In my last post, I wrote about some drivel that was published in a Christian funeral bulletin. In my view, that doggerel was tasteless, but at least it was well-intended. I think the story re-posted below surpasses the previous one in tackiness, as it sets out the most egregious example I’ve ever seen of using a funeral as a bully pulpit to scare people into greater religiosity. Read it for yourself and see what you think.
Is that amazing or what? A priest was asked to perform a funeral service, and he took the opportunity to trash the deceased! I thought the point of funerals was to a) comfort the living, and b) commemorate the life of the deceased. I believe in being honest, but there are some occasions (and I think funerals are among them) on which the adage, “if you can’t say anything good, then don’t say anything at all,” applies. If the priest couldn’t comfort the bereaved, then he should have refused to do the service. I doubt that the family could have been any more offended by his refusal than they were by the way he actually discharged his duty.
And, no surprise here, Major Army Barmy praises the priest’s behavior. Oh, he posted a disclaimer about the “vomit” statement (marked the priest down for poor taste on that one), but was tickled pink that the priest announced his belief – and it is merely a personally held belief, mind you, not an ascertained fact – that the deceased was “going straight to hell.” Think about this a minute. The “vomit” statement is inappropriate (presumably because it raises a graphic image of an unpleasant bodily function), but the “hell” statement – which references eternal torment of unimaginable, unspeakable proportions – passes muster. And Christians think my priorities are fucked up!
Also, notice how the “warning” to preachers plays into the evangelical Christian persecution complex. Golly gee, Major – you don’t think some people may classify the statement “liars and fornicators are going to hell” as hate speech because it’s actually, you know, hateful? At least, it would be if hell were any kind of real threat. Still, if people hearing such a remark actually believe in hell, it’s easy to see how it would be received poorly. I won’t give Major Army Barmy the satisfaction of labeling his hell-remark hateful, since a) the threat is empty, and b) I don’t want to feed his persecution complex (he feeds it just fine on his own). Nor will I insult him by labeling it as ignorant. No. I’ll just call it what it is: the nasty raving of a religiously deluded zealot.
– the chaplain
vinnyjh
August 2, 2011 at 10:43 am
I think the priest is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Spanish Inquisitor
August 2, 2011 at 11:56 am
Oh, come on Chappie. You’re just worried he might show up at YOUR funeral. 8)
StaggerLee
August 2, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Is it really incorrect what the priest said? I mean on a manners level it is obviously bad form, but according to the theistic dogma of Catholicism is the priest wrong in what he said? I don’t think people should be able to sue over this. I think they should take a good hard look at what they believe. Yes saying something like that at a funeral can cause emotional distress, but if you look at the bigger picture most churches (synagogues and mosques as well) are in the emotional abuse game, the “relationship” theists claim to have with “god” (IOW a being that comdemns them to hell for disbelief and lack of praise, and is constantly testing their loyalty) is a life long abusive one.
vinnyjh
August 2, 2011 at 12:12 pm
I think that any priest with an ounce of compassion would have found something nice to say on the grounds that no one can ever be sure that the deceased did not repent in the last moments of his life (no matter how unlikely the priest might have thought that to be in the particular case).
The Wise Fool
August 2, 2011 at 5:58 pm
I must admit I am torn. I think you and vinnyjh have the right idea that the priest should have been able to squeeze out an ounce of compassion or be man enough to simply refuse the invite. However, while I was reading the post, my thoughts aligned more with StaggerLee, to the point which you make chaplin, that I wish there was more of this in-your-face honesty about the horrible doctrine of hell and other abominations of the faith. I think that would encourage a larger migration of the more-complacent masses away from the faith and the “nasty raving of a religiously deluded zealot.”
karla
August 2, 2011 at 6:49 pm
That very verse about God vomiting the lukewarm was the one that irrevocably turned me away from the religion of my family, when I was about 14. She was becoming a Bible thumping charismatic Catholic and I was having none of that. So I decided “cold” was the right stance for me, since I didn’t want to become “hot” for Jesus like her, and neither was I willing to worship anybody who threatened to vomit me out of his mouth.
Thanks Mom, you don’t know how grateful I am that you forced me to think for myself. It’s been a life free of loony beliefs and fears. If only you would listen to me and see the beauty of reason and the peace that comes from the honest search for the truth.
Sarge
August 3, 2011 at 6:14 am
Clergy, of course, work for “The Church” (what that is depends on the denomination) and “God”, and at bottom, they speak with “authority” mantled on their shoulders by these entities.
The priest was doing the “sheep dog” thing, harrying the flock where he wants them to go.
Both dog and priest are agressive, overbearing, and have their own ends to work for, not the sheep (and sheeple).
So, stating with authority that this deity has done such and so to another (without having any actual knowledge of the case) is a neat lever to use on the recalcitrant.
In one of Joe Queenan’s books he discribes the kids he knew who really wanted to be go into the priesthood as “ambitious”, “tough”, and “mean”.
I In my experience, this isn’t confined to catholics.
Moe
August 3, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Before the religious right ith all their old Testament fire and brimstone got themselves defined as America’s ‘real Christians’, language like this with its judgement (ignoring the teachings of Jesus), would have been condemned and called un-Christian. But we lilve in a brave new world..
the chaplain
August 3, 2011 at 3:26 pm
vinny:
That would make an interesting legal question.
SI:
If he shows up at my funeral, I won’t be in a position to care what he says, but my loved ones might be less than pleased with his pronouncements about me.
Staggerlee:
What he said is not incorrect according to his doctrine. But, his doctrine is not universally accepted. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the abusive nature of religious manipulation.
Wise fool:
Like you, I wish religious believers would examine their dogma and think about the larger ramifications of many ideas they seem to swallow without digesting properly.
karla:
Kudos to you for coming to your senses at a young age.
Sarge:
I love the sheepdog metaphor. I hadn’t thought of pastors and priests as sheepdogs, but it fits. Jesus is the shepherd and believers are the sheep, so the clergy must fit in the middle somewhere as the sheepdogs.
Moe:
Sad to say, I grew up with this kind of teaching long before the RR was born; evangelicals have been calling themselves the “real Christians” for well over a century. Nevertheless, you’re right about them managing to affix that label to themselves very effectively in the American political arena via the RR.
jonjermey
August 4, 2011 at 5:53 pm
This story appears to date from 2003:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/19/us/beliefs-dead-man-s-family-sues-archdiocese-saying-priest-funeral-called-him.html