OK, I know you’re supposed to praise whoever died in a eulogy, say “he worked with kids, blah, blah.” :dubious: I honestly hate them, because I know the person usually wasn’t even close to the portrait they’re painting. However, is it possible to have an honest assessment of the person? “Yes, Patrick helped kids, but he also beat his wife.” Is there even a word for it? Has anyone ever witnessed one?
Its a really loaded question, depending upon your view of the finality of death.
How often do people “assigned” to handle death’s proceedings for a loved one result in an angst-ridden eulogy that highlights the negative acts of a person?
eulogy is from the Greek for “good words”. Arguably, to be a eulogy it by definition has to be nice to the deceased.
Of course, plenty of infamous people get unflattering obits when they die. My favorite
The eulogy I did for my grandmother was honest – but she was an extremely nice person.
Holy shit that was scathing! Like, I am so flabbergasted at how god awfully hated Nixon was that I can’t even think of anything else to say. Wow.
I gave a eulogy for a friend a few years ago - I tried to be as honest as possible, but you see, I greatly respected and admired the deceased, so honesty meant that it was a glowing eulogy.
Not eulogies, but there is a famous UK paper noted for it’s often scathingly honest/brutal obituaries. I forget the name.
If you talk about the dark side of the deceased, then the speech is no longer a “eulogy.” You would need to find another word for it.
Many of those who speak these days are more likely to describe some of the lighter moments in the person’s life. At my father’s funeral, the minister began with the whopper of a lie that my father told him when they first met. The family had not heard about this particular lie before, but it was very typical of Daddy to tease newcomers with wild stories about himself and my mother. The minister’s story broke us all up and was a real gift.
You can be honest about a person without revealing the negative side. Everyone knows that we are all human and make an ass of ourselves sometimes. But a funeral or a “Celebration of Life” is not the time to bring these hurtful things up again. Mostly funerals are to comfort those who loved the deceased.
A “dyslogy”?
I agree with Jormungandr. I dislike funerals where all you hear is “what a great bloke X was”. Everyone in the church knows it’s a one-sided picture.
I disagree. I sang at a funeral last Monday. The priest dwelt on all aspects of the deceased’s character, both good and bad. He made it clear that the deceased had not been perfect, and that it was therefore appropriate for the funeral mass, and the mourners’ prayers, to be offered for the repose of his soul.
A friend of mine used to be a funeral director. She told me years ago that she had heard all sorts of bad feelings vented at funerals she had conducted. She said a couple of them were jaw droppingly horrific.
My aunt died recently at a very advanced age. She could be a pain in the ass. This was described as loving to tease people and get her way. Accurate and appropriate.
I think I just came. Seriously, best piece of prose I’ve read in a while.
My grandfather used to donate money to the SPCA in Sacramento, and ran their used book sale fundraiser for several years. At his funeral, the head of the local Humane Society said that he used to call her “Jugs”, until she asked him not to.
That sounds like a pretty balanced portrait, to me.
Cunctator, it sounds like we are really talking about two different kinds of funerals. The one you describe is more formal and ritualized. Rituals can be a comfot too. You are right that the purpose is different. But the priest is not giving a eulogy if he includes the sins or even shortcomings of the deceased. It’s a matter of the definition of the word eulogy.
One thing that I don’t understand is that you said that the priest made it clear that the deceased had not been perfect. But you already knew that. That’s true for everyone. As you said, “Everyone in the church knows it’s a one-sided picture.” And wouldn’t you already know as a Catholic or Anglican to pray for the soul of the departed?
The Second Stone, the description of your aunt might be the one that the OP would question the integrity of. You say she was “a pain in the ass.” At the funeral, she was described as “loving to tease people and get her way.” It sounds like she was doing a lot more than “teasing” people. Yet you say that that was accurate.
I think I know what you are saying though. It was a nice way of saying that she was a pain in the ass.
Throwing family dirt around isn’t required for an honest eulogy. Not lying about their accomplishments is. Most eulogies I’ve heard are honest. I have heard dishonest things the person did brought up and then the life lesson they learned from it.
*“Honesty is the best policy;” but he who acts on that principle is not an honest man. *~~Richard Whately, “On Some Obstacles to the Attainment of Truth, and to its Progress in the World”
Don’t lie, but don’t tell the whole truth. ~~Baltasar Gracián, Maxim 181, “The Art of Worldly Wisdom” (1647)
Here’s the eulogy I gave for my grandmother, who died two years ago at the age of 97:
See if you can tell what we thought of her.
A little bit different from what you asked for, but what about the funeral of singer G G Allin?
Again, no mention of a eulogy, but it seems that this person’s funeral didn’t make any attempt to gloss over his human flaws.
Of course, you could be subtle about it…