UNDERTAKERS’ CHAPELS

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27096, 20 July 1953, Page 7

UNDERTAKERS’ CHAPELS

Use For Funeral Services

PRACTICE OPPOSED BY AUCKLAND SYNOD “The Press” Special Service AUCKLAND, July 19.. Funeral services should be held in churches wherever possible instead of in undertakers’ chapels, the Auckland Diocesan Synod decided. Lay members had claimed that holding services in chapels was contrary to the Book of Common Prayer. The clergy said it wafc desirable that services should be held in churches, but -recognised that there would be, difficulties if exceptions were forbidden. Mr E. W. Henderson moved that “this synod is of the opinion that as the holding of funeral services in undertakers’ chapels is contrary to the Book of Common Prayer, wherever possible funeral services should be held in churches.” He said it was a universal practice that had grown up. There was no reason why funeral services should not be held in the church. Marriages and baptisms were held there. Synod should dispel the idea that only the very faithful were given church services. Mr L. F. Rudd, who seconded the motion, suggested that funeral chapel services were an importation from America. The Ven. Archdeacon T. H. C. Partridge said he agreed with the idea of holding the services in churches. He would* however, prefer services in the undertakers’ chapels in some instances rather than in private homes. The Rev. H. J. Steele said that the one idea of funeral directors was to carry out the wishes of the relatives. The Rev. L. O’S. Beere said undertakers’ chapels filled the purpose in New Zealand that the cemetery chapels did in England. Some people felt more at ease in funeral parlours than in church. Mr W. A. Clinton said that the main difficulty in having the service in the church was the ignorance of so many church people. After further discussion, Mr Henderson’s motion was amended, deleting reference to the Service in the chapels being contrary to the Prayer Book. In this form it was carried.