There was a story the other day of a Catholic priest ruining a funeral because it was more important to him that Catholic tradition be preserved and a lesbian family member get denied communion than it was to have a service the family would have appreciated.

I didn’t realize Catholics have a habit of making funerals even worse than they already are.

Reader John‘s grandfather died earlier this week and he’s been working with his family to prepare the funeral. Because it’s being held at a Catholic church, there’s a protocol for how the funeral will be run — you get to choose which Bible verses are read and things like that. Otherwise, though, there’s not much leeway.

John took a picture of the last page of the church’s Funeral Rule Book. It’s hard to see, but the words are below (emphases mine):

Eulogy Guidelines

“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 a vigil service; but there is never to be a eulogy” (#27 General Introduction — Order of Christian Funerals — National Conference of Catholic Bishops – 14 November 1985, 15 August 1989). However, if your family wants to have a eulogy, it has become a practice in our archdiocese to have ONE eulogy near the conclusion of the Mass of Christian Burial.

Eulogy means ‘speak well’. Thus, if the family decides to have someone offer eulogy, it ought to be brief (no more than 5 minutes) and most respectful. Past faults of the deceased are not to be mentioned and anecdotal references to drinking, expressions of anger, eating habits, and the like as well as any vulgarity will NOT be tolerated. (Sadly, the aforementioned list contains aspects of actual eulogies offered at prior services.) The eulogist is part of a sacred service and does not serve as a stand-up comedian or toastmaster of any sort. No props, recorded music or other audio tapes can be included as part of the eulogy. In an effort to avoid embarrassing situations, an outline or copy of the eulogy is to be presented to the Parish Office with the choice of readings for the service. Failure to comply with this request will remove the eulogy from the service.

Indeed, the more fitting place for a eulogy would be to have the speaker(s) make the presentation(s) at the conclusion of the viewing hours at the funeral home. In this way, the focus of the Mass of Christian Burial can be maintained as well as due respect for the Eucharist. Thank you for your consideration and sensitivity in this matter.

In other words, wanna tell a funny story about the person who died? Can’t do it.

An off-color joke (if the person would have appreciated it)? Don’t even think about it.

What about reading a passage from a secular book? That’s out of bounds, too.

What about playing their favorite song? You’re out of luck.

I’m not sure why anyone would *want* to have a Catholic funeral (or, at least, why you would want your family to do that to you…), but John mentioned one of the positive consequences of all this:

… it started a conversation with a few family members about the merits of staying within the Church. Or, as my uncle put it: “The Catholic church really is a pain in the ass sometimes.”

(Metaphorically, of course. Just metaphorically…)

Not that I was raised Catholic to begin with, but this is why I hope my funeral is a celebration of my life, not a depressing reminder to my friends that other people believe in nonsense.

Loetta Johnson died recently and, at her funeral, her daughter Barbara Johnson went up to receive communion from Rev. Marcel Guarnizo. What happened next made national news:

Barbara Johnson (Marvin Joseph - The Washington Post)

The priest refused Johnson, who is gay, the sacramental bread and wine.

“He covered the bowl with the Eucharist with his hand and looked at me, and said I cannot give you communion because you live with a woman and that is a sin in the eyes of the church,” Johnson told ABC News affiliate WJLA.

To make things worse, the priest later left the altar when Johnson delivered her eulogy and then said he couldn’t deliver the final blessing at the mother’s gravesite.

Johnson and her brother want the priest “removed from dealings with parishioners.” There are additional complaints that this priest didn’t do his job, that he is a disgraceful human being, that he should’ve dismissed Johnson privately instead of publicly — but all of that misses the point.

He did what he did because it’s what the Catholic Church demands.

He won’t be reprimanded; he’ll be given a pat on his back.

Don’t blame the priest. Blame the Church.

The Atheist Pig says it well:

Personally, I don’t want the church (or religion in general) to change to accommodate everyone’s particular beliefs because that would imply that religion still has worth and relevance in today’s world. In my opinion, it doesn’t. I’d rather that people throw of the shackles of religion and superstition and embrace truly secular society.

…

… I’m sorry, Barbara, I sympathize with your situation, but I do not support your effort here. If you’re unhappy with your current club, I would suggest joining ours. We’ve got a wonderful membership that’s growing every day. We don’t ask you to tithe. We don’t ask you to get up early on Sunday. And we don’t ask you to change. We’re fine with you just the way you are.

This funeral ought to serve as just another reason you should abandon Catholicism. This priest wasn’t the problem. He was taught to act this way by his superiors. Blame them. Your family deserved more respect than the Church could offer and your mother deserved a better sendoff than the one she received. When the grief begins to subside, I hope you can muster the courage to leave that faith.

Dr. Tina Strobos died earlier this week.

She was 91.

She saved the lives of more than 100 Jews during the Holocaust by allowing them refuge in her Amsterdam home.

She gave them food and medical care.

She cleverly found ways to obtain fake passports for them.

She was arrested nine times. Her house was searched eight times. They never found the refugees.

She risked her life to help other people.

And she was an atheist:

“I never believed in God,” she once said, “but I believed in the sacredness of life.”

Back in June, 2011, Grief Beyond Belief was created in order to support those who experienced the death of a spouse, or child, or friend, but didn’t want to bring religion into the conversation.

Rebecca Hensler‘s group is now getting some major media attention, thanks to Kimberly Winston at the Religion News Service:

For nonbelievers, John Lennon’s famous bid to “imagine there’s no heaven” isn’t just a lyric; it’s reality. And it’s not always easy.

Last year, Hensler founded “Grief Beyond Belief,” a Facebook page where unbelievers can share their grief and loss in what she describes as “a safe place” devoid of God-talk.

Within eight days, Grief Beyond Belief garnered 1,000 “likes,” a number that is now approaching 3,000. Hensler estimates there are about 150 users on the site each day.

A 43-year-old school counselor, Hensler tries to post something every day — a link, a picture, a question, a thought. Recent topics include a discussion of travel as a balm for pain, a look at how agnostics grieve, and a link to a “Bill of Rights for the Grieving.” Right No. 7: “You have the right not to be grateful, reasonable, inspired or inspiring.”

One measure of success for the group will be how it offers help for individuals as it grows so large. It may get to the point where you need Grief groups for different states or regions of the country

Even though the image has been around for a few months now, a few different people sent it along saying the caption underneath it is simply beautiful.

They’re absolutely right:

It’s odd, thinking about death while being an atheist. To understand that afterward, you are simply not.

Dawkins and Hitchens both know that what is coming is permanent. There is no happy ending, with no chance of reunion or redemption in some other plane. Death will be a final parting, permanent and absolute.

In that embrace, it’s not just that Hitchens means a great deal to Dawkins. It’s knowing that soon, they’ll be separated by eternity. And yet, in infinite time and space, two motes of consciousness, against unfathomable odds, simply had the opportunity to enjoy a brief lucidity of life and touch each other in some small way before returning forever to the endless naught.

Honestly, there is absolutely nothing more important than the realization that this life, the single life we have, is all and everything that we will ever have; when it’s over, it’s over. In a way, it gives life more sanctity and meaning than any religion could dream.

***Edit***: Comments were accidentally turned off on this post, but they’re back on now. My apologies.

…

Local newspapers love to publish opinion pieces written by community members. It gives the writers a little more investment in the newspaper (“Hey, look! I got published!”) and the newspaper gets free content that tends to generate a lot of comments online.

Tim Lee is writing a series of guest columns on life after death for the Knoxville News Sentinel and his goal is to “accurately reflect the various perspectives of local residents.”

So, last week, he interviewed atheist Ralph Isler, a man who left the Methodist church when he became an atheist:

For Isler, humans are simply the result of millions of years of biological evolution. We have no souls. Cultural influences over epochs of time have caused humans to develop empathy, love and all other emotions. We are ultimately nothing more than chemical processes interacting at the microcellular level.

Therefore, when we die, those biological functions cease and we are no more. Game over.

…

Isler is content in having traded in his superstitious belief in an eternal heaven for a more rational yet temporal existence in this life only. He’s 99.5 percent certain that his journey has led him to the truth.

It’s a bit dry, but at least it’s accurate. No issues so far.

Then we get to the end of the piece:

In the end, though, Isler seems to have his own god. Isler. And Isler alone calls the shots, not some invisible celestial dictator in the sky. So Isler displaced God with Isler, as man displaces God with man.

That story sounds vaguely familiar. The name Adam come to mind?…

Umm… wait, what?! How many atheists believe they are their own gods? Did Isler really say that…?

Of course not.

So Isler wrote a letter to the paper and it was published yesterday. Unfortunately, those response letters — much like corrections — never really get the same attention as the original article. But this one is definitely worth reading:

As I started reading his article in the Jan. 15 edition of the News Sentinel, it appeared that Lee did an adequate job of expressing my views. So it was rather astonishing to come across his last few sentences where he showed, even after all our conversation, a lack of understanding the meaning of atheism while essentially characterizing me as egocentric with delusions of being a god. Apparently he means a god in the Judeo-Christian mold since he mentions Adam.

Well, I don’t really have the needs or temperament for that role. I would have to require constant adulation to pump up my fragile ego, but I’m not that insecure. I would have to support slavery, but I find it repugnant. And I would have to feel pleasure in making someone suffer eternal torment for not believing in my existence, even when I exercise all my powers to conceal it. The very thought of such psychopathic behavior should be totally repugnant to any civilized person. Atheism simply implies the view that there are no gods; it does not mean that the atheist aspires to fill that vacancy.

Excellent reply, don’t you think?

Too bad it’s hidden away in a giant collection of letters-to-the-editor.

Beyond the universe there is nothing and within the universe the supernatural does not and cannot exist. Of all deceivers who have plagued mankind, none are so deeply ruinous to human happiness as those impostors who pretend to lead by a light above nature. Science has never killed or persecuted a single person for doubting or denying its teachings, and most of these teachings have been true; but religion has murdered millions for doubting or denying her dogmas, and most of these dogmas have been false.

That’s the epitaph on the gravestone of George F. Spencer… who died in 1908.

The New Atheism really isn’t so new.

(via Futility Closet — Thanks to Aaron for the link)