Why Aren't Catholics Having Funerals For Their Dead?

Fewer Catholics schedule funerals for their dead

Posted on 29 November 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

A tip of the biretta to Pewsitter for this piece from the Worcester Telegram:

Bishop McManus worried that some omit funeral Masses

WORCESTER — Bishop Robert J. McManus is expressing concern that Central Massachusetts Roman Catholics are not scheduling funeral Masses for their dead.

This month, he sent a pastoral letter to Catholics in the Diocese of Worcester, urging them to include a Mass in funeral preparations for their beloved dead. [I looked for it at the diocesan site, but didn't see it.  Maybe one of you...]

The sending of the letter coincides with the church’s traditional commemoration, in November, of the deceased.

The bishop’s missive has been read from church pulpits or included in parish bulletins.[Excellent.]

“I’m extremely concerned because of the growing practice of Catholic families in not providing their deceased with a Mass of Christian burial,” said Bishop McManus in an interview with the Telegram & Gazette.

Bishop McManus said the official funeral rites of the church include three parts: the wake, the Mass and the commitment service at graveside.

He said that during the Mass,that the family has a chance to pray for the dead, asking God to forgive the decedents’ sins and to welcome them into heaven. [It is a spiritual work of mercy to pray for the dead.  It is a corporal work of mercy to bury the dead.]

“There’s a presumption today that everybody gets to heaven,” Bishop McManus said. “I don’t think that people should think that’s a given.” [There it is!]

Bishop McManus said the diocese has not taken a formal survey of how many families are taking spiritual advantage of a funeral Mass but added that the numbers are substantially down.

“All you have to do is open up to the obituary page in the morning,” Bishop McManus said. “It’s filled with members of Irish, Polish, and other ethnic groups that have his been important elements of the local church. You look at the obituary and there’s no funeral Mass scheduled.”

He said many of the deceased probably wanted funeral Masses scheduled for them but that the children, or others in charge of funeral arrangements, did not do so because they themselves are not practicing Catholics.  [New Evangelization anyone?]

“There are a lot of people who have turned away from the church,” Bishop McManus said.

He said that, before the Second Vatican Council, about 80 percent of Catholics attended Mass. He said that percentage is now between 25 and 30 percent.

“That’s a substantial drop-off,” Bishop McManus said.

He said it’s important for individuals wishing for funeral Masses to let their desires be known, possibly in a will or by alerting family members.

For the deceased who do not get funeral Masses, the bishop said he’s asked their pastors to remember those individuals in memorial intentions.

Kevin Mercadante, the president of Mercadante Funeral Home and Chapel, estimated that at least 30 percent of the Catholic funerals that he’s been associated with, over the past ten years, do not involve Masses.

Mr. Mercadante blamed the drop-off on the growth of secularism and the fact that newer generations of Catholics just don’t go to church.

“They believe in God, they believe in First Communion, and the meaning behind the (religious) holidays,” said Mr. Mercadante. “They just don’t go to church.” [Well... then do they really believe? Or have they also been subtly taught over the decades through what they experience in church that going to church isn't important?]

He said the cost of a funeral Mass do not factor in on the decision. Mr. Mercadante said the average cost of a funeral Mass is about $300 and diocesan officials said pastors often waive fees for those that can’t pay.

“Years ago, Sunday was a family day with everybody going to Mass and then enjoying the day together,” said Mr. Mercadante. “That doesn’t happen anymore. Instead of Mass, there are Sunday morning soccer games. And some parents have to work the day to make ends meet.”

A while back I had a Requiem Mass in the older, traditional form.  Most of the people there had never been to one or hadn’t been for many years.  After Mass many people told me how moving and impressive the rite had been.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/

How Hillary Will Win in 2016

There is a candidate lurking for a 2016 run that could change our nation’s history forever, and not in a good way. I am going to go on record with a prediction here and I honestly hope I end up with egg on my face.

It is my belief that a 3rd party candidate is being hand-picked and/or groomed as we speak. This is not just a normal 3rd party candidate that will get 1-2% of the vote. I believe this candidate will be more like Ross Perot and seriously complicate the election while guaranteeing that Hillary Clinton will become our next president.

It’s time for a reality check. We need to look no further than the recent Virginia Governor’s race.

It was not necessarily the strength of McAuliffe that defeated Ken Cuccinelli. It was more thepresence of a third party (Libertarian) candidate named Robert Sarvis, who was able to gain 6.5% of the popular vote. Most of those votes came from Cuccinelli and thus guaranteed a McAuliffe victory.

I do not fault Sarvis or the Libertarian Party for competing in this election and trying to win, but people need to understand that most third party votes will come from the GOP, at least until third party candidates from the hard left (Socialist Party, Communist Party, etc.) start to become more relevant.

OK, now here’s the point… Do you not think that the democrats know what happened in Virginia? Do you not think they took notes?

Do you not think that Hillary Clinton will use this same strategy to win an election in 2016?

Of course she will use it. Some say that her and Bill invented it.

The 2016 race is shaping up to be more than Clinton versus “To Be Announced” Republican. It is shaping up to be Clinton and some third party useful idiot versus that unnamed Republican. And that is a combination that is going to be difficult, if not IMPOSSIBLE, to beat.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/2016-presidential-candidate-one-talking/#ixzz2m5plk7vk

America's Kristallnacht

November 19,2013 Was America’s Kristallnacht

History is almost always best understood in retrospect. Only on rare occasion are we able to see events and immediately identify them as historical milestones. Most of these are harbingers of trouble in the making.

On the night of November 9th and 10th,1938,following orders from their Fuhrer Adolph Hitler, Germany’s Nazis (who had steadily moved in a heretofore deliberate but low-key manner against the Jews) removed their masks and took their attacks to the streets. Under what had become the “Law of the land,” they burned the Jews’ synagogues, shops,and homes. They rounded up 30,000 Jewish citizens and put them in “legally maintained” death camps. Germany’s Nazis brushed aside all pretense of being civilized people who could be dealt with rationally.  This savage attack is called Kristallnacht, or the Night of Broken Glass.

After their Kristallnacht, the Nazis stepped up their attacks on Jews and anyone else they hated. No amount of “worldwide condemnation” swayed them in the slightest.

There was not a peep from Germany’s media, which by that time had either joined the Nazis, become frozen in fear, or had been murdered for opposing them.

The Nazi’s Kristallnacht led to the murder of those whose continued existence was deemed not cost-effective. Anyone with a physical or mental defect was sent to a camp by completely legal “Death Panels.” Although Hitler was given power by a bare plurality in 1933,after Kristallnacht, anyone who wasn’t with them was an enemy who had to be destroyed; no one but Nazis had any rights. Hitler ran the courts, had the guns, and did everything according to “the law of the land.” He was answerable to no one because all his moves were “legal.”

On November 19,2013,Americans experienced our “Night of Broken Glass” when the Democrats in the Senate decided that laws and procedures in place for hundreds of years are not as important as fulfilling the wishes of their Fuhrer. Their changes to our Senate’s rules means the Democrats have committed America’s Kristallnacht. They have cleared the way to use “the law of the land” to destroy our Constitution, which is the only barrier between us and 1938 Germany.

To ensure the success of his eugenic, fake “healthcare” program, Barack Obama can now follow the “law of the land” and thin us out by cutting off life support for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. He can import millions of new Democrat voters to take the place of “legally” eliminated Americans. They will vote to ensure that their own parasitical presence in America becomes “the law of the land” forever.  America’s Fuhrer can now use Hitler-like fiats to “LEGALLY” ascend to the position of dictator.

There are, of course, those who will laugh at this notion. But when you hear their cackling, ask them who has their allegiance–the Constitution or Barack Obama.  The answer will speak volumes.

http://www.exposeobama.com/2013/11/29/november-19-2013-was-americas-kristallnacht/

Today in History: Sand Creek Massacre in Colorado

On this day in 1864, peaceful Southern Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians are massacred by a band of Colonel John Chivington's Colorado volunteers at Sand Creek, Colorado.

The causes of the Sand Creek massacre were rooted in the long conflict for control of the Great Plains of eastern Colorado. The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 guaranteed ownership of the area north of the Arkansas River to the Nebraska border to the Cheyenne and Arapahoe. However, by the end of the decade, waves of Euro-American miners flooded across the region in search of gold in Colorado's Rocky Mountains, placing extreme pressure on the resources of the arid plains. By 1861, tensions between new settlers and Native Americans were rising. On February 8 of that year, a Cheyenne delegation, headed by Chief Black Kettle, along with some Arapahoe leaders, accepted a new settlement with the Federal government. The Native Americans ceded most of their land but secured a 600-square mile reservation and annuity payments. The delegation reasoned that continued hostilities would jeopardize their bargaining power. In the decentralized political world of the tribes, Black Kettle and his fellow delegates represented only part of the Cheyenne and Arapahoe tribes. Many did not accept this new agreement, called the Treaty of Fort Wise.

The new reservation and Federal payments proved unable to sustain the tribes. During the Civil War, tensions again rose and sporadic violence broke out between Anglos and Native Americans. In June 1864, John Evans, governor of the territory of Colorado, attempted to isolate recalcitrant Native Americans by inviting "friendly Indians" to camp near military forts and receive provisions and protection. He also called for volunteers to fill the military void left when most of the regular army troops in Colorado were sent to other areas during the Civil War. In August 1864, Evans met with Black Kettle and several other chiefs to forge a new peace, and all parties left satisfied. Black Kettle moved his band to Fort Lyon, Colorado, where the commanding officer encouraged him to hunt near Sand Creek. In what can only be considered an act of treachery, Chivington moved his troops to the plains, and on November 29, they attacked the unsuspecting Native Americans, scattering men, women, and children and hunting them down. The casualties reflect the one-sided nature of the fight. Nine of Chivington's men were killed; 148 of Black Kettle's followers were slaughtered, more than half of them women and children. The Colorado volunteers returned and killed the wounded, mutilated the bodies, and set fire to the village.

The atrocities committed by the soldiers were initially praised, but then condemned as the circumstances of the massacre emerged. Chivington resigned from the military and aborted his budding political career. Black Kettle survived and continued his peace efforts. In 1865, his followers accepted a new reservation in Indian Territory.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/-sand-creek-massacre?et_cid=57479712&et_rid=704938710&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.history.com%2fthis-day-in-history%2f-sand-creek-massacre

Gut Check: The Pro-Choice Revolution

Gut Check: The Pro-Choice Revolution by Greg Gutfield

. . . And then there's iTunes. Do not underestimate the freedoms we have gained from our iPods. Imagine, when you were young, someone told you that you can carry your entire record collection in a metal crate smaller than your front shirt pocket - and not only that - you can hold everyone else’s record collection too. And you can skirt around such noxious stuff like Dave Matthews or Maroon 5.

Now imagine if iTunes had been run by the government. This is how I see it:

To enjoy my recently repurchased Marshall Crenshaw's song "What Do You Dream Of", I'd have to pay for an additional 19 songs I do not want -- in order to help pay for someone else's desire to listen to Ke$ha. Or worse, Enya. The iPod would come with a mandated airbag, and it would be the size of a baby's head, and weigh 45 lbs. It would require that 34 percent of the music I purchase be polka. It would probably start overheating after an hour of use, break down, and give you thyroid cancer. 

But as a reasonably compensated guy, the government believes that my desires for my music would require purchasing other music I don't want, and I'd have to subsidize the musical choices belonging to some old guy I don’t even know. 

And chances are all the music would suck (think Dave Matthews and Maroon 5). It would all cost more and satisfy less -- which is what happens when choice is replaced by coercion.

My point: just as civilization is moving toward an endless fragmentation allowing for options beyond our wildest expectations, President Obama believes the opposite course is "the right thing to do.” It is his warped version of progress. It's no different than a young man staring at the advances in medicine and thinking, "No thanks, I'll take the newt's tail and onion powder for my cancer." Ancient Chinese secrets no longer are acceptable medicine -- except with Obamacare -- what’s retro is now progress.

It's like choosing to eat raw meat, even when you know fire’s been invented and works reasonably well under certain circumstances. That's what Obama is doing. He's staring at a Ferrari V4i, and thinking, "No thanks, I'll take this penny-farthing."

It's dumbfounding how dumb this is. How can you look at the pro-choice revolution -- reflected in Amazon, travel websites, online menus, and new car service apps, all wonderful things that expand freedom by expanding options -- and think, "We really need to limit what people can get with health care -- for that helps others."

Because, as you know, there are so many examples of how limiting your choice helps people.

Actually, we have NO examples regarding the efficacy of limiting choice. 

I see no way out of -- but only around -- big government. Meaning, choice means getting a doctor via an app -- and it's a guy who's willing to do the work for cash. The same way I see a driver picking you up after a text through an app -- a burgeoning market of doctors will develop who will see you on the sly, for a couple hundred bucks. It'll be like the back pages of the Village Voice, or Craig's list -- but they treat disease instead of give it to you.

So, you can be depressed over Obamacare, because it's worth being depressed about. But it can't win. Not against the human, creative mind and its desire for options. Sooner or later it will collapse, and then people will have the freedom to choose -- the way health care should have been from the start. In the meantime, I’m getting ribs. 

Greg Gutfeld is a mainstay on Fox News as co-host of The Five and the host of Red Eye. He's also the NY Times best-selling author of The Joy of Hate: How to Triumph over Whiners in the Age of Phony Outrage. His new book Not Cool, is now available for Pre-order. For more from Greg check out his official site or follow him on Twitter.

How to Achieve Self-Control and Emotional Stability

But does Odin really hear our prayers?

Does prayer help us resist temptation? Talking to God boosts self-control and emotional stability, claims study

• People turn to prayer 'as a coping response to the high demands in life' and are rewarded with an increased ability to resist temptation
• Previous findings have shown that when people try to control their emotions, the risk of aggressive outbursts and binge drinking rises

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515637/Does-prayer-help-resist-temptation-Talking-God-boosts-self-control-emotional-stability-claims-study.html#ixzz2m4PWjGLQ 

Convention of the States - Restoring Federalism

Reps from various states are meeting on December 7 to discuss amending the US Constitution to return power to the states stolen by the federal government.

Many are using Mark Levin’s 11 proposed Liberty Amendments as their guide to restoring sanity in Washington, DC . . .

Idaho lawmakers aware that there is interest at the state level in amending U.S. Constitution

State legislators from across the country will soon be gathering in northern Virginia to discuss the possibility of amending the U.S. Constitution. Some legislators in Idaho report that they’re aware of increased discussion about such an undertaking.

“I definitely heard about this idea, yes,” said Rep. Steven Harris, R-Meridian. Harris told IdahoReporter.com that he frequently receives email from constituents, many of whom reference “The Liberty Amendments,” a book from author and constitutional scholar Mark Levin. “People seem to be motivated by the book, but I get plenty of messages in all directions on this issue. Some that favor, and others that oppose the idea of amending the U.S. Constitution.”

Levin’s book details a specific section of the U.S. Constitution that he believes puts a check on big government. Article V provides two paths to amending the Constitution. One is through two-thirds of both chambers of the U.S. Congress, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states. The other begins at the state level, where two-thirds of all the legislatures ask Congress to call “a convention for proposing amendments.”

In the latter scenario, states would send delegates to this convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. Then, three-fourths of the states would have to ratify any amendments approved by the convention, either by a vote of the legislatures or through special ratifying conventions.

As a precursor to a “convention for proposing amendments,” Wisconsin state Rep. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, has undertaken the task of organizing a meeting of state legislators from across the nation for next weekend.

“On Dec. 7, we’ll be gathering at Mount Vernon, the home of President George Washington,” he explained, adding his intent for next month’s meeting is to “start a movement of the states that would give voters hope that the government still gets its power from them, and not the other way around.”

Kapenga said that the U.S. Constitution stipulates that there be a balance between the powers of the individual state governments and the federal government. “Few will deny that the balance of power has shifted significantly toward the federal government over the course of time,” he explained. “We have a broken system that transcends political parties and voters are frustrated.”

According to Kapenga, every elected member of every state legislature in the country received an email invitation to next month’s meeting at Mount Vernon. His goal is for each state to send a “bipartisan delegation” of three individuals. Harris says he doesn’t recall receiving an invitation, but finds the process to be intriguing.

Similarly, Sen. John Goedde, R-Coeur d’Alene, told IdahoReporter.com that he doesn’t recall receiving an invitation to the December meeting, but acknowledged that constituents contact him about the constitutional amendment process.

“I wouldn’t say that I’ve gotten much in the way of original material about this,” Goedde said. “Usually people are cutting and pasting somebody else’s information about it. But I think it’s important to maintain the rights that are entailed in the U.S. Constitution. I think we do serve people better in Boise than my counterparts do from Washington, D.C.”

Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, told IdahoReporter.com that he likes the idea of amending the U.S. Constitution, but not for the reasons that Kapenga suggests. “The dysfunction of the federal government is now so complete that our country faces some significant and very real dangers. For this reason I have come to favor an Article V constitutional convention.”

Burgoyne listed several types of amendments to the U.S. Constitution that he’d like to see: These include amendments to require balanced budgets except in times of war and other emergencies; a presidential line item budget veto; amendments recognizing the principle that it is not $1 one vote, but one person one vote; amendments to prevent the gerrymandering of congressional districts; and amendments to prevent political parties from exercising governmental-like powers to control voting and elections.

“I do not think that the relative constitutional powers of the states and the federal government are out of balance when the Constitution is properly read and applied,” Burgoyne said.

Kapenga says that about 90 state legislators have committed to attending next month’s meeting at Mount Vernon, and he is still hoping for more. He was uncertain, however, whether or not any Idaho legislators will be attending.

http://www.idahoreporter.com/2013/idaho-lawmakers-aware-interest-state-level-amending-u-s-constitution/