Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Stephan's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Patricius Clevelandensis's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
99 more comments...