office’s publication: Order of Christian Funerals, the Introduction to which is available online here (h/t to commenter Mike on Dylan’s blogpost).

I have put a few sections in bold, to emphasise what seems unarguable to me: that the norm is for a Funeral Mass, and other arrangements are for occasions when that is impossible (not inconvenient) due to the complete unavailability of priests.

ORDER OF CHRISTIAN FUNERALS

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

4. At the death of a Christian, whose life of faith was begun in the waters of baptism and strengthened at the eucharistic table, the Church intercedes on behalf of the deceased because of its confident belief that death is not the end nor does it break the bonds forged in life. The Church also ministers to the sorrowing and consoles them in the funeral rites with the comforting word of God and the sacrament of the eucharist.

5. Christians celebrate the funeral rites to offer worship, praise, and thanksgiving to God for the gift of a life which has now been returned to God, the author of life and the hope of the just. The Mass, the memorial of Christ’s death and resurrection, is the principal celebration of the Christian funeral.

6. The Church through its funeral rites commends the dead to God’s merciful love and pleads for the forgiveness of their sins. At the funeral rites, especially at the celebration of the eucharistic sacrifice, the Christian community affirms and expresses the union of the Church on earth with the Church in heaven in the one great communion of saints. Though separated from the living, the dead are still at one with the community of believers on earth and benefit from their prayers and intercession. At the rite of final commendation and farewell, the community acknowledges the reality of separation and commends the deceased to God. In this way it recognises the spiritual bond that still exists between the living and the dead and proclaims its belief that all the faithful will be raised up and reunited in the new heavens and a new earth, where death will be no more.

12. At the vigil for the deceased or on another occasion before the eucharistic celebration, the presiding minister should invite all to be present at the funeral liturgy and to take an active part in it. The minister may also describe the funeral liturgy and explain why the community gathers to hear the word of God proclaimed and to celebrate the eucharist when one of the faithful dies.

The priest and other ministers should also be mindful of those persons who are not members of the Catholic Church, or Catholics who are not involved in the life of the Church.

Liturgical Ministers 

Presiding Minister

14. Priests, as teachers of faith and ministers of comfort, preside at the funeral rites, especially the Mass; the celebration of the funeral liturgy is especially entrusted to priests. When no priest is available, deacons, as ministers of the word, of the altar, and of charity, preside at funeral rites. 

When no priest or deacon is available for the vigil and related rites or the rite of committal, a layperson presides.

46. The section entitled ‘Funeral Liturgy’ provides two forms of the funeral liturgy, the central celebration of the Christian community for the deceased: ‘Funeral Mass’ and ‘Funeral Liturgy outside Mass’. When one of its members dies, the Church especially encourages the celebration of the Mass, When Mass cannot be celebrated (see no, 189), the second form of the funeral liturgy may be used and a Mass for the deceased should be celebrated, if possible, at a later time.

--

That seems to be pretty clear to me.

What is it about Liverpool?

Some while ago (reflecting on the proposed Methodist 'Ordinations' in Liverpool's Catholic Cathedral) I was lamenting what I saw as a lack of Catholic Instincts in the Archbishop and (presumably) his advisors.

I have been brooding on the recent report in the Catholic Herald about proposals to have lay-led services for the dead in lieu of Funeral Masses.

His Grace Kelly (how I love writing that, btw) has apparently 'formally commissioned 22 lay ministers to celebrate funeral ceremonies.'

It may be that this is a pastoral necessity, as he clearly believes; though I find it hard to imagine anything more important for his priests to be doing than saying Masses for the living and the dead.

But what really made me return to this theme of a lack of Catholic Instincts were his (reported) comments 'that the lay ministers – some of whom are drawn from the roster of Eucharistic ministers, catechists and religious sisters – would receive continuing support and training to ensure that the service they provide is “of the best quality” and was not seen by Catholics as “second-class”.'

How could any lay-led service, even of the best quality (whatever that may mean in this context - to be frank the phrase makes me shudder) not be regarded as "second-class" compared to a Funeral Mass?

The Mass is 'the source and summit of the Christian life,' (CCC 1324) and specifically  "The Eucharistic sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed who "have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified," so that they may be able to enter into the light and peace of Christ." (CCC 1371)

Are my instincts wrong to suggest that a Funeral Mass, the sacrifice of Calvary offered by a priest in persona Christi for the repose of the soul of the deceased, is superior, not just as first- is to second-class, but almost infinitely, to any lay-led prayer service, however high quality it may be?

I give notice here and now that when I die I want a sung EF Mass, with the traditional Chant, offered for my eternal repose; and I want people praying for my soul. I will need all the help I can get.

In the meantime, pray for the Archbishop, and for all those who die in Liverpool and are denied a Funeral Mass.

UPDATE

Mulier Fortis blogged about this a while ago - excellently, as you might expect - here.

The Liverpool leaflet Planning a Catholic Funeral can be read here. (H/t Part Time Pilgrim)

UPDATE 2

Ttony makes some important additional points here.

UPDATE 3

Mark Lambert adds powerfully to the debate here.

UPDATE 4

I realise I missed the breaking of this story all together: Reluctant Sinner blogged here, based on this article in the Pill (I make no apology for missing this...) and Fr Simon Henry explains his refusal to comment here.  I will blog more on this soon.