>Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:38:38 +1000
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>Organization: South Yarra Community Baptist Church
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>Subject: Re: Praying for animals
>From: Nathan Nettleton <[log in to unmask]>
>To: list Liturgy <[log in to unmask]>
>X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave liturgy' to [log in to unmask]
>Sender: [log in to unmask]
>

Well, let's see if I've got this mail thing right this time! =8-)


>Doug Short and George Hoelzeman write expressing a similar view. In
George's words:
>
>> the very idea of creating "liturgies for
>> animals" is an absurd insult to the meaning and function of any true
>> liturgy, which in essence is a transcending (Sacramental) engagement 
>> with God.
>
>While I agree that the purpose of a true liturgy is a transcending engagement
>with God, I would argue that you have to engage with God from somewhere. If
>the engagement with God is to be both glorifying to God and transfiguring for
>the worshippers, then it must take seriously both God and the situation of
the
>worshippers. 

Agree wholeheartedly there, esp. the last line.

>
>If we are grieving, then we worship God from within our grief, not by
>pretending to be something we are not. When we offer ourselves to God, we
>offer our whole selves, not some disconnected spiritual bit that is fractured
>off from the ordinary details of our lives. A culture of worship that asks
>people to put aside the struggles, pains and even joys of their mundane lives
>is a denial of the incarnation of God and conveys an image of a God who is
>totally self-absorbed and unconcerned with the details of our lives.
>

Could not have said it better myself!  A cursory exploraton of the Psalmns
will indicate the totality of personal engagement in the Divnine/Human
encounter.  

>I'm not saying that this is what Doug and George are doing, but it is an
>example of what can happen when one goes to far down the road they are
>advocating. 

hmmmmmmmm - wonder how slippery the slope really is.  Admittedly, even in
my most obtuse moments, I cannot deny that in a worst case senario bad
liturgy does not become Marx's notorious "opiate of the masses" (no pun
intended).  Even in the best of circumstances, liturgy can often be a feel
good escape from reality.  At the same time, I would argue that one of the
functions of liturgy is (and you eloquently state) a means of coping and
coming to terms with suffering, hardship, etc.  

What I think is really happening is that they are misunderstanding
>what I was saying. I do not create "liturgies for animals" as George
suggests.
>I do create "liturgies for people who love animals". I don't really create
>funeral liturgies for dead people either. I create funeral liturgies for
>bereaved people. It is always my intention that those liturgies honour God
and
>honour the all that was godly in those who have died, but every funeral also
>has a pastoral function to help facilitate a healthy journey through a
>grieving process for those who have been bereaved. A funeral liturgy that
>fails to do that also thereby fails to honour God.

well said - still, I have deep reservations about elevating a funeral for
grieving dog owners to the status of greiving relations of a human.  The
implication is that the dog has equal status with humanity, which I reject
absolutely and unconditionally.  Sure, one can justify the pastoral
concerns for the humans "berieved" by the loss of a pet, and admittedly
some humans contribute less to their compatriots than most dogs I know, but
there is still something to be said for the inate dignity of humanity
which, IMHO, is compromised when one extends the ritual benefits of the
Church to an animal.  I do recognize the need for compassion and pastoral
concern for the family who has lost a pet.  Still, if such a "service" is
to be held, hopefully it would not recreate or parallel the rites used with
humans.

While the Church has always recognized the principles of totallity, and the
value and sanctity of even objects in the service to God (and even uses
rituals to bless/protect those objects/creatures, even in these rites there
is no confusion between the subject's role of service to humanity, and the
innate dignity of humans themselves.  

Furthermore, I would also point out that in Christian tradition (and the
tradition of most other religions) funeral rites are seen as beneficial to
the deceased as well as the living.  I would even go so far as to argue
that the position that the funeral rites are exclusively psychological
tools used to ease the grieving process buys into a rationalistic,
post-Enlightenment mentality which denys the transcendent nature of human
existence.  Even the words of the ancient (and many contemporary) Christian
funeral rites focus on the passage from this world to the next and the
happy repose of the soul.  Thus, the ancient Catholic Requiem "Eternal
rest, grant unto him/her, Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him/her
...).  While not denying the benefit to the berieved, to reject the
peinciple that prayer extends to the deceased is a tactit denial of the
continued unity with the deceased.  This of course, leads to issues of
ecclesiology and ontology which perhaps lead us down another trail.  And
some of these principles would be rejected by several froms of contemporary
Christianity.

>
>George's "Liturgy for the burial of a dog" is very cleaver, and funny in the
>right context, but I hope he would have the pastoral sensitivity not to read
>it out to a blind person who had just lost their fifteen year old guide dog.
>Surely George is not suggesting that that person's grief is merely an
>indication that they need therapy!??

Glad you enjoyed it! =8-)  When I said "therapy" I was primarily thinking
of individuals like a young woman I knew a few years ago who was incapable
of developing human relationships as deep and committed as the one she had
with her cat.  This person did need therapy as her relational problems
stemmed from years of parental neglect, cult involvement and drug abuse.  
>
>If God declared that all of creation was good and pleasing to God, who am
I or
>Doug or George to decree which aspects of it are worthy of inclusion in
our prayers?


To reiterate, there should be a fundamental difference in the way we pray
for objects and animals as opposed to humans.  This is clearly understood
in the various prayers and blessings for tools, crops, animals, pets, rain,
etc. which have been in long use by many Christian communions.  


>Finally, if you are responding to this or other posts, please don't just hit
>reply, as that just sends it to the original sender. Address it to the
list to
>make sure we can all participate in the discussion.

hopefully I did this time. =8-))


In nomine Domine

George R. Hoelzeman, Obl.S.B.




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%