Dear Editor:
Archbishop John J. Myers, Newark Roman Catholic Archdiocese, last week announced that, at funeral masses, a homily, rather than eulogies, would be the extent toward which any reference to the deceased could be made. He claimed that numerous tributes would distract from the religious purpose of the services and that, in some cases, the eulogies would prolong the normal duration of the Mass, sometimes to an inordinate degree. It was proposed that any commendation of the departed should be read before or after the Mass, preferably in a side chapel or at grave side.
Opposition to this directive is based on the desire of some to voice sincere and deep feelings at the very Mass, for to do this elsewhere would be a detachment from the intrinsic core of the occasion. Some contend that if more focus should be placed on scripture in order to uphold the sanctity of the Mass then eulogies, which would be directed toward the essential reason for that particular Mass, should be included, with any extension of time tolerable. Consistent with this disparity between hierarchy and laity, Reverend Joseph Weiss, Administrative Director of the Institute for Church Life at the University of Notre Dame, has stated that major consideration of the deceased or of scripture has caused an imbalance between families and ecclesiastical authority. May I respectfully submit that, in my opinion, a woeful lack of proper communication is causing this issue, like some others, to become an interminable element of disagreement. Perhaps a flexible attitude on both sides might favorably substitute for mutual myopia. Indeed, in almost any controversy, one side is not always right with the other wrong, for sometimes a misinterpretation can generate a chaotic dilemma when a suitable meeting of the minds can bring about a harmonious conclusion.
Howard Lawson