Ship of Fools: Emerging funeral practice

Thread: Emerging funeral practice Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024812

Posted by Godric (# 17135) on :

My apologies if this question has been answered elsewhere but my query is whether or not there are any contemporary or emerging funeral services incorporating an act of worship currently used for people who have a Civil Partnership? Additionally, are there any official plans in the future for Anglican funeral services for people who have a same sex marriage?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

How would they differ from any other funerals, past or present? [Confused]

[ 07. June 2012, 16:21: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The service is the same for married and unmarried people anyway, so I can't see the advent of gay marriage introducing any differences.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Quite. I am as puzzled as Amos as to why the marital status of the deceased needs any liturgical recognition (except thanks and prayers for the relationship, and surviving partner).

Posted by Swick (# 8773) on :

I just looked at the two Burial Services (traditional and contemporary) in the 1979 BCP, and neither has any reference to the martial state of the deceased or to the husband or wife of the deceased, just prayers for the departed person.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

I agree that funeral serviceable rarely acknowledge marital status of the deceased, but I hope this thread continues on the premise of contemporary, alternative, and emerging worship trends for funerals.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I think actually it would be better for this thread to remain confined to the OP. If you would like a broader discussion of contemporary and/or emerging funeral practice then I would suggest a new thread with an appropriately crafted OP.

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by Godric (# 17135) on :

Is there something about terminology to be used in describing a survivor as "husband" or "wife"? ..... what about the future and the guidance given to clergy in managing the service.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Hopefully (but I agree, a fond hope in some situations) is that clergy will have the sensitivity to respect the wishes of the deceased and his/her nearest and dearest.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Most of the things you are probably thinking about with funerals, like photos of the deceased and tearful goodbyes from loved ones, are not actually part of the Anglican service, but are modern additions. The service itself is a sedate collection of readings and prayers with no reference to marital status.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Hopefully (but I agree, a fond hope in some situations) is that clergy will have the sensitivity to respect the wishes of the deceased and his/her nearest and dearest.

I would think the church would be more interested in creating rites that can be used for everybody rather than singling out groups.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'm with Angloid on this.

As nonconformists, we are free to craft whatever liturgies we like although there are some good funeral services in our denominational handbooks. In practice we tend to be a bit "pick-and-mix", blending extempore and traditional words.

I can't see that the advent of same-sex partnerships changes things at all. The main reference to relationships comes in the eulogy anyway. While there might be prayers of thanksgiving for the departed, there is no problem in saying "partner" instead of "mother", "wife" or whatever.

After all, funerals aren't like weddings: there are no legal forms of words which must be included.

[ 07. June 2012, 17:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Godric:
Is there something about terminology to be used in describing a survivor as "husband" or "wife"? ..... what about the future and the guidance given to clergy in managing the service.

Well I have been at the funeral of somebody who was not married to their partner, and the eulogy simply refered to the partner, as y x's partner.

Why shouldn't the surviing partner in a civlc or same sex partnerhip, simply be referred to in the way the the couple wanted.

After all currently compicatipons in mixed sex relationships do not have any special liturgy.

Posted by Devils Advocate (# 16484) on :

My partner ( same sex) of 17 years died early in 2010 and I was quite happy with the funerary rights he had in the UK ( requiem Mass and Committal at the local Crematorium) I was chief mourner with his sisters, Brother and Brother in Law. However when I took his ashes back to Northern Ireland we had what can only be described as a repeat funeral and I was basically airbrushed out of the equation. They used the same service leaflet I had produced for the UK Funeral but removed any pictures of my late partner and myself from the document ( and done it very badly) Bar humping a wooden casket with his ashes in 100's of miles by train, boat and taxi. the only thing I got to do was to throw the first shovelful of earth into the hole that had been opened in the Family Grave. The whole thing was far more stressful and upsetting than the Original ( and to my mind proper) funeral had been and Im afraid led to a mental collapse in the weeks afterwards.
I made sure he had a "Good Death" as its put in certain parts and its now over 2 years since his demise and I no longer feel the loss as intently as I did. I remember him in my prayers I have a mass said for the repose of his soul on the anniversary of his death and on his birthday. MY PP knows the score and has been nothing but supportive

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Devil's Advocate: [Angel]

and for the church concerned [Disappointed]

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Swick:
I just looked at the two Burial Services (traditional and contemporary) in the 1979 BCP, and neither has any reference to the maritial state of the deceased or to the husband or wife of the deceased, just prayers for the departed person.

Yes, the closest it gets is prayers for those who mourn.

I guess the "emerging practice" might be to give a same-sex partner his or her due place in the procession, graveside services, etc., but that's a little more pastoral than liturgical IMO.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

The difference in pastoral practise is what we saw in Devil’s advocate post above, what happened then had nothing to do with the liturgy of the funeral service.

The difference it seems to me, that a civil partnership could make, is that the other partner now has legal rights. Without that, it might have been possible for family members to claim legal rights, over the head of same sex partners, but a legal partnership must surely now give civil partners protection against that.

Posted by Devils Advocate (# 16484) on :

We were going to be civilly partnered but he died before I could set things in motion and as far as I could see there was no short cut available ( Like a special license) I think if we'd been civilly partnered he would still have got the first bit ( The UK Funeral) I'm not so sure about the Northern Ireland bit. I know its not what he would have wanted ( we had talked about funerary arrangements in the past) All he had said was he wanted to be "Pecked by Birds" to which I replied that I didn't know where the nearest Towers of Silence was and anyway there was a shortage of Avian vultures in our bit of the UK ( though no shortage of the human type) As I consider the public part of a funeral to be for those left behind ( as opposed to the deceased) then I did what I thought was best for his Mother and Family. (though his Mother was far from happy with the fact he was cremated or the fact that he'd been 'boxed up" for nearly 2 weeks before the funeral ( evidently they have them planted in 3 days in Ireland) I know he will be furious about where whats left of him has ended up as he detested NI and only used to go once a year after a lot of threats entreaties and nagging. Anyway my conscience is clear I did what I thought was best

Posted by Godric (# 17135) on :

"Rights" at a funeral seems a strange idea when so much funerary behaviour is based on half remembered tradition. Pastoral care is, indeed, becoming more of an issue as time passes and the public become familiar with Civil Partnersips. How do we care for people who grieve and enshrine that care? I'm sure that at such a difficult time the bereaved don't want a family fight at the graveside or at the Crem'.

Will a difference be made to the Anglican funeral if we legally cease "Civil partnerships" and the use of the term 'partner'? This term can be any number of things. What happens if we have legal secular marriage and use the term husband and wife as labels for same sex couples.

My question is more about how the Anglican Communion plan to deal with this new reality that seems to be emerging. Will the developments be simply left to individual clergy and is this satisfactory?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Important questions, Godric, but they don't seem to have anything to do with liturgy.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Devils advocate - it sounds like you did everything you could to respect him and his wishes and to respect his genetic family. Sadly they did not give you the same respect, but your conscience can be clear that you did as you the best for your partner as you could, which is a mark of how selfless your love is in comparison to theirs.
Godric, you may be correct that it is strange to talk of rights at funerals, but sadly they do come into it all too often. When a loved one dies our emotions are at their highest but sadly they are often at their worst. I spent years working in and around churches and in church offices and the behaviour of loved ones at funeral can be horrendous.
I have seen times where genetic families have excluded non married partners, in both same and mixed sex relationships, even where there are children. I have seen times when the partner in a second relationship has excluded the children from the first. In one case the mother of a 14 year old had to phone around every church and crematorium in a wide area to find out when her daughter’s father’s funeral was. The daughter attended, but the officiant had not even been told of her existence, and there were big tributes to his ‘wonderful children’ by name but ignoring her completely.
I could turn this into a ‘weird behaviour at funerals’ tangent but I won’t just believe me human behaviour at times like this can be appalling. So sadly there are times when rights do come into it and civil partnerships may help some people give their loved on the funeral s/he would have wanted.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

Okay, I hope that this is not too much of a tangent, but I have seen a lot of "no funeral" deaths. People die and expressly state that they want no service of any kind: no reception, lunch, Mass, graveside service or anything. Most of the people I know who want this exit are or claim to be religious. Where did this practice start?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't know, but it bugs me, because the people I know who have come out and said that have done it with an air of "I'm nobly sparing you all" and the truth is, we need the opportunity to mourn. It's no comfort to me to be "spared" the opportunity to mark the loss of someone I love. I wish they would clue in instead of forcing us to respect their wishes which (if done for reasons stated) are just plain wrongheaded.

Now someone who chooses this for some OTHER reason I can live with.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Godric:
"Rights" at a funeral seems a strange idea when so much funerary behaviour is based on half remembered tradition. Pastoral care is, indeed, becoming more of an issue as time passes and the public become familiar with Civil Partnersips. How do we care for people who grieve and enshrine that care? I'm sure that at such a difficult time the bereaved don't want a family fight at the graveside or at the Crem'.

Will a difference be made to the Anglican funeral if we legally cease "Civil partnerships" and the use of the term 'partner'? This term can be any number of things. What happens if we have legal secular marriage and use the term husband and wife as labels for same sex couples.

My question is more about how the Anglican Communion plan to deal with this new reality that seems to be emerging. Will the developments be simply left to individual clergy and is this satisfactory?

1) Of all the various kinds of religious custom, those connected with funerals are probably the
least based on 'half-remembered tradition'; the most based on very well-remembered and well-practised behaviours.
2) Pastoral care of the grieving has always been part of the church's ministry. Again, it's not new. People are bereaved in all kinds of ways; it's not only spouses that die.
3) Family fights at the graveside do occur (albeit rarely) because in this world of grief and sin there are are many, many ways in which families are divided and estranged. In my experience civil partnerships aren't even on the charts here. On the very rare occasions when there is a kerfuffle, all the people involved are 'the bereaved'.
4) At the moment 'partner' is the term that is used for a (ahem) partner of either sex to whom the other partner isn't actually married. Will there be any difference made if an equal marriage law is passed and same-sex couples can be wed--either civilly or in church, and the marriage is mentioned in the obsequies? None whatsoever. Zilch. Nada.
5) Godric, would it make you happier if General Synod passed a motion requiring all clergy and Readers taking funerals to use only approved terms of relationship--'Life-long Companion' perhaps?
6) Where do 'rights' come in at all?

[ 08. June 2012, 14:20: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

It was me who introduced rights, saying that civil partnerships can give rights to people in situations where they may be sidelined otherwise. Such as Devils advocate was when he returned his partner’s ashes to Ireland, there are times when a legal relationship can make it easier.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I'm still confused about what rights are being demanded here. A spouse's place in the funeral procession and what have you it not dictated in the service at all, and one can hardly legislate the vicar's eulogy.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

It is not about demanding rights but making sure that the spouses place is given to the partner.

The problem can be when the long term partner is not the legal spouse and other genetic family members get involved.

I was merely trying to say, that a civle partnership may ensure that the partner is given their righful place and not sidelined.

After all the officiant can only say in the eulogy what they have been told by the family.

[ 08. June 2012, 15:48: Message edited by: Zacchaeus ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Any "spouse's place" in a funeral is strictly a matter of extra-ecclesiastical habit, and is not regulated by Church canons. If a gay partner wants the front pew during the service he or she is free to have it so far as the Church is concerned.

As for he civil rights of homosexuals, that's not a liturgical matter.

[ 08. June 2012, 15:49: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

As Deveils advocte said when he returned his partners ashes to Ireland he was airbrushed out of things.It wasn't his choice.

It is not jsut something that happens to same sex couples. It can happen in any situation where a couple are not legally married.

I have seen it happen too,to a woman whose partners family never liked her. Whne he died she was excluded from everything - and told not to come to the funeral or there 'would be trouble'

She would have liked to be on the front row but chose to avoid trouble, out of respect for her partner.

It was a comment, in response to the practicalities of how we are to give same sex partners their due place in funeral services.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

That's all bad, and I really mean that. But the solution is for the State to recognize gay marriage, thus granting gay spouses the rights of next-of-kin. Which isn't, once again, a liturgical issue.

Dodgy dealings between bitter relatives at funerals is also bad, but doesn't seem something that can be regulated.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Okay, I hope that this is not too much of a tangent, but I have seen a lot of "no funeral" deaths. People die and expressly state that they want no service of any kind: no reception, lunch, Mass, graveside service or anything. Most of the people I know who want this exit are or claim to be religious. Where did this practice start?

Partly it's thinking the whole funeral industry is overdone and excessively expensive and not wanting the family to think they owe the dead person all that budget crippling expense.

Excessive flowers is a (smaller but) similar issue. I see a lot of "in lieu of flowers make a donation to a charity." Flowers seem like a waste of money. My Dad said "skip the flowers, spend the money on booze and have a party."

Partly some other stuff, like "why throw a party for me when I won't be there, come visit me now!"

Most of my dead friends have been buried with no funeral, just a 10 minute graveside family gathering. But most of their families don't go to church and would feel out of place in one. And most don't have any formalities in their life so the formalities of a funeral are a foreign language, i.e. stressful rather than helpful.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Yes, we have said several times in this thread that the issue is not with the liturgy.

I know Godric asked about services, but he did call the thread, - emerging funeral practice - and all this sort of stuff is about how a service works out in practice.

I would have thought that the way that they main mourners are identified is relevant to the way that any funeral is conducted

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Zaccheus--some of us are old enough to remember the first wave of deaths from AIDS, and how often partners (the term was 'lovers' then) were excluded from hospital bedsides and not acknowledged among the mourners. And that was when there was a family funeral, which wasn't always the case.
One of the really important things about civil partnership is that it gives each partner spousal rights: the right to be acknowledged as next-of-kin. When somebody dies, it is the next of kin with whom the funeral director and the priest sit down to plan the funeral. If the next of kin wants to include other members of the family, he or she may, but isn't required to. That's where 'rights' come in. Not in the funeral service, but in the matter of who is the dead person's next of kin.
It's still not enough though, for those of us who believe in equal marriage. But that's a subject which belongs elsewhere.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

The key is 'next of kin'. That's the person who'll inform the officiant and funeral director of the details needed for the performance of the funeral.

If it's the civil partner or long-term partner of the deceased acting as next of kin, it is he or she who will inform the vicar who's likely to be 'front-row' mourners, throwing the earth into the grave or whatever. And of course it's that person who negotiates with the vicar.

If there's a conflict between who wants to be next of kin, the officiant is rarely involved with that, as the process usually begins with the question 'who's organizing and paying for the funeral?' So by the time the funeral director has been engaged by that person, the officiant is already being presented with who the next of kin is.

It is pretty crucial, too, it's the right person. I've found out after a couple of funerals about important relatives, or vital situations, because 'next of kin' have dissembled, or hidden information.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

These deceased are likely to be people who have various friends as dear to them as family, if not more so.

A very old friend of mine passed on some ten years ago who had no relatives except his mother, with whom he wasn't particularly close. But he was the parish organist-choir director and a music teacher, with numerous admiring choir members, students, and friends. Long in precarious health, he died absolutely in harness, having insisted on performing his Sunday morning duties within hours of his death. The (Roman Catholic) pastor knew me already and knew that I was among the closest of his friends, despite living several hundred miles away. We would speak of each other as family. However, a wonderful nearby college-aged protege and his parents, who had practically adopted him as well, made the arrangements commensurate with next of kin.

The entire requiem mass, early in January with three priests at the altar and hundreds in the congregation, was unforgettably beautiful. I was surprised at first that the Holy Gospel "resumed" (i.e. repeated) the story of the Magi. The eloquent homily would soon make the reason clear. Not only was this "the last Gospel that B. heard," but the pastor likened him to them as they made their journey, often lonely and arduous but visionary, following a distant star, to bring their gifts to a child.

He mentioned me as a particular friend in intercessions etc., almost as though he suspected that our relationship might have been more than platonic. Although this was never the case, it was a very thoughtful and sensitive gesture, and an honor for me, especially in that according to doctrine he could not approve if it were.

In a way, none of this was surprising. My friend would never have worked for a priest he did not respect deeply.

[ 08. June 2012, 20:07: Message edited by: Alogon ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0