A reader writes:
I know that The Church allows for cremation, and that there is a law that says that the ashes must be buried. Is this a moral issue?
I ask because my recently-passed-away mother was cremated, and my sister has the ashes in her house and wants to keep them. I have expressed my desire to have them buried, but she does not want to bury them. My mother was not Catholic, so should I be concerned?
First, let me say that I am sorry for your loss and will pray for the repose of your mother’s soul and for your family.
There is ecclesiastical law that requires the burial or other interment of the cremated remains of an individual. According to the Order of Christian Funerals:
"The cremated remains of a body should be treated with the same respect given to the human body from which they come. This includes the use of a worthy vessel to contain the ashes, the manner in which they are carried, the care and attention to appropriate placement and transport, and the final disposition. The cremated remains should be buried in a grave or entombed in a mausoleum or columbarium. The practice of scattering cremated remains on the sea, from the air, or on the ground, or keeping cremated remains in the home of a relative or friend of the deceased are not the reverent disposition that the Church requires. Whenever possible, appropriate means for recording with dignity the memory of the deceased should be adopted, such as a plaque or stone which records the name of the deceased." (Order of Christian Funerals, Appendix No. 417)
If your sister, like your mother, is not Catholic then neither of them are bound by this norm legally. That still leaves the other question you ask, which is whether your sister is bound by it morally.
The answer appears to be no.
What natural law requires is that the remains of the dead be treated with reverence, and the above norm expresses the way in which reverence is to be shown to cremated remains in Catholic circles. However, it does not appear that natural law requires that reverence be shown in this particular way.
It may be helpful here to realize that there is an enormous amount of diversity in different cultures regarding the proper way to show reverence for the remains of the departed.
This was made clear to me a number of years ago when I was talking with a friend of mine who as raised in a different culture and she expressed horror at the idea of archaeologists digging into graves to learn about previous cultures. To her this was an unacceptable desecration, and the respectful thing to do would be to leave the graves alone.
Coming from an American cultural perspective, my reaction was exactly the opposite: Opening the graves (e.g., tombs in Egypt) so that we could learn about past cultures was precisely the means needed to honor the people who built them. Examining the tombs of past cultures would enable us to learn more about them and thus appreciate and respect them more fully. For some of these cultures, their tombs were the best-preserved things about them we had, and to refuse to examine them would deprive us of precious knowledge about a people who would otherwise be lost to history.
There are many other examples of how respect for the remains of the departed varies from culture to culture. In Jesus’ own day–as you may recall from the "St. James ossuary" incident–it was customary for some individuals to be placed in a tomb while their bodies decayed and then, a year later, their relatives would clean the bones and place them in an ossuary.
In Rome it is customary to honor the dead in the catacombs not just by doing archaeological excavations in them but by going on pilgrimages through them.
There is also the Capuchin church of Santa Maria della Concezione, where the bones of numerous Capuchins (some collected as late as 1870) are displayed in the most striking fashion.
Now, as an American, I find some practices that other cultures use as creepy as I’m sure many readers do, but the point is that there is a huge amount of variation culturally in how respect for the dead is to be shown to their remains.
And then there is the whole custom of venerating the relics of the saints, which are parts of their remains that are not buried.
Thus when we get to the question of what natural law requires interment it seems that it does not.
If it did then the Church would not have the relics of the saints on display in reliquaries. They would all have to go into graves or tombs.
To look at it another way, there is nothing about the molecules that once formed part of a person’s body that requires that these molecules be housed in a particular structure, such as a grave or a tomb. We the living can show our respect for the dead by so housing them, but this is a means of showing respect–and thus subject to cultural variation–rather than something required by the molecules themselves.
If your non-Catholic sister (assuming that she is non-Catholic) wishes to keep your mother’s cremated remains in a sealed container in her house the way that you as a Catholic might keep the relic of a saint in a reliquary in your house then there is not a violation of natural law here. Both are ways that respect can be shown for the dead. Her way is not the Catholic way of doing it–and I personally would not show my respect in that fashion even if Church law permitted me to–but it is not prohibited by natural law.
As to whether you should be concerned about the situation, I would say two things: (1) You need not be concerned that the natural moral law is being violated by your sister’s proposal but (2) it would be desirable if a solution could be found that was acceptable to all of the surviving relatives (assuming that your mother didn’t herself indicate what she wanted the final disposition of her remains to be). One sibling being the exclusive arbiter of what happens to the remains is not the most desirable solution. Whether a mutual solution could be reached and whether it would be prudent to push for it would be a judgment that those involved in the situation would be in the best position to make.
I’m confused. Church law is contrary to what natural law would allow? Maybe you could explain exactly what is, or isn’t, “natural law”.
Cremation does not necessarily avoid the cost of an expensive funeral. To be cremated a body must be in a casket. Yes, there are “inexpensive” plywood or particle board caskets available, but for viewing a family usually wants to avoid a cheap image. And even the “inexpensive” caskets are not cheap.
Both of my parents were cremated. We already have a family plot (where my parents’ cremains are buried). When my mother died in 2000 we already had a clear image of what her funeral needs were. The urn had already been purchased when my father died three years previously. I printed all of the holy cards and thank you notes, avoiding those provided by the funeral home. I was the musician at the funeral Mass.
By the time we had made all of our fairly conservative choices at the funeral home, my mother’s funeral cost $7,000. Remember, this price did not include an urn, a burial plot, holy cards, thank you notes, or funeral music.
‘thann
Jimmy,
Could you please comment further about why the Church does not consider the scattering of the cremains as “a reverent disposition that the Church requires.”
I can understand if someone is doing so as an overt act against the Church and/or the faith. This was the reason why (I thought) for the longest time the Church did not allow cremation (cremation being a pagan ritual).
The Church has since allowed cremation. If that is now the case, then why not allow the scattering of the ashes so long as it is done within the context of the faith and with reverence?
P.S. I agree with others, above, that the cost of funerals nowadays (whichever way it’s done) is obscene.
Having just read (in Radio Replies, Volume 3) the Church’s justification, as of the 1940’s, on why She does not allow cremation, I find myself being persuaded.
Why does the Church now consider cremation to be OK, and how does she deal with the apparent agenda of some proponents of cremation who want to associate burning the remains with annihilation of the soul?
“This was made clear to me a number of years ago when I was talking with a friend of mine who as raised in a different culture and she expressed horror at the idea of archaeologists digging into graves to learn about previous cultures. To her this was an unacceptable desecration, and the respectful thing to do would be to leave the graves alone.”
Sometimes the distinction between archaeology and grave-robbing isn’t the clearest. Your friend’s reaction might be touching on a moral nerve numbed for us curious Americans.
As for cremation: how are we to venerate the relics of a cremated saint?
Barbara—The Church’s law is not contrary to what natural law would allow; the Church’s law specifies a particular subset of what natural law allows, and makes that subset normative for Catholics.
I’m also uncomfortable with how archaeology sometimes tends towards grave robbing. I doubt it’s immoral for archaeologists to excavate tombs and graves and study human remains in order to learn more about a past culture. But some archaeologists don’t stop there – instead of being returned to the earth, some human remains now displayed in museums.
While there certainly is an educational value in seeing ancient mummies and skeletons in a museum, this practice has always struck me as disrespectful. These were still human beings who wanted to be laid to rest in a certain manner and never intended to some day be taken from their graves, carted off half-way around the world, and put in a glass case so slack jawed middle schoolers can stare at them and squeal “oh gross!” My husband says that’s what they get for trying to preserve their bodies for all eternity. That may be fair to say about deliberately mummified bodies (i.e., Egyptians). But what about skeletons and naturally mummified or otherwise preserved bodies (such as bog men) which can be seen in museums across the USA and Europe? Those people didn’t intend to be preserved forever, as far as we know.
Does anyone else find it disrespectful to put these remains on display just like pieces of ancient pottery, stone tools and other mere objects? I get the impression that the older human remains are the less “human” they are and the more acceptable it is to treat them like a mere object. I’m not sure whatever educational value there might be in displaying remains in a museum justifies this sort of treatment of another human being. It’s always bugged me – does anyone else feel the same way?
Re: bodies in museums
Doesn’t bother me, for the same reason relics don’t bother me. I’ve never seen anyone giggle at a mummy, or mock an ancient person’s bones. (If they did, I wouldn’t blame the museum; I would give the offender a Cold Death Stare.) I don’t think I’ve ever passed our local mummy and set of bones without praying for them, either. (There used to be a sign up advising and instructing folks to do so, but it seems to have been removed.)
And since we are their surviving kin, we do have a right to move the dead about for sufficiently good reasons.
I also take this opportunity to mention my archeology professor, a curmudgeon in the grand style. Whenever anybody mentioned confiscating and reburying his sets of bones, he made sure to point out that he was THE expert on this particular culture and its burial customs, and that therefore he was THE best-suited person to decide their fate and perform any necessary religious rituals. (As opposed to, say, certain activists from out West, from a totally unrelated melange of cultures, who weren’t even any kind of religious leaders in said cultures.) He respected his bodies a lot more than he did his living students and associates, actually. 🙂
That said, it’s not nice to dig up folks from those cultures that _do_ have a particular horror of being dug up.
Oh, my….This does bring back memories….
Some years back, a friend’s mother passed away, & was cremated. Then began the problems, as none of the relatives could decide what they wanted to do with the cremains….Lucky me, I was chosen as the “neutral party” who got to retain possession of Mom’s ashes until the issue was decided. (They buried her remains next to her late husband).
Leading to a couple of points: (a) These things need to be thought out & written down, ahead of time, & (b) It is very, very difficult to remain properly serious when telling one’s own family, “If I drop dead suddenly, be sure to call this number, so they can come get their mother out of the closet in the back bedroom”.
It gave me, I have to tell you, a whole new way of looking at the subject of cremation…which I had always thought of, as a very dignified & respectful way of dealing with a dead body. Well, it changes when the body is in your home. As, I suspect, many folks–possibley including, at some point in the future, the family in question here….
Some are going to hate me for saying so, but cremation was not always allowed. It would be something, “progressiveness” has brought on.
Money is not the issue. And in the Bible, no one said “Go and burn the dead”. It was more like “bury the dead”. But then you could argue that Our Lord said let the “dead bury the dead”.
Are you dead?
What about a sailor who is killed in action on the high seas? Would the church allow ‘burial’ at sea as opposed to cremated remains being scattered at sea? Also, Gene Roddenbery and Timothy Leary are ‘orbiting’ the planet now, would the Church allow this?
Burying the dead is one of the corporal works of mercy.
I always thought that keeping the body in tact was acknowledgement of the future ressurection of the body. Of course seperating the body won’t stop God ressurecting them, but it is a sign of respect. Or rather I thought that some people who would scatter remains as a statement would do so in denial of their ressurection.
My parents were not Catholic. My mother was baptized Catholic but left the church at age 17 when she went to college. My father was unbaptized. Both expressed that their remains would be handled in the least expensive way possible, which is “direct cremation.” This means the body is picked up from the hospital or from home by the funeral home and is cremated by them in whatever container is convenient for them with no “viewing”. This costs $1500. They did in fact save the bodies overnight for me to view, my mother in her hospital gown, my father in the clothes he was wearing when found dead on his bedroom floor. My sister saw my mother shortly after she died in the hospital and she is the one who found my father, and she was the only other one really concerned. For my mother we had a memorial service at the Unitarian church my parents attended…. people sat around a candle and told nice stories about my mother -ok as far as it went but offering no hope.My sister never even picked up the ashes from the funeral home,which is 5 miles from where she was living and 300 from where I live. My sister refused to go through the effort of organizing a service like that for my father, saying I should do it if I wanted one. I can’t bear another Unitarian service and there are few people around now who remember him; his brother is in the advanced stages of Alzheimers, my mother’s sisters are not well and really don’t want to travel to attend. I have thought of asking a priest to do some kind of service over their ashes, but some of my children who don’t practice the faith I tried to teach them, would be angry that I was having a ceremony that my parents would have adamently and angrily rejected during their life. We just let the issue drop,(he died in April.) and I now wonder if I shouldn’t do this privately. I fussed and insisted until my sister picked up both sets of ashes from the funeral home…and they are now sitting in cardboard boxes under a desk in my house.
Will a priest say a funeral service (or the Panchida -Eastern rite memorial service)for a lapsed Catholic and an unbaptized person? If so, and if I after that bury them in my backyard and plant rose bushes over them…which I know they would like, since they were both gardeners and won prizes for their flowers at garden shows…would that be showing enough respect? (I think it might be illegal to do this in my backyard but no one would have to know about what was under those rose bushes.) Purchasing a cemetary plot and headstones does seem like a useless expense which they would not even have wanted. I know they would say to use the money to help out my financially struggling children with their education or buying a house. (Not hypothetical but current present needs.)
Susan Peterson