By Lizette Larson-Miller, January 5, 2026
This post was updated on January 19, 2026 to clarify that the new Liturgical Press edition of the Order of Christian Funerals (OCF) does not reflect a change to the OCF, but is Liturgical Press’ most recent edition that includes the full rites in both English and Spanish, and emendations to reflect the language of the Roman Missal.
On 27 October 2025, the Bishop of Youngstown, Ohio (David J. Bonnar) published a decree announcing that funeral visitations in the diocese would no longer be allowed in churches, effective December 1st. “I hereby decree that funeral visitation will no longer be permitted in church buildings or facilities owned and operated by the Diocese of Youngtown…” (https://doy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/10-28-25-Decree-Funeral-Rite.pdf) It seems an odd restriction, especially in light of the discernable decline in Roman Catholic funerals being celebrated in the United States:
“From 2001 to 2024, while the total Catholic population rose 9.3%, from 60.6 million to 66.3 million, the reported number of Catholic funerals (funeral Masses, funeral services and burials combined) fell 30.3%, from 503,733 to 350,755.” (Joseph Pronechen, https://www.ncregister.com/news/why-are-fewer-catholics-having-church-funerals )
Would we not want to encourage funerals to be in church (in all three of the main parts of the Order of Christian Funerals, vigil, funeral mass, committal)? From this author’s perspective the much more concerning challenge is the replacement of the beautifully shaped OCF by insidious “Celebrations of Life”, which reflect on the life that was, rather than commending the deceased into the life to come with God? Perhaps looking first at Bp Bonnar’s reasons for this prohibition, then the shape of the current OCF along with liturgy and popular religiosity, we might have a sense of where things have gone off track.
First – why this prohibition in the Diocese of Youngstown? In the decree, the bishop and his councils note that first, “more families are requesting to hold visitation for loved ones in church” which conflicts with “the sacred space…compromised by noise and activity unbecoming of the reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament.” In addition, the church building is “where the community gathers to hear the word of God, to pray together, receive the sacraments and to celebrate the Holy Eucharist.” Finally, the decree reminds that “the church building is both the house of God on earth and the house fit for prayer intended for divine worship and prayer.” (https://doy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/10-28-25-Decree-Funeral-Rite.pdf).
It appears from the decree that the Diocese of Youngstown is bucking the trend toward fewer church funerals, instead being over-run with visitations. Why might that be? In the letter accompanying the decree, it is acknowledged that more families are asking for the use of the church building. The reasons might include a lack of space in their homes, the expense of a funeral home ‘wake’ rather than the church, and the advantage of having the multiple “stations” of the order of funerals in the same place (the advantage being an ease for those attending the vigil and the funeral mass the next day).
In browsing the diocesan website, however, one catches a glimpse of what might be another potential factor. There is a substantial list of merged parishes (already and in the immediate future), alongside a number of parishes closing, buildings to be used only on occasions, and shrinking attendance in some parishes. As with many other dioceses, the merging of parishes is often a result of fewer priests and deacons who are more extensively shared by Catholic communities made up of several parishes. In these cases, it might be easier for those presiding to have different ‘liturgies’ centralized in one place.
Second – the ‘order’ of the Order of Christian Funerals Part of the reason the Diocese of Youngstown is arguing for removing the visitation of the dead from the church building is the structure of the Order of Christian Funerals. The decree states that the OCF serves as a guide for the funeral, including “the prayers to be prayed during the vigil, along with the Transfer of the Body to the Church…” and that the OCF “does not envision a viewing in the church building.” (https://doy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/10-28-25-Decree-Funeral-Rite.pdf).
But, the structure of the first “liturgy” of the OCF is not quite that clear or restrictive. The Vigil is important as the first of the three primary liturgies of funerals. Using the paragraph numbers of the current order, “The Vigil is the principal celebration of the Christian community during the time before the funeral liturgy,” (#45) and may be celebrated “in the home of the deceased, in the funeral home, parlor or chapel of rest, or in some other suitable place. It may also be celebrated in the church, but at a time well before the funeral liturgy, so that the funeral liturgy will not be lengthy and the liturgy of the word repetitious.” (#55) The restriction is not on having a vigil in the church, it is having it immediately before the funeral mass.
There are two models of the vigil, a liturgy of the word (found at nos. 54-97) or the model of the office for the dead (nos. 348-395). Either option may be celebrated and either may be used in conjunction with the reception of the body at the church (the reception coming first and replacing the introductory rites, (no. 45 and nos. 82-97) or, for the office of the dead, (no. 352).
Either model may begin with the reception of the body into the church, therefore assuming (in these models) that the body is present and the prayer follows, whether this is following the pattern and theology of either the liturgy of the word or of the office. When this is in the church, of course, the reception of the body into the church presumes a closed coffin (holy water, baptismal pall, placing of a Christian symbol on top of the coffin).
If “visitation” assumes an open coffin (before the beginning of the funeral mass with reception of the body) this may be in a side chapel or other space. Perhaps here, the lack of definition for “visitation” may be part of the confusion, especially as the official rites do not forbid a photograph of the deceased near the coffin (or next to the urn). But either way, not allowing people to approach the coffin or urn to offer their private prayers (whether called “visitation” or not) seems unduly restrictive.
The vigil (also referred to as “the wake”) is a “keeping watch” with the family of the deceased. The vigil introduction notes that the parish community participates “in the vigil as a sign of concern and support for the mourners.” In the abundance of written material around the OCF, it has been noted many times that, unlike the funeral mass, the wake is an opportunity to reflect on the faith life of the deceased person. “For the bereaved, their narration of the deceased’s ‘story’ is a recollection in the face of loss by which they create a memory.” (William Cieslak, Console One Another). Both versions of the vigil liturgy officially allow for eulogies (“a member or a friend of the family may speak in remembrance of the deceased” prior to the concluding rite, no. 96 & no. 366) which is this ‘story’ of the deceased and their faith journey.
The bishop is correct in that visitation is not specifically mentioned within the wake or vigil, but it is often presumed. Perhaps what has become confused are parties best held at home or other places and the human remembering and storytelling that are essential dimensions of this first funeral rite. One wonders why the pattern of using church buildings for concerts in which the blessed sacrament is removed from the tabernacle and put in another tabernacle would not simply be applied here? In other words, would it not be more pastorally conscientious to remove the consecrated bread and wine from the tabernacle if that is the offending juxtaposition, or to offer some brief instructions to those leading the visitation on prayer and eulogies, rather than forbidding visitations altogether?
Third, how are devotions, popular religiosity, and popular piety part of the funeral? “…when a member of Christ’s Body dies, the faithful are called to a ministry of consolation to those who have suffered the loss of one whom they love…the Church calls each member of Christ’s body…to participate in the ministry of consolation: to care for the dying, to pray for the dead, to comfort those who mourn.” (no 8) We often speak of the three essential theologies of funeral liturgies: to praise and worship the living God; to commend the dead to God; and to console the mourners. “The community’s principal involvement in the ministry of consolation is expressed in its active participation in the celebration of the funeral rites, particularly the vigil for the deceased, the funeral liturgy, and the rite of committal.” (no. 11)
Proximity and presence are essential to sacramental rites and liturgical rituals. These are lessons we learned during the pandemic when we were kept apart because of COVID 19. A lot of remedial sacramental theology had to be restored and articulated to highlight what are ‘ordinary’ rites, liturgy and rituals in person, versus the ‘extraordinary’ rites of virtual presence. We also remembered that much popular piety is about proximity and presence. Pope John Paul II’s teachings of September 21, 2001 have formed the Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy. He began by reminding us that:
Genuine forms of popular piety, expressed in a multitude of different ways, derives from the faith and, therefore, must be valued and promoted. Such authentic expressions of popular piety are not at odds with the centrality of the Sacred Liturgy. Rather, in promoting the faith of the people, who regard popular piety as a natural religious expression, they predispose the people for the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries. (para 4)
Are not the actions of the gathered community at a visitation prior to the funeral mass in line with the vigil, its liturgical and ritual shape, and the stories of the deceased that mark this first step between death and the funeral mass? Is this not an important meeting place of official liturgy and devotion, and perhaps the context for the devotional prayer and action informed by the cultural location of the deceased, the family, and the mourners?
Because the funeral rites (in their full order) allow for the vigil to be held in the church, in the presence of the body or urn (noted by the reception of the body first, then the vigil), is this visitation (or wake) not an opportunity for a fullness of different emotions? These may include the sharp sadness of lament and mourning for the beloved dead, a sense of thanksgiving for all that this person was and gratitude to God for the living gathered to support each other, and for all these emotions to be bound up in the stories of the deceased and in the “ministry of consolation” to which we are all called?
Please leave a reply.