
What is the Vatican doctrine czar saying about cremation?
In a new note, Cardinal Fernández answers two questions about the handling of ashes.
The Vatican’s doctrinal office issued new guidance Tuesday on the handling of ashes after cremation.

In a note issued Dec. 12, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), responded to two questions from Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, president of the Italian bishops’ conference.
Fernández’s replies are likely to be scrutinized closely by clergy around the world who increasingly encounter bereaved families with specific requests concerning their loved ones’ ashes.
So, what is the background of the new ruling? And what does it say? The Pillar takes a look.
What’s the background?
In 1963, the Holy Office — the DDF’s predecessor — issued the Instruction Piam et Constantem, which ruled that cremation was not “an intrinsically evil act, opposed per se to the Christian religion.”
This marked an end to the Church’s outright opposition to the reduction of the dead’s bodies to ashes by fire. But the Instruction also reaffirmed the unbroken Christian custom of reverently burying the intact bodies of the faithful departed, pointing to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.
The change in discipline was incorporated into the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which said: “The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the dead be observed; it does not, however, forbid cremation unless it has been chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching” (Can. 1176 § 3).
In the decades that followed, cremation grew in popularity throughout the Western world, presenting new questions about if and how the practice could be harmonized with Catholic teaching.
The Church responded to the changing situation by permitting certain adaptations to the rules. In 1997, for example, the Vatican’s liturgy dicastery granted an indult, or concession, allowing diocesan bishops in the U.S. to permit cremated remains to be present at a funeral Mass.
The Catholic Church in Poland is currently revising its regulations, working with the Vatican dicastery on issues including the correct practices at a funeral where the cremated remains are those of a priest or bishop.
In 2016, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — as the DDF was previously called — issued the Instruction Ad resurgendum cum Christo, which outlined regulations concerning ashes.
“In order that every appearance of pantheism, naturalism or nihilism be avoided, it is not permitted to scatter the ashes of the faithful departed in the air, on land, at sea or in some other way, nor may they be preserved in mementos, pieces of jewelry or other objects,” it said.
On Oct. 30 this year, Cardinal Zuppi wrote to the DDF raising two questions about the preservation of ashes after cremation.
In the letter, Zuppi noted that he had established a commission in his Archdiocese of Bologna to consider how to respond to the growing number of people wanting to scatter their loved one’s ashes in a natural setting.
The commission is also examining how to ensure that families are not discouraged from burying their relatives simply because of the lower cost of scattering ashes, and what advice the Church should give in cases where the term for the preservation of ashes expires.
Zuppi posed the following two questions, as summarized by the DDF:
1. Taking into account the canonical prohibition against scattering the ashes of the deceased, is it possible to prepare a defined and permanent sacred place for the commingled accumulation and preservation of the ashes of the baptized, indicating the basic details of each person so as not to lose the memory of their names, similar to what occurs in ossuaries, where the mineralized remains of the deceased are cumulatively deposited and preserved?
2. Can a family be allowed to keep a portion of their family member’s ashes in a place that is significant for the history of the deceased?
What does the doctrine office say?
In the note, approved by Pope Francis at a Dec. 9 audience, Cardinal Fernández presented a 400-word preamble, restating the Church’s teaching on bodily resurrection, and then answered the two questions in the affirmative but with noteworthy nuances.
To the first question, he replied that “a defined and permanent sacred place can be set aside for the commingled accumulation and preservation of the ashes of deceased baptized persons, indicating the identity of each person so as not to lose the memory of their names.”
To the second, he said that “the ecclesiastical authority, in compliance with current civil norms, may consider and evaluate a request by a family to preserve in an appropriate way a minimal part of the ashes of their relative in a place of significance for the history of the deceased person, provided that every type of pantheistic, naturalistic, or nihilistic misunderstanding is ruled out and also provided that the ashes of the deceased are kept in a sacred place.”
Vatican News said Dec. 12 that the DDF had told it that “the intervention and assessment of the ecclesiastical authority is not only canonical but also pastoral in nature, to help the family discern what choices to make, while taking all considerations into account.”
It also said that the second question had “emerged from a dialogue between bishops from several different countries to which Cardinal Zuppi gave voice,” noting that the division of ashes is forbidden by some civil authorities.
“The dicastery’s response considered the possibility from a theological rather than a civil point of view, as was later clarified in the reply,” Vatican News said.
Fernández, who was named doctrinal prefect in July, explained the reasoning for the decisions in the preamble.
He noted that the 2016 Instruction said that “ashes must be kept in a sacred place, such as a cemetery, or in an area dedicated to this purpose, provided that it has been so designated by the ecclesiastical authority.”
The pastoral reason for this regulation was that the reservation of the ashes in a sacred place ensured that the deceased would be remembered and included in the prayers of the Christian community. Fernández said that the regulation remains in effect today.
The cardinal then reflected on what the Church teaches about how the resurrection of the dead will take place.
“Our faith tells us that we will be raised with the same bodily identity, which is material (like every creature on earth), even though that matter will be transfigured, freed from the limitations of this world,” he wrote.
But he said that the transformation “does not imply the recuperation of the identical particles of matter that once formed the human being’s body.”
“Therefore, the body of the resurrected person will not necessarily consist of the same elements that it had before it died. Since it is not a simple revivification of the corpse, the resurrection can occur even if the body has been totally destroyed or dispersed,” he wrote.
“This helps us understand why, in many cinerary urns, the ashes of the deceased are conserved together and are not stored separately.”
But given that ashes are the remains of a unique human life, they are to be treated with “an attitude of sacred respect” and conserved “in a sacred place suitable for prayer,” sometimes located near the churches visited by loved ones.
Fernández’s response is being interpreted as a loosening of the Church’s rules on cremation. It fits within the broader pattern of adaptation to emerging practices. As it is far from exhaustive, other clarifications regarding cremation are likely to follow in the coming years.
The big question I have is about the Affirmative answer to the second dubia. What types of circumstances is the Dicastery envisioning for putting a portion of a person's ashes in another significant location? Does this mean, say, intering some ashes in the person's parish church or shrine church or something similar with the rest being interred in a cemetery or columbarium?
I read this article hoping to find a better understanding of the second dubia, but I'm still confused.
I have always maintained that one of the biggest mistakes the church made in the 1960s was the changed stance on cremation, and experience has only hardened my take. This new take from Fernandez digs the hole deeper. Buckle up...
First thing: we can't ignore the fact that cremating the dead was anathema to all christians for nigh on two millennia, and this cannot be regarded as a mere accident of history. The first Christians, living in the Roman Empire, were surrounded by cultures in which disposing of corpses by fire was the norm; they very consciously rejected that practice and buried their dead. This was not because they were too simple to understand that God could raise the dead no matter what had happened to their remains; on the contrary, when being a Christian could lead to you being burned, eaten by beasts, flayed alive, etc. their belief in bodily resurrection clearly would have been based on the fact that no body could be destroyed to a point that God could not resurrect it. And yet, even with that understanding, they insisted on burying their dead, no matter what condition they were left in.
In the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, there was a massive shift in the Roman world toward inhumation (the burial of an intact body) so in a way Roman culture shifted away from cremation even before it became Christian. Cremation continued to be viewed as a pagan practice which had to be abandoned as part of converting to Christianity. For example, cremation was practiced by pagan Germanic and Norse groups, who in turn embraced burial when they embraced the faith. As Europe became Christian, cremation disappeared from the West and Near East because it was forbidden by all three of the Abrahamic religions.
This state of affairs prevailed until the early 1800s, when atheism, materialism, and industrialism reintroduced the idea. To some extent, it was understandable: in European cities the cemeteries were overflowing from centuries of constant use, and were regarded as public health hazards. For an example of this, look up Holy Innocents' Cemetery in Paris. At the same time, industrialization was drawing countless people into the cities, who also died in droves from disease and hunger. The idea of cremation resurfaced at that time as a potential solution, which also appealed to the rational, materialistic spirit of the new era...what better way to cleanly and efficiently dispose of corpses while also leaving behind the superstitious funeral rites of the Church? (It should be clear at this point that there has been a very long disconnect between our faith and cremating the dead, and the fact that it reappeared in the West in conjunction with atheism and materialism should raise one's suspicions about it.) The Protestants (particularly the more liberal ones) started to embrace it by the turn of the last century, but it was still rejected by Catholicism.
In 1963 the prohibition was relaxed, and after several decades we have arrived at this point. I'm going to turn from history to my own commentary now. I can't see how something that has been rejected by the faith for almost two thousand years, for sound theological reasons, has suddenly become acceptable, or even favored. (It's worth noting that the Eastern churches have continued to reject the practice.) The fact is that we once again live in a pagan culture with alien values, and that the odds of Christianizing cremation in this context are not in our favor. (It could even be said that the Vatican has been naive in its understanding of things; when cremation was permitted, it was not envisioned that we would end up in our current situation, or when the Church gave its approval to organ donation, they did not predict that bodies would be practically butchered by being ransacked for tissue like junked cars.) In my experience, cremation is especially prevalent among Catholics who are poorly formed or lax in their practice. When I hear things like "the body doesn't matter" and "it's just a husk," it seems pretty clear that there's a bit of gnostic "spirit good, body bad" going on, even unconsciously. I've also heard people say that the resurrection of the body is too magical to believe in, so once again, the body is unimportant. In addition, we have to contend with the materialistic part of the situation. A corpse is a very tangible reminder of the death of that person and of our own mortality. It also points to the mystery of who we are as a body-soul person, and the hoped for reunion of our bodies and spirits at Christ's coming. To reduce the body to something unrecognizable as a human being reduces or eliminates that uncomfortable encounter with reality. It can also function as an erasure/negation of a person, which is clear when we look at the crematoria of the Holocaust. It should go without saying that such an approach is incompatible with what we believe. I will not belabor the point any further.
Much has been said about the theology of the body in regards to life, but I have to ask: what about the theology of a dead body? In what way do our bodies point to the Truth once our souls have left them? I would suggest that it is time for a sort of ressourcement in regards to Catholic funerary practices, at least in certain countries. I am an American, so I can only speak of my culture, but in the US we are extremely removed from the realities of death, and an enormous "death care" industry mediates our interaction with it. We do not handle our departed loved ones, we do not prepare them for burial, wakes take place outside of the home or the church, and it all costs a lot of money. Many people opt for cremation because of the costs of traditional burial, but the truth is that the prices are bloated and could be much lower, if there were pressure to change things. Dioceses should see making Christian Burial accessible to all the faithful as a key part of their mission, and work to keep costs low to facilitate traditional burial. Perhaps inspiration could be taken from the Jewish "chevra kadisha" and laypeople could build a ministry of helping to prepare our brothers and sisters for burial. There is also the reality that in many cases embalming is not necessary (and not, contrary to popular belief, usually required by law) and that simpler wooden coffins could replace the metal variety that dominate American funerals. Maybe such changes could help us better witness to our reverence for human dignity, our hope in the resurrection, and our love for one another.