Red at a Catholic funeral
Briar Rose
>I attended a Catholic funeral mass today and was surprised to be following
>an elderly woman into the church who was wearing a bright red coat. I was
>even more astonished to see that in the congregation of several hundred
>there were at least eight women, including the widow of the deceased, who
>were wearing bright red jackets or coats. All the women were elderly, in
>their 70's or 80's, and all were unaccompanied by men.
>
>Not being Catholic, I fantasized that this was perhaps a symbol of
>widowhood at a funeral. I didn't ask about it at the funeral and have
>found no reference to this practice in an internet search.
>
>Is this indeed some new symbolism or were there simply coincidentally several
>women in attendance with non-traditional funeral clothing?
There's no RC symbolism that involves women
(elderly or otherwise) dressing in red at
funerals that I'm aware of.
I can think of several explanations:
a. It was a chilly day, and these ladies were
wearing their only overcoat. When they purchased
these coats, they were thinking "I'll need some
cheering up on cold days; red is a nice, cheery
color!" and not "oh, dear, I may have to wear this
to a funeral."
b. Similar line of reasoning when buying one's only
dressy outfit; "red is pretty and a nice all-purpose
color, with a bit of punch!"
c. Misplaced but goodhearted desire to add a
bright note to the proceedings.
d. In transit to or from work, which required
one to wear a red coat. As they were elderly
ladies, possibly volunteer work as docents at
a local museum, or as hospital visitors?
:) Connie-Lynne
--
If you know you can take care of a goat, you can go ahead, but
I won't recommend it as a pet. A dog, you can leave at home;
if you leave a goat somewhere, people will look at it like,
"what is that goat doing here?" -- Nicole, "the N"
Telepath
Another possibility: red had some personal significance in these old
women's relationship with the deceased, and we have no way of knowing
what it was.
Regards
Telepath
Ericka Kammerer
> I can think of several explanations:
> a. It was a chilly day, and these ladies were
> wearing their only overcoat. When they purchased
> these coats, they were thinking "I'll need some
> cheering up on cold days; red is a nice, cheery
> color!" and not "oh, dear, I may have to wear this
> to a funeral."
I think this is most likely, though of course one
doesn't know for sure. I'm not aware of red being a traditional
color in this situation. I think many people think of their
clothing as significant, but not so much their outerwear.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Uncle Mandrake
wrote:
> I attended a Catholic funeral mass...
> an elderly woman into the church who was wearing a bright red coat...
> there were at least eight women, including the widow of the deceased, who
> were wearing bright red jackets or coats. All the women were elderly, in
> their 70's or 80's, and all were unaccompanied by men.
[snip]
> Is this indeed some new symbolism or were there simply coincidentally several
> women in attendance with non-traditional funeral clothing?
An 80 y.o. woman was <thinks> 44 y.o. during the Summer of Love
(1967) and is quite capable of having adopted the careless "just
be yourself" attitude that seems to have flowered especially
luxuriantly around then. We're still pulling up stray seedlings
of this little flower!
Some people never fully grow up, iow.
From "Uncle Mandrake's Rules for Growing Up and Being a Real
Adult":
Rule #1732: Be sure that your wardrobe includes clothing suitable
for wearing to funerals, weddings, and trials. Bright colors are
out, as are revealing cuts. Black and navy blue are in, as is
conservative tailoring. Check the fit from time to time and
replace things if you grow or shrink significantly.
--
Uncle Mandrake
Victoria, BC, Canada
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
http://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/online/teen/funeralinterview5.htm
Ericka Kammerer
> Rule #1732: Be sure that your wardrobe includes clothing suitable
> for wearing to funerals, weddings, and trials. Bright colors are
> out, as are revealing cuts. Black and navy blue are in, as is
> conservative tailoring. Check the fit from time to time and
> replace things if you grow or shrink significantly.
Very true, but I'm thinking it probably wasn't a
coincidence that the women who did this were older women--
perhaps those living on a fixed income for whom multiple
winter coats might be a luxury they can't afford. They
might have chosen to have only a black coat if they could
only have one, but that might have had some disadvantages
(not as visible walking in the evening, red coats were on
sale, etc.)
Best wishes,
Ericka
kay w
>> I can think of several explanations:
>> a. It was a chilly day, and these ladies were
>> wearing their only overcoat. When they purchased
>> these coats, they were thinking "I'll need some
>> cheering up on cold days; red is a nice, cheery
>> color!" and not "oh, dear, I may have to wear this
>> to a funeral."
While somber colors are traditional, of course, for mourning, lately I'm seeing
a trend toward lighter, brighter colors, when the funeral is that of an elderly
person who lived a good full life, and the services are more a celebration of
the life lived than a mourning of the passing or lost potential.
--
South Africa followed "Apart Hide," a policy that separated people by skin
color.
Non Campus Mentis
Address munged. AOL isn't necessarily comatose.
Banty
I vote for mutual membership in some kind of club, and the ladies were
recognizing the departed as a member also.
Banty
meirman
Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> posted:
Perhaps they were royalty.
>Best wishes,
>Ericka
Meirman
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.
meirman
tomca...@yaNOSPAMhoo.com posted:
>Was the deceased Chinese?
>
>http://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/online/teen/funeralinterview5.htm
So what is the difference between bowing and kowtow? I may need to
know this.
aMAZon
Karen wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:31:20 +0000, kay w wrote:
>
>
>>Previously, Briar Rose said:
>>
>>
>>>>I can think of several explanations:
>>>> a. It was a chilly day, and these ladies were
>>>> wearing their only overcoat. When they purchased these coats,
>>>> they were thinking "I'll need some cheering up on cold days; red
>>>> is a nice, cheery color!" and not "oh, dear, I may have to wear
>>>> this to a funeral."
>>>>
>>While somber colors are traditional, of course, for mourning, lately I'm
>>seeing a trend toward lighter, brighter colors, when the funeral is that
>>of an elderly person who lived a good full life, and the services are
>>more a celebration of the life lived than a mourning of the passing or
>>lost potential.
>>
>
>
>
> Both of these, and the other suggestions, make sense, thanks.
>
> The funeral was for a 90 yo man who was a life long devout Catholic and
> the vast majority of people wore conservative black, gray, brown, etc. It
> was however more of a celebratory mass than a mourning one.
FWIW, that's the way most funeral masses are supposed to be. Instead of
"Dies Irae" (day of dread, day of judgement), they're calling funeral
liturgies "Mass of the Resurrection". It's a different attitude
liturgically. E.g., what color vestment was the priest wearing?
Used to be, the priest would wear black. Now, the chausable (the outer
liturgical garment) is usually white.
>
> The actual most plausible explanation is that I had way too much time to
> look around and speculate about things that had no explanation or meaning
> <g>.
>
>
> Karen
>
Possible.
Around here, if I saw specific coats, I'd just expect that with the
weather we've been having, it'd be the warmest coat the person owns.
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> So what is the difference between bowing and kowtow? I may need to
> know this.
In a kowtow, you kneel and touch your forehead to the ground.
In between the bow and the kowtow is a salaam.
Uncle Mandrake
wrote:
> So what is the difference between bowing and kowtow? I may need to
> know this.
Bowing is bending from the waist while standing up. Kowtowing is
getting down on your knees and banging your forehead on the
floor.
You may now kowtow to Uncle.
Diedrich Kohl
>> The funeral was for a 90 yo man who was a life long devout Catholic and
>> the vast majority of people wore conservative black, gray, brown, etc. It
>> was however more of a celebratory mass than a mourning one.
> FWIW, that's the way most funeral masses are supposed to be. Instead of
> "Dies Irae" (day of dread, day of judgement), they're calling funeral
> liturgies "Mass of the Resurrection". It's a different attitude
> liturgically. E.g., what color vestment was the priest wearing?
>
> Used to be, the priest would wear black. Now, the chausable (the outer
> liturgical garment) is usually white.
Since when has the religious perspective changed? Has it not always
been the case that they regard (and express) the death as something
along the lines of "Of course we're sad for our own loss, but weep not,
for she has now gone to her heavenly reward"? It seems to me that that
is what I've heard at any one that I've ever attended.
In any case, conservative attire for attendees is a social custom of
solemnity and respect, not a religious custom, and afaIk has never
been dependant on the presumed posthumous transformation of the
deceased, however joyous or otherwise.
===== Rick =====
Diedrich Kohl
> While somber colors are traditional, of course, for mourning, lately I'm seeing
> a trend toward lighter, brighter colors, when the funeral is that of an elderly
> person who lived a good full life, and the services are more a celebration of
> the life lived than a mourning of the passing or lost potential.
My guess is that the trend is more a case of the GENERAL increasingly-
popular attitude that funerals are "happy celebrations of life" rather
than "sad mournings of death". (Which MM deplores, btw.)
Even if you're right (could be, I dunno) that it tends to occur more
with older "they've lived long enough now anyway" deceaseds, it's very
presumptuous and inappropriate for any attender to take any position
about relative degree of sadness/bereavement depending on the specific
circumstances of the death including age. And that's essentially what
they're doing by making the attire distinctions that you describe. Her
18-year-old son died, how tragic, I'll wear black; her 75-year-old mom
died, how not-so-bad, I won't bother, I'll wear red. It's in exactly
the same category as making such an explicit "Well, she's had a good
full life" ["so it ain't so bad"] remark to the bereaved.
===== Rick =====
Diedrich Kohl
> I attended a Catholic funeral mass today and was surprised to be following
> an elderly woman into the church who was wearing a bright red coat. I was
> even more astonished to see that in the congregation of several hundred
> there were at least eight women, including the widow of the deceased, who
> were wearing bright red jackets or coats. All the women were elderly, in
> their 70's or 80's, and all were unaccompanied by men.
>
> Not being Catholic, I fantasized that this was perhaps a symbol of
> widowhood at a funeral. I didn't ask about it at the funeral and have
> found no reference to this practice in an internet search.
>
> Is this indeed some new symbolism or were there simply coincidentally several
> women in attendance with non-traditional funeral clothing?
It's a practice for some Catholics to wear bright, lively colours at
funerals. Same with Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, Wiccans, Baptists, etc.
As scripture says, there are many rooms in the lord's mansion, and all
of them have at least some tacky occupants.
Or, don't forget the possibility that these women were Satanists. Just
because they attended a Catholic funeral, it doesn't necessarily mean
that they're Catholic. See other thread re cross-religion attendance
at life-events.
===== Rick =====
Gene Wirchenko
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 04:47:36 -0500, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>> So what is the difference between bowing and kowtow? I may need to
>> know this.
>
>Bowing is bending from the waist while standing up. Kowtowing is
>getting down on your knees and banging your forehead on the
>floor.
>
>You may now kowtow to Uncle.
OK, but only once. It would be nine times if you were Emperor
Mandrake.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
meirman
totototo...@mail.pacificcoast.invalid (Uncle Mandrake) posted:
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 04:47:36 -0500, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>> So what is the difference between bowing and kowtow? I may need to
>> know this.
>
>Bowing is bending from the waist while standing up. Kowtowing is
>getting down on your knees and banging your forehead on the
>floor.
>
>You may now kowtow to Uncle.
Fat chance.
Thanks to both of you.
Ericka Kammerer
> Since when has the religious perspective changed? Has it not always
> been the case that they regard (and express) the death as something
> along the lines of "Of course we're sad for our own loss, but weep not,
> for she has now gone to her heavenly reward"? It seems to me that that
> is what I've heard at any one that I've ever attended.
I have certainly seen actual liturgical changes in some
funeral services (focusing the service more on a celebration of
life and reunion with God than on bereavement and judgement)
and also in how people approach and celebrate funerals. I
think that's been a very real trend. I'm not sure it's a *good*
one, but I think it's very real in many churches. Actually,
I have less issue with the liturgical stance, but sometimes
I think the change in customs toward more rejoicing and less
grieving sometimes sets a tough standard for the bereaved.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Matthew Hunt
Diedrich Kohl <dri...@telussWith1S.net> wrote:
> My guess is that the trend is more a case of the GENERAL increasingly-
> popular attitude that funerals are "happy celebrations of life" rather
> than "sad mournings of death". (Which MM deplores, btw.)
Would you please clarify: Does MM deplore "sad mournings of death" or
the shift toward "happy celebrations of life?"
Diedrich Kohl
> Diedrich Kohl wrote:
I was addressing specifically her comment re Catholic funeral services;
but your generalization is fine too.
I see that I've mixed up two different concepts: beliefs/perspective
vs presentation/focus in services. I was saying that I didn't think
that the former had changed; but that doesn't seem to be a very useful
point, and she was referring to the latter. As for the latter, I was
saying that from my observations, it hadn't changed either. (At least
as best as I can figure from my confused comments! :) Maybe I don't
have a large-enough sample to go by, and maybe I'm not old enough to
recall any "previous approach". I'm certainly aware that the form/
content/focus of services has evolved wrt various things over time.
Of more interest ...
I don't think there's any question about the general trend that you
mention. MM has commented on it too. I agree with what you say; I also
question its appropriateness. As well, I don't think that incorporating
positive commemoration/celebration of the deceased's life is mutually-
exclusive to the traditional grieving/bereavement dynamic, and is a
fine thing to include -- even some humourous anecdotes. But there's a
big difference between that and "celebrating a death" -- and I think
that the trend does involve not a small amount of this sort of "Don't
be sad!" notion. As you say, correctly IMO, it's a hard standard for
the bereaved to embrace. Along those lines, probably part of the trend
is a sense that they're SUPPOSED TO view it that way, whether from a
secular ("life celebration") and/or a religious ("life-phase promotion
celebration") perspective.
===== Rick =====
Diedrich Kohl
> Diedrich Kohl <dri...@telussWith1S.net> wrote:
>> My guess is that the trend is more a case of the GENERAL increasingly-
>> popular attitude that funerals are "happy celebrations of life" rather
>> than "sad mournings of death". (Which MM deplores, btw.)
> Would you please clarify: Does MM deplore "sad mournings of death" or
> the shift toward "happy celebrations of life?"
The latter: the trend towards turning deaths/funerals into happy
"celebrations" and denying the mourning.
===== Rick =====
Ericka Kammerer
> I see that I've mixed up two different concepts: beliefs/perspective
> vs presentation/focus in services. I was saying that I didn't think
> that the former had changed; but that doesn't seem to be a very useful
> point, and she was referring to the latter. As for the latter, I was
> saying that from my observations, it hadn't changed either. (At least
> as best as I can figure from my confused comments! :) Maybe I don't
> have a large-enough sample to go by, and maybe I'm not old enough to
> recall any "previous approach". I'm certainly aware that the form/
> content/focus of services has evolved wrt various things over time.
I think things also vary from denomination to denomination
and from region to region and maybe even from parish to parish.
> I don't think there's any question about the general trend that you
> mention. MM has commented on it too. I agree with what you say; I also
> question its appropriateness. As well, I don't think that incorporating
> positive commemoration/celebration of the deceased's life is mutually-
> exclusive to the traditional grieving/bereavement dynamic, and is a
> fine thing to include -- even some humourous anecdotes. But there's a
> big difference between that and "celebrating a death" -- and I think
> that the trend does involve not a small amount of this sort of "Don't
> be sad!" notion. As you say, correctly IMO, it's a hard standard for
> the bereaved to embrace. Along those lines, probably part of the trend
> is a sense that they're SUPPOSED TO view it that way, whether from a
> secular ("life celebration") and/or a religious ("life-phase promotion
> celebration") perspective.
I don't have as much heartburn over the liturgical changes.
It seems to me that it makes a certain amount of sense from the
Christian religious perspective to focus a bit more on the "going
home" aspect than on the "judgement day" aspect, and I think that
can be done without necessarily taking the next step and suggesting
that the bereaved should get happy and get over it. I think the
reason that there's more and more movement on the secular end is
that people tend to be very uncomfortable with grieving and sadness,
so others *do* want the bereaved to hurry up and get over it so
they can stop being uncomfortable. I think the religious and
secular motivations come from different perspectives and needn't
go hand-in-hand.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Diedrich Kohl
> I think things also vary from denomination to denomination
Just a semantic point, but I'd include such variances under the same
basic umbrella as variances between religions (among which we wouldn't
even expect necessarily to see consistency). E.g., Ukranian Catholic
vs Roman Catholic.
> and from region to region and maybe even from parish to parish.
No doubt true wrt some things. Probably not so wrt any "important"
doctrinal issue, though. E.g., I'm sure there's nowhere where women
are permitted in the Catholic priesthood!
As I mentioned previously, though, other religions do endorse a greater
degree of such local autonomy.
>> I don't think there's any question about the general trend that you
>> mention. MM has commented on it too. I agree with what you say; I also
>> question its appropriateness. As well, I don't think that incorporating
>> positive commemoration/celebration of the deceased's life is mutually-
>> exclusive to the traditional grieving/bereavement dynamic, and is a
>> fine thing to include -- even some humourous anecdotes. But there's a
>> big difference between that and "celebrating a death" -- and I think
>> that the trend does involve not a small amount of this sort of "Don't
>> be sad!" notion. As you say, correctly IMO, it's a hard standard for
>> the bereaved to embrace. Along those lines, probably part of the trend
>> is a sense that they're SUPPOSED TO view it that way, whether from a
>> secular ("life celebration") and/or a religious ("life-phase promotion
>> celebration") perspective.
Oops, possible ambiguity: By "SUPPOSED TO view it that way ... from a
... religious ... perspective", I meant by the general social trend,
not by religion expectations. I.e., there's a notion that people ought
to be "celebratory", including a religious angle if applicable.
> I don't have as much heartburn over the liturgical changes.
> It seems to me that it makes a certain amount of sense from the
> Christian religious perspective to focus a bit more on the "going
> home" aspect than on the "judgement day" aspect, and I think that
> can be done without necessarily taking the next step and suggesting
> that the bereaved should get happy and get over it. I think the
> reason that there's more and more movement on the secular end is
> that people tend to be very uncomfortable with grieving and sadness,
> so others *do* want the bereaved to hurry up and get over it so
> they can stop being uncomfortable. I think the religious and
> secular motivations come from different perspectives and needn't
> go hand-in-hand.
Oh, I agree. I don't think that religions or any liturgical refocus is
responsible for this; I think it's basically a secular social-attitude
phenomenon. Nor do I think that any religious focus on the "going home"
aspect (as you put it) need imply a "Don't be sad; celebrate!" tone --
any more than does the inclusion of positive memorialization of the
deceased's life. Indeed, as I said, any of the Catholic services that
I've attended did make clear reference to this religious aspect; but I
didn't consider the overall nature of the service to have crossed into
the questionable territory, departing from the "traditional" tone of a
funeral service. The general sense that I got was a recognition of the
reality of sadness and grieving, but a reminder of the other aspect to
be kept in mind (though not as if people were expected to be so purely
spiritual as to manage to be happy and celebratory about it considering
their "imperfect mortal selves"). Given the religious beliefs about it,
it hardly seems unreasonable to speak of such.
I thought you were referring just to the questionable secular trend,
so that's what I was commenting on there.
I think this all started out by my questioning aMAZon's comment that
the Catholic funeral service has changed. I suppose my bottom-line
point is: to whatever extent it has changed, I don't think it's in any
significant way wrt this questionable trend (which seemed to be the
main point of interest -- or at least I thought it was).
===== Rick =====
Ericka Kammerer
> I think this all started out by my questioning aMAZon's comment that
> the Catholic funeral service has changed. I suppose my bottom-line
> point is: to whatever extent it has changed, I don't think it's in any
> significant way wrt this questionable trend (which seemed to be the
> main point of interest -- or at least I thought it was).
I think we're in basic agreement, except that I think the
changes in the Catholic service (and in the services of some other
Christian churches as well) *have* changed significantly in tone,
focus, and even (in some cases) in liturgy. As aMAZon pointed out,
the Catholic funeral liturgy was very somber, with black vestments
and mournful chants, including the Dies Irae ("Day of Wrath," which
reminded folk that they were going to die too and they'd better
get prepared for judgement). Now the Dies Irae is no longer included
and white vestments are used as symbols of the Resurrection. This
is a significant change, resulting from the Second Vatican Council.
I rather suspect that the feeling at an older Catholic funeral would
be quite different than at a contemporary one! But moving from
"doom and gloom" to a more hopeful outlook isn't the same as
telling the bereaved to get over it already.
That said, I don't think the religious changes are inappropriate
or excessive or inherently disrespectful of the bereaved's need to
grieve. I think those criticisms are better levied at the questionable
social trend, which just happens to have some points in common with
the religious trend.
Best wishes,
Ericka
aMAZon
Diedrich Kohl wrote:
> I think this all started out by my questioning aMAZon's comment that
> the Catholic funeral service has changed. I suppose my bottom-line
> point is: to whatever extent it has changed, I don't think it's in any
> significant way wrt this questionable trend (which seemed to be the
> main point of interest -- or at least I thought it was).
>
> ===== Rick =====
Hmm. From my experience "in the pew" at various funerals and Masses of
RFememberance, when I was a kid (pre-Vatican II), the priest's chausable
(the outer liturgical garment) would be black, and the one in our
parish featured skulls in the design. Now, the chausables are white --
the same color that we use for the Easter Mass, for the samr reason.
I think the focus of the liturgy has changed, just based on that
observation.
My MIL works for a funeral director; the stories she tells about
funerary customs in different groups would rival Sheherazade's. Many
times, our reaction is a simple "What *were* they thinking?"