In our ever more utopian society, not only are people eagerly seeking ways to cull out unproductive human beings from the herd and mark them for warehousing and death, but it is now seeking ways to make even the dead productive. If you thought that the one blessing of being dead was that you would be safe from such designs, think again.
So, your mother, sister, uncle, grandfather, or child didn’t earn his or her keep and is now "departed this Earth"? Or perhaps that person was someone you deeply loved who died a natural death and so you want to cling to his remains. What do you do with the ashes?
If you’re Michael Schiavo, you bury them beneath a marker that acts as an eternal apologist for your agenda. But if you are the more sentimental sort, you might turn your relative’s ashes into jewelry:
"Laura Curtin falls silent as she slowly lifts the jewelry box lid.
"The 1.27-carat yellow diamond inside glistens brilliantly as it catches the sunlight through the funeral home window.
"Curtin’s eyes fill with tears.
"This isn’t just any diamond. It’s a tribute to her mother, created from her ashes."
GET THE STORY. (Use BugMeNot.com to bypass the Evil Registration Requirement.)
(Nod to the friend who forwarded to me the links.)
Of course, in this particular case, Laura Curtin’s mother wasn’t particularly helpful to her daughter’s understanding of a dignified means of handling her remains. Curtin reports that when she asked her mother what she thought of the idea of becoming a cultured diamond, her mother said "That’s fine. I’ll be your problem then. You figure out what to do with me."
So, not only did this mother not request a dignified disposition of her body, but she equated the disposition of her remains with being her daughter’s "burden." Just such thinking is what spawns the quest to make human beings productive by any means possible.
E-e-e-w-w-w.
Why not just have Mom stuffed and place her over the mantle?
I don’t see how this is any less dignified than digging up the bodies of men and women, tearing them limb from limb, scraping bone off of bone, and exposing them to millions of people to look at and kiss and otherwise venerate.
As for the mother’s comment, anyone ever heard of a joke?!
Jeesh!
My parents (and grandmother) make cynical comments like that all the time. Many older people do. Thank God they have a sense of humor, that’s what I say.
“I don’t see how this is any less dignified than digging up the bodies of men and women, tearing them limb from limb, scraping bone off of bone, and exposing them to millions of people to look at and kiss and otherwise venerate.”
I forgot to mention that the same body parts of said men and women are sometimes made into jewelry for mitred men to wear around their necks. And rings for that matter!
I think there’s a difference. Relics say, “This person was so graced by God and so holy that even the tiniest splinter of her bones is a holy, holy thing. I will take that splinter and keep it very close to me, hoping to become even half as holy.”
Lifegems say, “This person is now raw material, suitable to be carbonized into something prettier. Just going underground or being cremated is useless; becoming jewelry is useful.”
Now, that’s not to say that the people buying the ‘lifegems’ aren’t doing so more from relic reasons than disposal ones. But it’s problematic.
Actually, I find their copyrighted name rather problematic, as I’m sure I’ve read the name “lifegem” before in science fiction.
Eric-
I was engaging in a little humor there, also. I didn’t say it was immoral or wrong. Your parallel to relics is apt.
Me? I want to be buried.
Eric, there is a difference between placing a piece of bone of a holy person into a reliquary (or a lock of hair from a loved one into a locket) and turning human cremains into minerals. In the latter case, the human body is being made over into a cultured rock. However shiny that rock may be, it is something of significantly less dignity than the human body that it was originally.
“As for the mother’s comment, anyone ever heard of a joke?!”
The problem comes when a family member, like Laura Curtin, doesn’t get the “joke” & pays to have her beloved mother turned into a gem. A commodity. Relics are not commodities. The Church forbids their sale; not that it isn’t done, but it’s not done with the Church’s belssing.
But what of the process of making these “gems”? Grandma is turned into a stone & then it’s got to be cut before it’ll have facets, right? So what happens to those little fragments of Gram that have been hewen away? The site doesn’t say. Is it dignified for little chips from the body of a human being, made in the image & likeness of God, to be round-filed? And then, Gram is graded by gemologists, just like a *real* diamond that took thousands of years to create in nature. Graded. Yeah, there’s a ton of dignity there! “Well, your Grandma’s LifeGem’s has a few flaws & isn’t quite the exact color of blue her eyes were in the picture you gave us . . . but have I mentioned our work has been selling very well in the secondary market & on EBAY recently?!”
I’m sorry, but I really can not see how a LifeGem is an analogue for the relic of a saint or in any way a dignified means for preservation of a deceased relative.
“2300 The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit.”
Look, I have to admit that relics kinda tend to creep me out. But this goes far past a Catholic creep out & turns my stomach. Frankly, the only possible parallel I can think of between LifeGems & relics is that the gem could be seen in the eyes of the surviving relatives as worthy of some sort of veneration when it is not. The dulia we choose to give to a relic is not compelled by the Church & seeks to, as the Chatechims states above, honor the “children of God” – which includes the saints, whom God Himself honors, & their witness. Perhaps Ms Curtin could benefit from some grief counselling?
Sorry, in the last paragraph the word is “Catechism”.
Hey you know this reminds me of those sisters who make the rose petal rosaries. Perhaps they could apply the same technique to make “Cremains Rosaries”. It’s a whole new way to “pray the family rosary”.
I read the article in question and it’s clear to me that the lady in question does not consider her mom-ring to be a “commodity,” and in fact treats it in much the way any pious Catholic would treat a dearly held relic of a saint.
I see no problem.
There are several Catholic churches throughout the world where the bodies of dead people, even non-Saints, are employed to decorate the walls or altars of churches and chapels. I know of entire chapels made with skulls and bones of Catholic laypeople and monks. In Italy, I believe its the Capuchins who have a crypt where everything (altar, walls, etc.) is lines with skulls and bones of past friars and benefactors.
Would we consider those pectoral crosses and episcopal rings “commodities” that contain first-class relics? I don’t see it any more disturbing that having one’s ashes turned into a diamond.
What is or is not considered “respect” for the bodies of the dead is culturally conditioned. We should be aware of this and not rush to say that practices such as the above are intrinsically wrong.
The Church may insist that the bodies of most of her children receive burial, but this is not an absolute, and is simply a prudential judgement on her part. We shouldn’t expect non-Catholics to have to adhere to the letter of this legislation, even if it’s spirit is grounded in the natural law.
Chris-2-4: the “family rosary”! That one made me laugh.
My first thought when reading the entry was “Soylent Green”
http://imdb.com/title/tt0070723/
LifeGems is people!!!!
if you don’t want to be a lifegem you can always get cremated, mixed with buck shot and shot at the animal of your choice; dogs, cats and people excluded of course.
Or, shot into space like Gene Rodenberry was.
Or, placed into fireworks and become part of the Gonzo fireworks show like Hunter S. Thompson was.
“We shouldn’t expect non-Catholics to have to adhere to the letter of this legislation, even if it’s spirit is grounded in the natural law.”
I do not. Which is why I can visit the local mall where huge pictures of mostly nude men & women adorn the Abercrombie & Fitch store – which I choose not to enter, though others might. I just seek to point out what I see are very discernable problematic issues with this new practice.
And I guess we have differing views of what a “commodity” is, Eric. I mean “commodity” to refer to an economic good (product), an article of commerce, especially one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market. If my definition is in dissent from yours, I beg your pardon.
And I completely fail to see how the relics of saints displayed in churches for veneration is analogous to the LifeGems, either. The dulia we pay to them, if we choose to, is totally different from the wearing of a ring, pendant, earrings, cufflinks, or belly-button barbell with a gem made from a loved one’s ashes. Most folks do not know what a LifeGem is & would think the blue or amber stone in the ring of the person next to them is nothing more than an interesting, man-made gem; a fashion choice. A commodity, as I’ve definied it above. If the Church has never sanctioned the use of relics in this way, I’m unaware of it & unable to find support for it. Please inform.
The “cultural conditioning” arguement has been used frequently in favor of numerous practices that are against natural law & Church teaching: homosexuality, polygamy, human sacrifice, etc. Just because a past culture had a specific practice for dealing with deceased community members (whether by burial, or pyre, or cannibalism, etc), it doesn’t mean it’s acceptable or in line with natural law. As a Catholic, one’s personal beliefs are filtered through one’s Christian faith & it’s teachings. I find LifeGems to be rife with possible abuses & misapplications. I feel it could also lead folks to inaccurate views & beliefs of the afterlife. Intrinsically wrong? Your words, Eric, not mine. But the possible ways folks might use these gems would be. I see the New Age latching onto LifeGems in a major way. And, knowing a bit more than just the basic tenets of my religion, I do not believe these gems are anything a Christian should be purchasing. Like they might other commodities.
Am I judging the non-Christian folks who choose to purchase these gems? No. I’m witnessing for my faith, just as I would do in a discussion about abortion. If human beings are made in the image & likeness of God Himself, & if Jesus Christ humbled Himself to take human form to become our Salvation, then there is an intrinsic dignity in humanity that deserves respect & dignified treatment. I find LifeGems to be at odds (to say the least) with that worldview.
One of the tag lines on their website is: “Love knows no boundaries. Love knows no end.” Yet people pay them a lot of money to turn a part of a loved one into a finite little rock. Eternal life through alchemy. (Perhaps LifeGems are the Philosopher’s Stone Nick Flamel was searching for?) At least relics are not forced to be something they were not created to be! The only Love that know no boudndaries or end are that that our God has for us – to the point that His only Son died on the cross for our Salvation. A gem is just a pretty rock & a LifeGem won’t keep a loved one any nearer after they’ve died & it won’t make them immortal.
And isn’t that the real crux of this issue? “Diamonds are forever,” Mr Bond. No, they aren’t, really, are they? But our souls are.
I also see in this practice great possibility of fraud. I read recently about customers of a particular crematory that had been given, not the ashes of their loved ones, but powdered concrete. Their loved ones had been unceremoniously buried on the property of the crematory. It was cheaper and easier than maintaining an actual functioning facility.
I would not be surprised to see increasing numbers of LifeGem-type businesses popping up on the internet. It would be easy money. Take the ashes provided by the customer, dump them in the trash and send them back a very ordinary gemstone. How are they to know it’s not Uncle Fred?
Sorry, 2 corrections:
“If the Church has never sanctioned the use of relics in this way, I’m unaware of it & unable to find support for it.”
That should read: “If the Church have ever sanctioned . . .”
And, “The only Love that know no boudndaries or end are that that our God has for us . . .”
That should read: “The only Love that know no boudndaries or end is that that our God has for us . . .”
I’ve been gramatically paranoid ever since I read Eats, Shoots, & Leaves! 😉
I see no problem with this, provided that it is done respectfully.
Oh, man…shades of “The Loved One”…
It’s a tribute to her mother, created from her ashes.
Note that it’s not recognized as being part of her mother. It once was part of her mother, but by being diamondized, it stopped that.
“I read recently about customers of a particular crematory that had been given, not the ashes of their loved ones, but powdered concrete. Their loved ones had been unceremoniously buried on the property of the crematory. It was cheaper and easier than maintaining an actual functioning facility.”
I once rea of a particular seminary where the “celibate” seminarians engaged in sex with each other and their superors, and of priests who have mistresses and sex with boys. I’ve also heard of married people who cheat on their spouses!
“And I guess we have differing views of what a ‘commodity’ is, Eric. I mean “commodity” to refer to an economic good (product), an article of commerce, especially one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market. If my definition is in dissent from yours, I beg your pardon.”
And this applies here . . . how?
Ha! I’d forgotten about The Loved One. I’ll have to dig that up and read it again. Evelyn Waugh is great.
Eric-
I was just pointing out that the whole thing seems very vulnerable to fraud.
There is biblical precedent for preserving and venerating the bones of saints (Exodus 13:19), but no precedent for turning them into something else.
Presumably, one could be converted to compost after death, and spread around the family flower garden.
“Presumably, one could be converted to compost after death, and spread around the family flower garden.”
Such is not intrinsically irreverent or sinful, or even unCatholic.
See Jimmy’s post above regarding non-Catholic cremations.
Compost is not the same as ashes, Eric. I would argue that, at this time at least, composting would not be seen as respectful treatment of the dead.
Microsoft beefs up push to small businesses
Reuters – Microsoft Corp. unveiled a new rebate and free service offer for its small business accounting software on Monday, aimed at luring customers away from rival Intuit Inc…
It seems kind of silly to me. Why turn someone you loved into anything other than what they were naturally meant to be, with out this odd intervention. I do not see any logical gain to this. I suppose it may be more attractive to those who do not have a rich understading of eternal life. Maybe, it offers a feeble attempt at eternity for non-religious types. However, I think anyone who has a strong faith must ultimately agree that it serves no real purpose. What would be the motive of the christian to do this? We all agree that the essence of who we are cannot be carried in a stone. We remain close to each after death through the love we shared,and a stone, is a stone regardless of where the carbon came from. If it were lost or stolen would it be as if they were stealing our loved one. If yes, then it should not be done for that very reason. If no, then why bother? I just don’t get the attraction.
It could get really wierd too. For instance, will loved ones feel pressured to spend more money to on some people than others, to show there worth? See, even the symbolism is wrong–a person now equals a stone. YUCK !!!
Gail