Cremation

by John Russell, S. J.

Free eBook:

Free eBook: Liturgical Year 2023-2024, Vol. 2

In July 1963, the Holy Office, in a reserved Instruction sent to Local Ordinaries, modified notably the hitherto existing ecclesiastical discipline on cremation. In many dioceses subsequently, bishops drew up special norms in conformity with the new ruling. These regulations often got widespread publicity in the press. Since some of the reporting was misleadingly exaggerated, the Holy See was anxious that the false idea should not spread among Catholics that the Church had no further objection to cremation. The decision was therefore taken to make the Instruction public. An Italian version of the document was published in the Osservatore Romano for September 30, 1964, and the official Latin text appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis shortly afterwards (LVI, 1964, 822-3). In this article we wish to present first the historical background of the problem and then to give the current legislation.

Historical Background

Archaeologists tell us that practically all primitive peoples at one time or another during their history cremated their dead. Nomadic tribes had really little choice if they wished to carry with them the remains of their ancestors. Other peoples were prompted by religious considerations: they looked on cremation as a rite which permitted the soul, purified by fire, to escape more easily from the prison of the body and migrate to whatever region disembodied spirits were consigned to. Excavations carried out in Palestine reveal that the Jewish People at an early date adopted the practice of inhumation (or more correctly entombment; the dead body was placed in a sepulchre rather than buried underground). In the land originally occupied by the Canaanites, cremation was the earlier practice. But at about the year 2000 B.C., this practice abruptly gave way to entombment. The date corresponds more or less with the arrival of Abraham and his family in the land of Canaan. The Old Testament confirms the universal Jewish practice of interment. The First Book of Kings tells us that the bodies of those slain in battle were sometimes cremated (cf. 31:12). The Book of Leviticus ordained the burning of those guilty of especially serious crimes (20:14; 21:9). These exceptions only confirm the general custom of inhumation.

Two traditional Jewish conceptions, reflected in the Old Testament, point to the same conclusion: the comparison of the earth to a mother from whom all men have sprung and into whose womb all are destined to return (cf. Gen. 3:19; Job 1:31; Eccl. 40:1); and the likening of death to the lying down for the repose of sleep at the end of the day's labours (cf. Dan. 12:2).

The same tradition is continued in the New Testament. Lazarus was placed in a tomb, and the body of Our Lord was wrapped in linen cloths with spices, "as the manner of the Jews is to bury," St. John expressly tells us (19:40). For St. Paul no other practice was conceivable: he uses the familiar fact of burial to illustrate other themes, v.g.: the body, sown in corruption, will rise in incorruption (1 Cor. 15:42); we are buried with Christ by baptism to rise to newness of life (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12).

It was only natural for the early Christians, converts from Judaism for the most part, to retain their traditions and bury their dead. Indeed, those who lived at Rome or in other places where Roman influence was strong, would probably have adopted inhumation even if it had not had the force of such a long tradition behind it, in reaction to cremation as practiced by those around them. For, from the time of the Republic, the practice of cremation had grown more and more common among the Romans—Sulla is said to have been the first to order his body to be burned— until, under the Emperors, it had become the more usual method of disposing of the dead. The Christians wanted nothing to do with the superstitious rites that accompanied pagan cremation, and all the more so because they had a very different idea of what death involved. For them it was not total annihilation, aptly symbolized by reducing the corpse to ashes. Their hope was full of immortality. They believed that their bodies were destined to share the glory of the Lord's risen body, and entombment seemed to them a more fitting way of expressing their Christian hope.

Thus, in the first centuries of her existence, the Church vigorously opposed the prevalent practice of cremation and insisted on burial for her children. The early Christians ran great risks in order to snatch the bodies of the martyrs from destruction and carry them off for proper burial. Where this was impossible, and their persecutors ordered the bodies to be cremated and the ashes to be scattered as a sign of contempt for the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, the Christians maintained that this placed no obstacle in the way of God's almighty power. Against this background, we may perhaps understand a little better why miraculous preservation from fiery torments crops up so frequently in the legends of the martyrs. It was an assertion of the firm belief that even the destructive power of fire is subject to God's control. The giant labour entailed in hollowing out the catacombs to provide a burial space for all the members of the Faithful demonstrates how attached the early Christians were to the practice of interment.

Cremation disappeared from the Roman Empire in the fifth century, though it persisted in some parts of Northern Europe for many more centuries. Thus, in the year 789, Charlemagne made it a capital offence among the Saxons to burn the bodies of the dead or to attend the accompanying superstitious rites. In the Scandinavian countries cremation was still practiced as late as the thirteenth century. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, a rather gruesome custom made its appearance in parts of Catholic Europe. It arose from the practical difficulty of bringing back for burial the remains of some prince or nobleman who had died far from home. The body was simply put into water and boiled. This facilitated the separation of the flesh from the bones. These latter could then be easily carried back to the family burial place. In 1288 Boniface VIII, with his usual vigor, forbade this macabre practice under pain of excommunication, and refused to allow the bones to be buried with Church rites.

From that time on, the bodies of the Faithful were always and everywhere interred, except in very unusual circumstances, e.g., in times of plague or after a battle. It is ironic to reflect that the Church's concern was limited to prohibiting the burning of the bodies of the dead: the Inquisition was not very particular when it came to the bodies of the living!

It was not until modern times that cremation was introduced into Christian countries. At the time of the French Revolution an attempt was made to legalize the practice in France, but the proposal met with little official support. It was not until the second half of the nineteenth century that sustained efforts were made to get governments to take an "enlightened" view of cremation, especially in Italy, where the first law permitting the practice was passed in 1874. The French parliament voted a similar measure in 1887, and other European countries were not slow to follow suit.

Cremation was at first promoted in the name of hygiene and scientific progress, but it was quickly seized upon by the rather virulent crop of anticlericals that the age managed to produce so abundantly. They saw here a good way of flaunting their contempt for the Church and religion, and for deriding the Christian dogmas of immortality and the resurrection of the body. Organized groups energetically championed the new cause as an act of defiance of Church authorities. Associations were formed in many cities of Continental Europe to promote cremation, and many of these had enrollments of several thousands. The funerals of the members of these associations were often made occasions of noisy and hostile demonstrations against the Church, to the scandal of the Faithful.

The Church could not remain impassive in face of such flagrant displays of irreligion. Up to that time documents dealing with ecclesiastical burial frequently spoke of the universal practice of inhumation, with never a reference to cremation: in the absence of abuses it did not even merit the recognition of a condemnation. However, towards the end of the nineteenth century (1886-1897), the Holy See issued several decrees on the subject, chiefly in the form of replies from the Holy Office to bishops for whom the new form of impiety raised considerable difficulties. It was through these replies that ecclesiastical legislation on cremation gradually evolved. For instance, it was declared unlawful for Catholics to join associations whose aim was to promote cremation; or to arrange for the incineration of their own—or of another's—body after death; a Catholic, who was determined to have his body cremated and who persevered in this state of mind until death, was to be refused Church burial. On the other hand, if the cremation took place solely at someone else's behest, the dead man was to be accorded the usual ecclesiastical rites and suffrages, both at his home and at the parish church: but on no account was a liturgical function to be held at the crematorium.

This is the legislation that passed into the Code of Canon Law, where the matter is briefly dealt with in two canons. The first (can. 1203) simply outlaws cremation, and adds the rider that a desire for cremation expressed in the dead man's last will and testament is simply to be ignored. The other (can. 1240) includes among those to be refused Christian burial Catholics who chose to have their body cremated and died without having given any sign of having undergone a change of heart.

We may wonder why the Church condemned so severely the practice of cremation, while at the same time maintaining that it is neither wrong in itself nor involves anything contrary to a dogma of the Catholic religion. The following are some of the reasons:

1. Interment is a rite consecrated by a tradition of almost two thousand years, from which the Church has been unwilling to depart without very cogent reasons. The whole liturgical rite supposes that the body will be laid in the earth. Many of the funeral prayers would lose their full significance if the dead person were about to be cremated.
2. The bodies of the Faithful are holy. They have been sanctified by the sacraments, especially by the Eucharist, and hallowed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They are due to rise in glory on the Last Day, according to our Christian hope. The Church has traditionally maintained that cremation cannot easily be reconciled with the reverence due to the dead human body. It has always seemed to her more desirable to commit the body to the earth and allow it, naturally and gradually, to resolve into its component elements. Cremation was looked on as too violent—and hence disrespectful —a way of treating the bodies of the Faithful.
3. Interment has a didactic value, not only for those present at the rite, but also for all the Faithful. The human body's committal to the earth from which it was originally derived reminds us forcibly that death is the result of sin. The word cemetery means "sleeping place": for here the bodies of the Faithful are laid to rest after their earthly labours to await the summons to an eternal reward at the sound of the last trumpet. (It is perhaps a little inconsistent that at the beginning of Lent we are reminded of our human mortality by having our foreheads signed with ashes rather than with earth.)
4. The chief reason for the Church's intransigent attitude towards cremation was, of course, the anti-Christian spirit of the first modern proponents of the practice. In the historical context in which it grew up, cremation was equivalent to a challenge thrown in the face of the Church. And it was precisely this attitude of irreligion, rather than any particular form of disposing of human remains, that the Church wished to eradicate by the severity of her legislation.

Present Legislation

The new Instruction, approved by the Holy Father on July 5, 1963, was transmitted to Local Ordinaries in forma reservata. It is a short document, consisting of an introduction and 4 articles. The Introduction recalls some of the motives, which led the ecclesiastical authorities to proscribe cremation; it affirms that since cremation is not an evil in itself, the Church in times past permitted it for grave reasons. In recent years, the text continues, many requests were presented to the Holy See for some modification of the existing discipline. To meet these demands, the Holy Office lays down the following:

1. Local Ordinaries are to do everything possible, by means of instruction and exhortation, to ensure that the practice of interment is kept in high esteem, and that the Faithful do not seek to be cremated except in cases of real necessity.
2. Given, however, the changed conditions of society today, it seems only proper to mitigate the present legislation. Thus, those dispositions of the Code which a) forbid the carrying out of the last wishes of the Catholic who before death chose cremation; and which b) exclude from Christian burial those who adamantly insisted on being cremated, are from now on to be applied only in the case of one who elected cremation out of contempt for the Faith, or as an overt act of hostility towards religion or the Church.
3. From this it follows that those who intend to have their body cremated are neither on that score to be refused the sacraments before death, nor Christian burial with public Requiem Mass after it unless, of course, it is clear that the choice of cremation was made from irreligious motives.
4. However, in order that the Church may clearly demonstrate that she only tolerates the cremating of the bodies of her children, and as a way of conserving intact their high esteem for the traditional form of burial, it is forbidden to hold the prescribed liturgical rites or public suffrages for the dead person at the crematorium; nor may the body be brought there with the ceremonial laid down in the Ritual. A few observations on these dispositions may not be out of place. It is important to note that the Instruction has not radically changed the Church's views on cremation. She has always wanted the Faithful to avoid cremation, and she still does. But she readily admits that today there can easily be valid reasons for a Catholic's legitimately desiring cremation. While previously she permitted bodies to be burned only for very grave reasons, and then practically exclusively for reasons of public welfare (v.g. in a time of disaster, when it would be morally impossible to inter all the victims), today she is prepared to concede that reasons of a private nature can be sufficient.

A priest called to the deathbed of one who intends having his body cremated must now presume that the reasons for the choice are perfectly legitimate, and he is not on that account to refuse the sacraments to the dying man. Previously the opposite presumption was in force. One who had chosen cremation was presumed to have acted in that way from irreligious motives, and hence, if he did not show some sign of repentance before death, was considered indisposed for the fruitful reception of the sacraments.

Whereas formerly the Church forbade cremation with great severity, today—though it is still forbidden: canon 1203 §1 has not been abrogated —she no longer looks on it as a grave precept. This follows from the fact that the prohibition ceases in a case of real necessity. Moreover such necessity is presumed to exist whenever a person seriously desires cremation.

The ban on the accompaniment of the body to the crematorium refers, of course, to the liturgical act whereby a priest, in sacred vestments and with a certain liturgical pomp, accompanies the body to its last resting place. A priest is not thereby forbidden from being present at the crematorium together with the other mourners; nor would it be unlawful for him to lead in the recitation of some paraliturgical prayers for the soul of the deceased.

Is the Local Ordinary's permission a necessary condition for the lawful choice of cremation? The Instruction gives not the slightest basis for an affirmative answer. Bishops are urged to do all they can to preserve intact the Catholic tradition of inhumation—but by instruction and persuasion, not by the necessity of having to approach the episcopal curia for permission. The spirit of the Instruction seems to be that the Faithful are to be so convinced of the fittingness of interment that they choose it of their own accord. This is an example of the tendency today to show Catholics the positive value of following ecclesiastical precepts, and not to force them into line through fear of the consequences of disobedience. The laity are to be treated as responsible adults and considered capable of arriving at a prudent decision in the light of the preaching and instruction of their pastors. Not all Ordinaries, however, appear to have taken this large view. In one diocese in England, for example, the bishop has laid down that the deceased person may have a Requiem Mass followed by the usual Absolution if permission has been granted for cremation. (It is interesting to speculate what will happen in that diocese if someone chooses to be cremated without permission—or when permission has been refused. Will he be denied a Requiem Mass? Not if the Holy See's Instruction is to be followed.)

The following are among the reasons that can be suggested to explain this mitigation of the Church's traditional discipline. In the first place, the modern attitude to cremation is radically different from that which existed a century ago. Previously, as we have said, it was the widespread fashion in Continental Europe, at least, of turning cremation into an act of defiance of ecclesiastical authority. In modern times cremation has lost its historical overtones. It is so common and accepted a practice today that it no longer serves as a gesture of rebellion against the Church. It may on occasion, perhaps, betray the absence of strong supernatural convictions, but ordinarily it cannot be construed as a manifestation of open hostility towards religion. Since therefore the chief reason for her intransigent attitude towards cremation no longer exists, the Church considers that the time has come for her to modify her outlook.

In an Instruction issued in 1926, the Holy Office referred to cremation as "a barbaric custom . . . a practice repugnant to the natural sense of reverence due to the dead." In these ecumenical times such an attitude of mind has become obsolete. How can we brand as "barbaric" a custom so widespread among non-Catholic Christians, who see in it nothing incompatible with the profession of Christianity? Nor is it proper to condemn as being opposed to the natural sense of reverence towards the dead, a custom in honored use among so many non-Christian peoples. To do so would be to sin against the very first requirement for any fruitful meeting of minds, respect for one's partner in the dialogue, respect for his beliefs, respect for the practices he cherishes, which—though they may be alien to the centuries-old usages of the Church—are not on that account alone to be presumed to conflict with fundamental natural virtues.

Reasons of a hygienic or economic nature, the Instruction suggests, might justify the choice of cremation in preference to inhumation. If the site has been properly chosen, a cemetery should constitute no danger to the health of the living. The difficulty might well arise, however, in finding such a site in our fast expanding cities. Moreover, the price of cemetery lots can only tend to rise sharply as the older cemeteries have to cater for an ever-increasing urban population. The urgency of these reasons will vary widely from place to place.

In many missionary countries cremation is more in harmony with the prevailing attitudes of the local population than interment. The principle of adaptation should make the Church ready to accommodate herself to the traditions and usages of the peoples among whom she wishes to establish herself, whenever the essentials of the Catholic faith are not involved. Hence missionaries should not demand of their neophytes beyond what is necessary—and this includes interment wherever cremation is more in conformity with local customs and traditions. (On this account cremation was long ago permitted to Catholics in certain Japanese dioceses.)

For these and other reasons bishops in recent years had been sending in requests to the Holy See for dispensations from the laws that so severely and so absolutely forbade cremation. Now a dispensation is a vulnus legis; the necessity of having to accord frequent dispensations can be a sign that the law no longer corresponds to contemporary needs and that the time has come for a change. This was the case with regard to the ecclesiastical discipline on cremation and the Church has now met the need for change in the way described.

John Russell, S.J. is Professor of Canon Law at the Gregorian University, Rome. Ph.L. (Tullamore College, Ireland); S.T.L. (Milltown Park, Dublin); J.C.D. (Gregorian University, Rome).

This item 2743 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org