Ship of Fools: cremation

Thread: cremation Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030550

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

The Vatican has apparently announced that cremation is okay, but that ashes must be kept in a cemetery or similar - no scattering ashes or keeping them at home.

I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on this. Personally, I'm planning to have my ashes scattered. I can't see how this would be against my faith in Christ.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It is silly.
Here is an article talking about it.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Good thing I'm not a Catholic. I have both my parents stashed behind the TV in my living room.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

And for those who would rather review the actual document rather than news story summaries of the document, here is a link to the English version.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Surely the RCC has allowed cremation for years - I recall reading an article many moons ago about a former Methodist Church in Ealing (IIRC), refurbished as a Polish Catholic Church, and incorporating a columbarium (wall niches) for cremated remains. No ash-scattering, obviously, but clearly no problem with the principle of cremation.

IJ

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Ashes don't scatter. At least the three sets I've handled They are more like what we would called cinders. Heavier and in larger pieces than I imagined. If put into water, they sink in a clump. If you put them somewhere other than water, they would clump up on the ground. I think the idea of burying them is sensible.

The key issues after 'scattering' ashes is the is the plastic bag they were in, and the container from the crematorium. Burning plastic is considered a bad idea, though a wooden container might be okay, they have finishes on them. We ended up returning the container and plastic to the crematory after putting ashes into water.

It turns out it is illegal here to not have a box the body is in before fired, and also illegal not to have a container for ashes. I know they call them urns, but none of these containers look anything like what I picture an urn to look like.

You're supposed to have a permit to put into water - we didn't, but the lake was in another country where rules are based on what you pay and we couldn't transport back to Canada.

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

The person is dead already those left here should do whatever with the ashes that brings them comfort. My parents were cremated and ashes put in the sea. I am sure my Lord is not troubled by that. I am now looking at a new memorial park idea where you purchase a tree and there is a marker and your ashes and those of the family can be placed around, "Your," tree. Saves a forrest, and has a place for family to visit if they wish. I kind of like that idea.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

The article linked to by lilBuddha says it's been allowed since 1963.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, I rather missed the point here.

Personally, I'm not too keen on the idea of keeping Mum's ashes on the mantelpiece, but surely there can be nothing wrong in scattering said ashes on the earth or on water - 'earth to earth' indeed, and 'water to water' as well, given that water is a major constituent of the human body.

Well, not after cremation, maybe...

IJ

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

My youngest has disinherited himself by saying he's going to use me as cat litter.

I wonder what that will reconstitute me as?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Useful?

IJ

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Vampire cat man. You go to the top of the list.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Surely the RCC has allowed cremation for years - I recall reading an article many moons ago about a former Methodist Church in Ealing (IIRC), refurbished as a Polish Catholic Church, and incorporating a columbarium (wall niches) for cremated remains. No ash-scattering, obviously, but clearly no problem with the principle of cremation.

IJ

When the new Los Angeles Cathedral Our Lady of the Angels was built a columbarium was included in the crypt. The cathedral was opened in 2002.

ETA: Surely if "to the earth we must return", putting ashes directly in the ground would be within bounds?

[ 26. October 2016, 22:57: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
And for those who would rather review the actual document rather than news story summaries of the document, here is a link to the English version.

Having read the actual document, I am less disdainful, but only by a hair. ISTM, that within the faith of Christianity, the idea that the body matters after death is ridiculous.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I'm not so sure that burial in a cemetery or other sacred place "prevents any unfitting or superstitious practices." Haven't Their Eminences ever heard of Halloween?

And I'm not sure that the scattering of ashes "prevent[s] God, in his omnipotence, from raising up the deceased body to new life."

Personally, my wish (to which my family has acquiesced) is to have my ashes scattered on the streets of a certain city where I have enjoyed many pleasurable hours. But then again, I no longer consider myself Catholic.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
And I'm not sure that the scattering of ashes "prevent[s] God, in his omnipotence, from raising up the deceased body to new life."

Just so we are clear, the document does not suggest in any way that it would. The stated objection to scattering of ashes is not because it would prevent resurrection, but rather:

quote:
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.

Now what I do not understand and what is not explained is just why scattering the ashes would give an appearance of pantheism, etc. I rather wish the document went into more explanation of that.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
And I'm not sure that the scattering of ashes "prevent[s] God, in his omnipotence, from raising up the deceased body to new life."

Just so we are clear, the document does not suggest in any way that it would.

I didn't mean to claim that it did. My point was that surely God can reassemble a pile of ashes regardless of how widely it may have been scattered. I should have expressed myself more clearly.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
And for those who would rather review the actual document rather than news story summaries of the document, here is a link to the English version.
Having read the actual document, I am less disdainful, but only by a hair. ISTM, that within the faith of Christianity, the idea that the body matters after death is ridiculous.

That's a very Western understanding of Christianity. In the East, all matter matters, and human remains even moreso.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

Mousethief, what's the Orthodox position on cremation?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Maybe I should say that's a very Platonic understanding of Christianity. The spirit housed in the expendable body is Plato bordering on Plotinus; it's not Matthew Mark Luke or John.

ETA:

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Mousethief, what's the Orthodox position on cremation?

We're dead set against it, unless it can't be avoided legally (if there are some places that do not allow burials but only cremations, which apparently there are although I can't name them).

[ 27. October 2016, 03:07: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Ashes from cremation are like shell grit.

Some years ago, in accordance with her will, I mixed my aunt's ashes with those of her husband who had predeceased her, and poured them into the sea.

They did not clump, and there was no problem.

My own wishes for my remains after I die, in order of preference, are: a. organ donation b.use of cadaver for medical students to cut up c. cheapest possible disposal to prevent the vultures of the funeral industry using my death as an excuse to get money out of my family.

For the Christian, our current body is expendable because God regards it as so important he is going to totally renew it.

[ 27. October 2016, 03:21: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
For the Western Christian, our current body is expendable because God regards it as so important he is going to totally renew it.

Fixed that for you.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Mousethief, what's the Orthodox position on cremation?
We're dead set against it, unless it can't be avoided legally (if there are some places that do not allow burials but only cremations, which apparently there are although I can't name them).

Why is that?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

It is considered a desecration of the body.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
For the Western Christian, our current body is expendable because God regards it as so important he is going to totally renew it.
Fixed that for you.

So the Eastern Church thinks that Paul was a Western Christian and/or that I Corinthians 15 is not canonical.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

At some point, though, doesn't the idea of desecration of the body run up against competing questions regarding creational and financial stewardship?

In Western Europe we are running out of space to bury people - you can't buy a perpetual concession for a grave in my city any more - and cremation is far cheaper, which is not a minor consideration for someone on a low income.

I prefer burial over cremation any day of the week, but not at any price. And at the end of the day, I think a lot of this issue is to do with what we are culturally used to rather than what is right in absolutum. Views and practices in France have changed more than I'd have thought possible in the past 25 years or so.

[ 27. October 2016, 05:43: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is considered a desecration of the body.

OK, so here is the problem: The world that God created is based on recycling resources which modern burial does not allow. It also uses land which is need for living humans. And humans limiting their own growth, which isn't compatible with general Orthodox birth control, is a non-starter in practice. adn is only a stopgap anyway.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

There is this line from a translation of Job, incorporated (what a good word) in one of the musically beautiful Arias in 'Messiah' which for me has something to do with this debate.

quote:
And though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God

The atoms which have been, are, and will be incorporated of all of our bodies have been elsewhere since they were made by fusion in the stars. They may have been incorporated in other living creatures since the dawn of time. The stuff of which we are made gets shared around.

That stuff is not wasted by cremation. The atoms go elsewhere. Starting from that point, and respectful of other Traditions, I am not sure what desecration actually means. The returning to the earth of the dust of which we are made is a part of the natural yet remarkable recycling of this remarkable dust, originally made in the stars.

I have to tell you that I am awed by that process of cycling and recycling. And the fact that a part of it leads to the assembling, maintaining and reassembling of living creatures such as ourselves. It is a part of my personal reverence for life. I am not offended by cremation in this context. But I wish to respect the beliefs and feelings of those who are.

I think we can do that best together by acknowledging the cruelty and indifference which is inflicted by us on the bodies of others while we and they are alive. That seems to me to be the real desecration.

I do believe that the resurrection of the body is more than just a metaphor but given our atomic construction I cannot see how it happens. Getting back to the Messiah, I know (in my knower) that my Redeemer liveth. Eternally. And, somehow, by unimaginably miraculous means, so shall I. What happens to the temporary assembly of atoms which constitutes this 'I' seems to me to be secondary to that. But I do not wish to add to the grief of those who feel loss. That needs to be recognised in our various ways of honouring the various rites of passage which we practise.

(Edit; clearly cross-posted with lilBuddha)

[ 27. October 2016, 08:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

This diocese no longer grants permission to construct columbaria because they are not a final resting place. A former colleague's family is having to retrieve ashes from a closed church elsewhere in the country.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I do believe that the resurrection of the body is more than just a metaphor but given our atomic construction I cannot see how it happens.

It depends on whether you think resurrection of the body necessarily means resurrection of the exact same atoms that made up the body when it was alive. Of course, if you do then there's a question to be asked, namely: which exact set of atoms? For all but a few unlucky humans, the atoms that comprise our body at birth are not the same atoms that comprise it at death - I recall reading somewhere that our atoms are completely refreshed roughly every five years, and for most body parts and organs it's considerably more frequent.

The other interesting point to note is that, as well as every single atom on planet Earth having once been part of a star, every single atom in my body (and yours) has almost certainly been part of someone else's body at some point in the past. If the specific matter of the body is so important, which of us will get custody of those atoms for our resurrection bodies?

I don't see any inherent difficulty in the idea that our resurrection bodies could be made of completely new atoms and yet still be us, given that that's effectively what happens a good dozen or so times during a normal human lifespan anyway.

Also, if we consider things at the atomic level then I don't see why disposing of some of the body's atoms via cremation is any more of a desecration than disposing of some of them by throwing your toenail clippings in the bin.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My Mum and Dads ashes were scattered at sea, the whole family went and my brothers and I scattered them. Some pieces sank, some floated away, we put tulips and roses with them - tulips were my Dad's favourite and roses Mum's. We then all hugged and went out for a meal to chat about times gone by.

I shall be scattered at the same place when my turn comes.

No ecological problems, no land required. Why our remains need to be pickled in coffins and jars, I've no idea. They no longer belong to us, they should be set free to rejoin the creation from which they were made.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ Marvin

We agree. I think there is some confusion between resurrection and resuscitation - even if that "resuscitation" involves some form of "gathering". Within Orthodoxy (and I stand to be corrected), the real issue is that death entered the world at the Fall and so Traditional belief is that we were not originally made to die. Redemption includes that concept of restoration of that pre-Fall state. How those beliefs continue in the light of scientific understandings of the material composition of the body, I'm not sure.

I think the issue is what does the eternal continuation of "I" mean? Given that the "I" itself changes, both in terms of body and self-realisation.

I have no real answers to these questions, but in company with Gloria Gayner, I believe "I will survive"!

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

My paternal grandparents died in the 1930's in Charleston WV. That's all we grandkids new about them. A few years ago,2012, my brother bought a condo in Charleston and took his dog for a walk in the cemetery next door. There were our grandparents headstones. Cool.

I'm all for cremation, but think it's nice to have that little plot or plaque on a wall for future generations to see. I'm also all for keeping the close loved ones from worry, so I wouldn't want someone to have to carry an urn around forever or to have to travel to another country to scatter my ashes.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
For the Western Christian, our current body is expendable because God regards it as so important he is going to totally renew it.
Fixed that for you.
So the Eastern Church thinks that Paul was a Western Christian and/or that I Corinthians 15 is not canonical.

1 Cor 15 as you interpret it, perhaps. Everybody thinks their interpretation is what the Bible really says, and everybody else is interpolating.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is considered a desecration of the body.
OK, so here is the problem: The world that God created is based on recycling resources which modern burial does not allow. It also uses land which is need for living humans. And humans limiting their own growth, which isn't compatible with general Orthodox birth control, is a non-starter in practice. adn is only a stopgap anyway.

None of this has anything to do with the question of whether or not it's a desecration of the body.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

But why is it a desecration? Plonking the body in a big hole to be eaten by worms is hardly "dignified"!

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

My Dear Old Mother should be well on her way down to the North Sea after being cremated and scattered in a highland river last week. A river is more permanent than many grave sites, is much more pleasant to revisit, will always be there, and it doesn't waste any of God's good land. The idea of a river as something that constantly renews itself is a metaphor for resurrection that appeals to me. A dug hole is just, well... a dead place, and it stays that way.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Expense is behind cremation here. Death's big business. There is a cut rate cremation place which picks up the body, gives 10 death certificates, cremates, puts them in a wooden box for you to pick up. Depending on their body pickup travel abt $1200, including the lowest price casket made of cardboard ($125). It can be 8-10k for a traditional funeral.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Mousethief, what's the Orthodox position on cremation?
We're dead set against it, unless it can't be avoided legally (if there are some places that do not allow burials but only cremations, which apparently there are although I can't name them).

As genuine questions:

Given that there are circumstances in which the body can't be buried intact in the ground (on board ship, times of war, body is biohazardous waste, the manner of death) what's the Orthodox position (as you understand it, obviously) regarding a funeral.

Also, what about post/perimortem organ donation? Is that permissable without being considered desecrating the body?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The other interesting point to note is that, as well as every single atom on planet Earth having once been part of a star, every single ++atom in my body (and yours) has almost certainly been part of someone else's body at some point in the past. If the specific matter of the body is so important, which of us will get custody of those atoms for our resurrection bodies?

I did a back of the envelope calculation in response to this point on the Ship a couple of years back.
My conclusion was that the carbon in the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere is about six hundred times the carbon mass of the entire human race.
The current biomass is about fifty times that of the entire human race.

So that suggests that the chance that any given carbon atom has been in another human's body is less than one in six hundred and fifty (and that's ignoring carbon that is elsewhere in circulation - dissolved in sea water, for example).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The C of E urges burial of ashes - concerned with the ingtegrity of the remains that they not be scattered in multiple sites.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I did a back of the envelope calculation in response to this point on the Ship a couple of years back.
My conclusion was that the carbon in the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere is about six hundred times the carbon mass of the entire human race.
The current biomass is about fifty times that of the entire human race.

Is that the entire currently extant human race, or the entirety of the human race since we first evolved? The latter is a considerably higher number than the former, and is also what I was talking about.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is considered a desecration of the body.
OK, so here is the problem: The world that God created is based on recycling resources which modern burial does not allow. It also uses land which is need for living humans. And humans limiting their own growth, which isn't compatible with general Orthodox birth control, is a non-starter in practice. adn is only a stopgap anyway.
None of this has anything to do with the question of whether or not it's a desecration of the body.

Honestly? It is because I couldn't think of a polite way to say "desecration" of a body is superstition* held onto by tradition.
I really don't mean that to be insulting, it is what I think.
The harm in how one treats a body is in how the people who cared about the former person feel about that. The body id no more the person after death.

*Combined with a schema of control and/or direction.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I was told a few years ago that cremation isn't particularly environmental. Cremated ashes aren't good for plants. Your cremains do not recirculate for the benefit of the planet. Although bone meal is widely available and recommended as a fertiliser, that is made by grinding animal bones, almost entirely as a by-product of the meat industry.

If you are cremated, all the goodies (i.e. nutrients) in your carcase have gone up the chimney. What is left is very near to being a pollutant. Cremains do not benefit the ground they are buried in or anywhere they are scattered. Also, they contain residues from the embalming fluid that is almost universally used these days. In recycling terms, being buried, though still adding the embalming fluid to the ground you are buried in, is better for the soil.

On Orthodox burial, Mousethief am I right that if you are Orthodox you are normally dug up again 5 or 7 years after burial when the flesh has rotted away, and your bones put in a box? Or is that a specifically Greek custom? Here, digging up bones or ashes is normally very forbidden. Once you are in the ground, you stay there. It is rare for anyone to be given a faculty to move buried remains.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

So that suggests that the chance that any given carbon atom has been in another human's body is less than one in six hundred and fifty (and that's ignoring carbon that is elsewhere in circulation - dissolved in sea water, for example).

Add in the calculation the other things composed of carbon. And how some of these containers of carbon process other containers of carbon.
The real point is that bits of everyone's body came from somewhere else and will go somewhere else. This is true even if you hermetically sealed the body without embalming.
The idea that the body remain as intact as possible hangs on pretty slim reasoning.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In recycling terms, being buried, though still adding the embalming fluid to the ground you are buried in, is better for the soil.

The carcinogenic embalming fluid is not nothing. Cremation is not perfect, but there are alternatives such as "wet" cremation and composting.
The problems with these are perception, but as we expend more of our resources and land, we need to grow up and get over it.
ETA: The perceptions. Much as I disagree that Christianity mandated traditional burial, I am trying to not be rudely dismissive.

[ 27. October 2016, 16:52: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The Catholic church has always considered burial to be the most respectful way of dealing with dead bodies.

Of course there are times when this is not possible.

In traditionally Catholic countries cremation was chosen by those who doubted the resurrection of the body in the way that the Church teaches.It is still the case that those who choose this method of disposal of the body for this reason are denied a Catholic funeral. Those who choose cremation for other reasons may have a Catholic funeral.

The denial of a Catholic funeral to unbelievers is not unreasonable ( I think)

The Church is also a community and this is why the Church would much prefer that remains are kept in a place of communal prayer such as a cemetery and not 'stashed behind the mantelpiece.'

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

The Church is also a community and this is why the Church would much prefer that remains are kept in a place of communal prayer such as a cemetery and not 'stashed behind the mantelpiece.'

The community that matters is that which is above ground and still breathing. If the dead don't live in them, it doesn't natter where they are. And if they do live on in the memories of the living, the location of their dissipating components do not matter either.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Of course you are right about the importance of the community which is living and breathing above ground.

For the Catholic church the community of the faithful extends beyond those who are living and breathing above ground. Respect for the dead and prayers for the dead are an integral part of Catholic worship.

A traditional way of considering the Church is to
divide into :

The Church militant : those living and breathing above ground.

The Church suffering : those who have passed beyond this earthly life and preparing to enter the heavenly kingdom

The Church triumphant : those who have come through earthly life and have reached the goal of Heaven

All of these are part of the community of the faithful - both those who are still imperfect and those who have reached the place of perfection.

I am happy to admit that 'stashing the ashes of the dead behind the mantelpiece' is not necessarily and deliberately disrespectful. The Church, however, wishes to have the remains of those who have claimed to be members of the community in a place where they can be more easily recognised as members of the community.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
My conclusion was that the carbon in the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere is about six hundred times the carbon mass of the entire human race.
Is that the entire currently extant human race, or the entirety of the human race since we first evolved? The latter is a considerably higher number than the former, and is also what I was talking about.

Since we evolved. (Wikipedia estimates that due to the exponential population growth in the last couple of centuries about one in twenty human beings are alive at the moment.)
The calculation doesn't include food consumed for calories, but I've assumed that doesn't count as being part of us.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
For the Western Christian, our current body is expendable because God regards it as so important he is going to totally renew it.
Fixed that for you.
So the Eastern Church thinks that Paul was a Western Christian and/or that I Corinthians 15 is not canonical.
1 Cor 15 as you interpret it, perhaps. Everybody thinks their interpretation is what the Bible really says, and everybody else is interpolating.

Not in this case, I think.

St John of Damascus, in his his Concerning The Resurrection (carried by the Orthodox Christian Information Centre site), describes the post-resurrection body, on the basis of I Corinthians 15 as "now made incorruptible and having put off corruption".

A reasonable deduction from this is that it doesn't matter whether our present body is expended through being burned at the stake in martyrdom, burned in a crematorium or just returned to its constituent atoms after burial, because God is going to renew it in incorruptibility.

As to "interpolating", I was intrigued by your insertion of "Western" into my post.

If I had thought about it at all previously, I would have assumed that it was unacceptable on the Ship to alter reproductions of posts by the addition or alteration of words.

Apparently not.

[ 27. October 2016, 22:05: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Editing a person's post with the annotation "I fixed that for you" is a common Internet trope, and far from unknown on the Ship, so it didn't even occur to me that you wouldn't be familiar with it. My bad.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But why is it a desecration? Plonking the body in a big hole to be eaten by worms is hardly "dignified"!

Not sure what "dignified" has to do with it. Death is undignified, full stop. The original canons forbid cremation because of its association with the paganism of the time ("come out and be separate" and all that). As you can see from this short exposition, holding the position in the absence of that association is a bit of a "well, we just don't" kind of proposition (aka "because we've always done it that way"). I myself don't feel really strongly about it, but I do have some kind of vague sense that letting nature take its course (the undignified worms) versus forcing her hand (burning) is a real distinction somehow. But like I said I'm not going to die on that hill.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that there are circumstances in which the body can't be buried intact in the ground (on board ship, times of war, body is biohazardous waste, the manner of death) what's the Orthodox position (as you understand it, obviously) regarding a funeral.

Did you mean to say "regarding burial"? Funerals are done whenever possible, with a descending list of preferences: best is open casket, then closed casket, at the place of death, at the grave if they're already dead. More or less.

As regards burial, again you do what you can to approximate as closely as possible the ideal. But with nearly anything, there is the principle of "ekonomia," a principle by which you do the best you can and the bishop says "you did the best you could" and allows it.

quote:
Also, what about post/perimortem organ donation? Is that permissable without being considered desecrating the body?

We're all over the map on this. I'm an organ donor, because I think it's my Christian duty to help others. God knows I'm bad enough at it in my life; in my death I might do a bit more good. This discussion (this is a rather conservative site mind) is pretty balanced. Their two big issues seem to be (a) this is a matter to be undertaken with prayer and a solemn understanding of the sanctity of the whole person, and (b) it must be uncoerced.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Honestly?

Yes. Arguments why the sanctity of the body is inconvenient in the modern age are not the same as arguments that the body is not sacred.

quote:
It is because I couldn't think of a polite way to say "desecration" of a body is superstition* held onto by tradition.

Sometimes it's best to just say what you mean than to try to be polite and end up saying something else entirely.

quote:
I really don't mean that to be insulting, it is what I think.

I'm not in the least insulted. I think you're wrong, obviously, but it doesn't insult me that you disagree with me. If you had called me a raving ninny who can't find his arse with both hands and a periscope, that might be different. Then again I've been called that so much it ceases to offend.

quote:
The harm in how one treats a body is in how the people who cared about the former person feel about that. The body id no more the person after death.

The body isn't the person before death either. But the body is still that person's body. It wasn't just any hunk of dead flesh that lay in the rotunda for 3 days in November 1962. It was JFK's body. His body. Not "a" body.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On Orthodox burial, Mousethief am I right that if you are Orthodox you are normally dug up again 5 or 7 years after burial when the flesh has rotted away, and your bones put in a box? Or is that a specifically Greek custom? Here, digging up bones or ashes is normally very forbidden. Once you are in the ground, you stay there. It is rare for anyone to be given a faculty to move buried remains.

This is the custom on Mount Athos and other places where burial space is at a premium. The bones may be put into a box, or lovingly thrown onto a heap of other bones, although generally the skull ("crown") is kept separate from the other bones, often labeled so you know who it is/was.

I think the Czechs were/are Catholic, but here's an, um, interesting twist on the bone thing. Don't click if you're squeamish about dead men's bones. Lots and lots of dead men's bones.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Much as I disagree that Christianity mandated traditional burial, I am trying to not be rudely dismissive.

It's pretty much a matter of historical record that Christianity mandated traditional burial.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
St John of Damascus, in his his Concerning The Resurrection (carried by the Orthodox Christian Information Centre site), describes the post-resurrection body, on the basis of I Corinthians 15 as "now made incorruptible and having put off corruption".

A reasonable deduction from this is that it doesn't matter whether our present body is expended through being burned at the stake in martyrdom, burned in a crematorium or just returned to its constituent atoms after burial, because God is going to renew it in incorruptibility.

From this however it does not follow that it is "expendable."

===============

I enjoin you all, with fear and trepidation lest we get onto a huge tangent, to consider the Orthodox (and Catholic) understanding of relics, which (we believe) retain some measure of the holiness of the person whose relics they are. And I commend you to 2 Kings 13:21.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Sorry; it's custom to not just give bible references. Here is 2 Kings 13:21 as mentioned in my last:

And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

How does "solemn understanding of the sanctity of the whole person" fit with having relics consisting solely of people's hearts, fingers, and so on?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

This is a good point,I think. The bones of canonised saints are divided up and sent to all parts of the world.

It was common practice for the popes, once they died of course, to have their internal organs removed and stored in separate jars, sometimes in a separate church from where the body would await the day of the glorious resurrection.

It was also common for the dead to have their heart removed and placed in another area from their body.

It is also common in some countries with a Catholic tradition,especially but not exclusively Italy,for the dead to be 'buried' not underground,but rather in niches or tombs above ground.

Again in many countries of Central and Southern Europe the tombs,either underground or overground will be opened after about 25 years,and the bones put into a communal charnel house.

Ultimately the Vatican document is trying to indicate how the Church considers that respect should ,in an ideal situation, be shown to the remains of the deceased.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's a very Western understanding of Christianity. In the East, all matter matters, and human remains even moreso.

If that's the Western/Platonic understanding, the Eastern/Orthodox understanding seem to be one of faulty logic and veneration of empty vessels.

Of course, the truth is that those are both wild generalisations.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

I think the Czechs were/are Catholic, but here's an, um, interesting twist on the bone thing. Don't click if you're squeamish about dead men's bones. Lots and lots of dead men's bones.

Perhaps worth saying that ossuaries are not unknown in England. There is a big pile of
bones in a Kent crypt for example.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

MT - thanks.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

It was common practice for the popes, once they died of course, to have their internal organs removed and stored in separate jars, sometimes in a separate church from where the body would await the day of the glorious resurrection.

It was also common for the dead to have their heart removed and placed in another area from their body.

In fact, it was a standard practice amongst the Hapsburgs as well. As a general rule, the body went to the Capuchin Church in the Neuer Märkt with the heart to the Augustiner Church and other internal organs to St Stephen's. Of course there are some exceptions to this.

[ 28. October 2016, 10:15: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's a very Western understanding of Christianity. In the East, all matter matters, and human remains even moreso.
If that's the Western/Platonic understanding, the Eastern/Orthodox understanding seem to be one of faulty logic ...

I think that's the disconnect.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How does "solemn understanding of the sanctity of the whole person" fit with having relics consisting solely of people's hearts, fingers, and so on?

Well the short answer is "the whole person" means "both body and spirit/soul," not "the intact body." Because even we know that bodies don't stay intact when you bury them and the undignified worms do their bit.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's a very Western understanding of Christianity. In the East, all matter matters, and human remains even moreso.
If that's the Western/Platonic understanding, the Eastern/Orthodox understanding seem to be one of faulty logic and veneration of empty vessels.

Can you explain what's faulty about that logic? It seems to me not to be a logical inference but a claim of fact. I can see someone saying, "You believe X but X isn't true." I don't understand what you mean by "faulty logic." What inference do you believe I have drawn, and from what premises?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I hate burial and everything about it. Especially when, for one reason or another, the body is exhumed. Now that is desecration imo. Scatter the ashes, no body to disrespect. Dust to dust (or in my case water).

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Since we evolved. (Wikipedia estimates that due to the exponential population growth in the last couple of centuries about one in twenty human beings are alive at the moment.)

Good, you avoided that particular error [Smile]

. In which case:

quote:
My conclusion was that the carbon in the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere is about six hundred times the carbon mass of the entire human race.
The current biomass is about fifty times that of the entire human race.

So that suggests that the chance that any given carbon atom has been in another human's body is less than one in six hundred and fifty (and that's ignoring carbon that is elsewhere in circulation - dissolved in sea water, for example).

I'm not convinced that this takes into account the sheer speed of turnover of the atoms in a given environment. A simple example would be a box full of air. if you select a random hundredth of that box then the odds that the atoms within said hundredth have been part of the other hundredths as well are considerably greater than 1/100.

Every time we eat, drink or inhale we take in new atoms. And every time we poop, pee or exhale we get rid of old ones. And that's just the most obvious ways that transfer of atoms between us and the wider environment happens.

There's another reason that your calculation isn't accurate, and that's the fact that the distribution of atoms in the environment is not random. The majority of our sewage is converted into fertiliser for farms, which in turn becomes the plants and/or animals that we eat. Most of the remainder is returned to the water cycle, which will likely mean that in one way or another it will make its way into another human body at some point - possibly even before the river it's in reaches the sea, if you live far enough inland.

quote:
The calculation doesn't include food consumed for calories, but I've assumed that doesn't count as being part of us.

Whyever not? Calories are merely a way of measuring the energy that can be derived from food, but in order to derive said energy the atoms of that food must first be absorbed by the body.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can you explain what's faulty about that logic? It seems to me not to be a logical inference but a claim of fact. I can see someone saying, "You believe X but X isn't true." I don't understand what you mean by "faulty logic." What inference do you believe I have drawn, and from what premises?

Well I suppose it is about this sense I'm getting from you that decomposition of buried bodies by worms (actually it wouldn't be worms exactly, but never mind) - together with random preservation of bones and/or other body bits of the saints - is somehow venerating it because that's the natural way of things (perhaps?) whereas burning a body isn't venerating it because somehow it isn't natural.

That's what I'm getting from your explanation as you suggested here:

quote:
I myself don't feel really strongly about it, but I do have some kind of vague sense that letting nature take its course (the undignified worms) versus forcing her hand (burning) is a real distinction somehow. But like I said I'm not going to die on that hill.

Now, I don't know if your vague sense is the one shared by other Orthodox people who have a problem with cremation, I've never thought about it before. But if that is accurate and that is a shared understanding of the Orthodox body decomposition, it seems pretty illogical on various levels to me.

First to say that a body is to be venerated seems to suggest that it is left in one piece to decompose quietly on its own. There seems to be a logical breakdown when at the same time it is acceptable to tear off bits to wave around, however carefully this is done.

Second the idea that a body is to be venerated seems to, in and of itself, imply that it isn't just something which can later be used in artwork as per your ossuary link. Again, you might not have been using that link approvingly, it is hard to tell - but I'm not understanding your point of introducing it other than as an extension of the point about bones from Mount Athos.

Third, the idea that burning is somehow less natural than burial seems entirely illogical and bogus. Burning is of course a perfectly natural process. And keeping ashes on a windowsill seems no more or less venerable than keeping bones in a crypt.

Now, of course, I'm a Western Christian so I guess I would say that - it just looks from where I am that the Orthodox claims you've outlined relating to venerating the body are anything but.

[ 28. October 2016, 15:56: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So that suggests that the chance that any given carbon atom has been in another human's body is less than one in six hundred and fifty (and that's ignoring carbon that is elsewhere in circulation - dissolved in sea water, for example).
I'm not convinced that this takes into account the sheer speed of turnover of the atoms in a given environment. A simple example would be a box full of air. if you select a random hundredth of that box then the odds that the atoms within said hundredth have been part of the other hundredths as well are considerably greater than 1/100.

There's another reason that your calculation isn't accurate, and that's the fact that the distribution of atoms in the environment is not random. The majority of our sewage is converted into fertiliser for farms, which in turn becomes the plants and/or animals that we eat. Most of the remainder is returned to the water cycle, which will likely mean that in one way or another it will make its way into another human body at some point - possibly even before the river it's in reaches the sea, if you live far enough inland.

I think your first point adequately undercuts your third point. (Your second point omitted to be dealth with below.) If the movement of carbon atoms between environments is fast then the distribution of atoms in the environment will become random rather quickly. Atoms that are locked in dead organic matter stay locked (or carbon dating wouldn't work, but otherwise I think carbon atoms get cycled into the atmosphere by plants and bacteria pretty quickly.

quote:

quote:
The calculation doesn't include food consumed for calories, but I've assumed that doesn't count as being part of us.
Whyever not? Calories are merely a way of measuring the energy that can be derived from food, but in order to derive said energy the atoms of that food must first be absorbed by the body.

I'm assuming that the conversation is about the carbon that goes into the proteins in cell walls, bones, and so on, rather than that which gets converted straight into sugar and then respirated. If you're arguing about which person gets the carbon atoms on resurrection then atoms that were only in a person for a few days don't seem to raise the same kind of problem.

If you're arguing that the carbon within the cell walls gets cycled fairly quickly as well (and I suppose it must be for carbon dating to work) then I think that the question of who gets which carbon atom matters rather less.
(Assuming that the resurrection of the body takes place in a way that requires the currently existing carbon atoms to be used.)

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Point of information, which may or may not be of interest;

There have been claims going back hundreds of years that human bones were used at various times in British agriculture - it is certainly true that bones were a big industry in the 19 century before guano became a major commodity, but it is less easy to prove that battle-graves were dug up as some have claimed.

But assuming that human bones were spread on agricultural soils, there is a good chance that the carbon ions became incorporated into the soil carbon, which has quite a long half life.

Carbon isn't directly taken up by living plants from the soil, but from the atmosphere - however it seems reasonable to assume that the carbon in the plants most likely came from a local carbon source.

Which is to say that there is a pretty good chance that the carbon in British food contains ions from the dead at Waterloo, the dead from Egypt and the bones from buffalo slaughtered on the North American plains.

Happy eating.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm assuming that the conversation is about the carbon that goes into the proteins in cell walls, bones, and so on, rather than that which gets converted straight into sugar and then respirated.

There's an interesting discussion to be had on that point alone! Do the various liquids, carbohydrates, fats, hormones, enzymes, etc. that are within us count as part of our bodies or not? Where does the line get drawn, and on what basis?

Is the petrol in the tank part of the car? What about the engine oil? The brake fluid?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I suspect the most ecological means of disposing remains is what is common in Jewish and Muslim funerals in which the body is wrapped in a linen sheet and buried directly into the ground without a coffin.

Come to think of it, that makes a lot of sense.

I'm not against cremation, it is cheaper than burial and not against scattering them in the sea. However, the one problem I have it, is that there is no grave site for people to come on anniversaries of death to offer flowers and pay respect. Going to a river or a sea is different from a grave marker, because a grave marker is specifically noted for the deceased.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I suspect the most ecological means of disposing remains is what is common in Jewish and Muslim funerals in which the body is wrapped in a linen sheet and buried directly into the ground without a coffin.

I guess this must depend on what you mean by "ecological" - it seems to me to be pretty unlikely that a local soil environment would do well in the short term with a lot of fats and protein suddenly thrown at it, and having a lot of bodies in the same place may well cause an overload as to what the microbes can deal with, leading to unpleasant emissions.

In contrast, I'd have thought ignition is likely to lead to much more stable ashes which are much less likely to cause an environmental problem (well, in the soil at least - I guess one also needs to consider the atmospheric emissions).

quote:
Come to think of it, that makes a lot of sense.

I'm not against cremation, it is cheaper than burial and not against scattering them in the sea. However, the one problem I have it, is that there is no grave site for people to come on anniversaries of death to offer flowers and pay respect. Going to a river or a sea is different from a grave marker, because a grave marker is specifically noted for the deceased.

There is a lot of sea, I suppose, but presumably the spreading of a lot of ashes in the same place could cause problems. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the disposal of bodies is a contributory factor to the polluted Ganges, for example.

I also think that the need for a marker must on some level be a social construct. I'm not sure that there has ever really been a need to have a grave on which to lay flowers.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
...the most ecological means of disposing remains ...

Freeze-drying the dead could help save the planet

What will the Vatican say about that?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Or a sky burial.

(if you check the wikipedia page, yes, there's pictures of dead bodies)

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

Our clergy team handles between 100 and 150 funerals each year, a huge majority of which are cremations. Cremation followed fairly quickly by an interment in a churchyard, cemetery or woodland burial area or similar offers a decent and reverent way of dealing with a body. Unfortunately, because cremated remains are portable and handleable, they enable less reverent and (IMO) less decent alternatives.

We find ashes unofficially buried and scattered in the churchyard (once in a supermarket carrier bag) and I know that this is also a continuing problem for gardeners at National Trust properties. I visit houses where ashes have sat in boxes and urns for decades. I inter ashes and family members come up afterwards to say "I kept a bit". I've met representatives of companies that will convert cremated remains into diamonds (another response to the Carbon question), or make matching pendents for all the family, each containing a wee bit of Grannie's ashes.

I'm Anglican, so Canon law prevents me from presiding at a surface scattering, flinging or firing of ashes from a rocket. When they ask me to rewrite the Canons (!!) I will propose that nothing should be done with cremated remains that could not be done with a body. Would you try to keep a bit of a body in your pocket? No? then don't do it with ashes. Would you keep the body at home for decades? Would you throw it off a cliff or into a river? Then don't treat ashes like that.

I know that many people handle the cremated remains of their loved ones with reverence and care, scattering or strewing them lovingly, but the very nature of cremated remains makes it too easy for them to be treated otherwise.

anne

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well I suppose it is about this sense I'm getting from you that decomposition of buried bodies by worms (actually it wouldn't be worms exactly, but never mind) - together with random preservation of bones and/or other body bits of the saints - is somehow venerating it because that's the natural way of things (perhaps?) whereas burning a body isn't venerating it because somehow it isn't natural.

Hmm. Then I am not making myself clear. How about this: burning is destructive intervention. If you don't do anything to a body, the flesh will rot from the bones. Burning requires you to DO something, and something intentionally destructive.

quote:

quote:
I myself don't feel really strongly about it, but I do have some kind of vague sense that letting nature take its course (the undignified worms) versus forcing her hand (burning) is a real distinction somehow. But like I said I'm not going to die on that hill.
Now, I don't know if your vague sense is the one shared by other Orthodox people who have a problem with cremation, I've never thought about it before. But if that is accurate and that is a shared understanding of the Orthodox body decomposition, it seems pretty illogical on various levels to me.

"If that is accurate" -- if I am reporting my personal beliefs truthfully? WTF?

quote:
First to say that a body is to be venerated seems to suggest that it is left in one piece to decompose quietly on its own.

I thought we'd established that that's what we do.

quote:
There seems to be a logical breakdown when at the same time it is acceptable to tear off bits to wave around, however carefully this is done.

The vast vast majority of first-class relics are pieces of bone. They are not "torn off" an intact body.

quote:
Second the idea that a body is to be venerated seems to, in and of itself, imply that it isn't just something which can later be used in artwork as per your ossuary link.

Agreed. That is creepy and improper.

quote:
Again, you might not have been using that link approvingly, it is hard to tell - but I'm not understanding your point of introducing it

Clearly

quote:
other than as an extension of the point about bones from Mount Athos.

It's an example of the concept of letting the flesh fall from the bones then removing the bones and setting them aside. When the number of bones gets really big, people (for good or for ill) can get a little creative with them, apparently.

quote:
Third, the idea that burning is somehow less natural than burial seems entirely illogical and bogus. Burning is of course a perfectly natural process.

See above. But note again that I said this was my vague feeling, not the position of the Orfie church and not something I am going to go to the wall for. Making your reaction seem a lot over the top.

quote:
And keeping ashes on a windowsill seems no more or less venerable than keeping bones in a crypt.

On this we clearly disagree. Probably not much more to be said on this score. May it please God.

quote:
Now, of course, I'm a Western Christian so I guess I would say that - it just looks from where I am that the Orthodox claims you've outlined relating to venerating the body are anything but.

Shrug. Are you speaking about what the Orthodox officially believe, or my personal opinions that I hold loosely?

[ 29. October 2016, 01:50: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I suspect the most ecological means of disposing remains is what is common in Jewish and Muslim funerals in which the body is wrapped in a linen sheet and bu

Or the Zoroastrian Tower of Silence - carrion eat the body.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Anne - my mother specifically dictated that she be cremated and her ashes scattered on the River Wharfe, which is what we did. The scatter tube, inevitably still containing some of the ashes I still have and will be buried at the base of a bush I will buy for the garden in the Spring. Ylu can probably guess how much I care that the Church officially disapproves of my carrying out her wishes, but just for the record, it's the lower bound of 1/x as x approaches infinity.

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I suspect the most ecological means of disposing remains is what is common in Jewish and Muslim funerals in which the body is wrapped in a linen sheet and bu
Or the Zoroastrian Tower of Silence - carrion eat the body.

My grandma used to say, "I don't care what you do with me; just put me in a Co-op box in the garden." Strikes me as pretty ecologically sound.

(We didn't, of course. She was cremated and her ashes put in the plot with my grandpa - from whom she'd been separated for years and whom she hated but, hey; there was a space that had been paid for. Waste not, want not! We noticed on a winter's day some years later that the whole graveyard was deep in snow except our family plot, which was bare of snow. My suggestion that the snow there had melted owing to the heat generated by the friction from Grandma spinning in her grave having been buried with Gramps was, strangely, not well received by my mother...)

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Anne - my mother specifically dictated that she be cremated and her ashes scattered on the River Wharfe, which is what we did. The scatter tube, inevitably still containing some of the ashes I still have and will be buried at the base of a bush I will buy for the garden in the Spring. Ylu can probably guess how much I care that the Church officially disapproves of my carrying out her wishes, but just for the record, it's the lower bound of 1/x as x approaches infinity.

I don't suppose for a moment that you care what I think either (nor should you) but I am glad that you were able to carry out your Mother's wishes.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Cremation is now the norm in the UK. Relatively few British people are RCs in any case, so what the RCC has to say about it won't affect very many people here.

However, I come from a community that overwhelmingly prefers burials, so if there's enough money left in the kitty (and space in the cemetery) I think I'd prefer burial for myself. Cremation would create the problem of what to do with my ashes. I have no particular connection with rivers, cliffs or country meadows to justify scattering my ashes there, and there's no tradition in the family of stuffing cremation urns to the back of cupboards, etc. Being in the ground would be simpler.

[ 29. October 2016, 20:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
I'm Anglican, so Canon law prevents me from presiding at a surface scattering, flinging or firing of ashes from a rocket. When they ask me to rewrite the Canons (!!) I will propose that nothing should be done with cremated remains that could not be done with a body. Would you try to keep a bit of a body in your pocket? No? then don't do it with ashes. Would you keep the body at home for decades? Would you throw it off a cliff or into a river? Then don't treat ashes like that.

I looked at the canons for cremation in my Canadian Anglican diocese. It references compliance with civil law and "ashes be disposed
of in a decent and reverent manner". Which leaves it in the judgement of the priest.

One of the other problems on the Canadian prairies and north is that after ~December each year, the ground becomes hard frozen. The options are to thaw it with a tiger-torch (one of those 40 or 100 lb propane construction torches) over the course of a couple of days, cremate, or have the body held in cold storage until spring. Some cemeteries pre-dig holes, but they tend to cave in with shifting as freezing. Smaller RMs don't have the funds to do it.

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

It's interesting that this should be yet another division amongst believers (not in that we disagree about what ought to happen to our dead but in that we disagree about WHY what ought to happen to our dead ought to happen to our dead.)

I've never really thought about there being a Roman position - I just assumed they accept cremation because I've known plenty of Romans who've been cremated and have often found myself conducting at the crem before or after my local Roman mucker. I knew "Anglicans down" accept cremation and that Orthodox don't. This week I've learned that Romans accept it but not really!

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I suspect the most ecological means of disposing remains is what is common in Jewish and Muslim funerals in which the body is wrapped in a linen sheet and buried directly into the ground without a coffin.
I guess this must depend on what you mean by "ecological" - it seems to me to be pretty unlikely that a local soil environment would do well in the short term with a lot of fats and protein suddenly thrown at it [...]

Why so? I would have thought that "local soil environments" would be pretty well adapted to take advantage of animal carcasses.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

If a deer (roughly human sized) or moose (much larger) dies in the open or in a forest, even in the frozen Canadian north, there's nothing but bones by spring, and within 3-10 years, those are generally hard to find, though a rib or skull may show up for 25 or 50 years if it is sticking up. We have some middens with buffalo bones which are 5000 years old. Only located due to volume. I expect that in warmer climates, the time is shorter for bacterial and animal consumption, and the remaining hard parts more quickly covered over by the detritus of nature (leaves, other plant litter, soil which forms).

The aspect of wanting a location of the ashes or remains, so as to visit - I think this can be nice in some situations, and not needed at all in others. Oddly we have no location for my mother (ashes in a small lake in another country where she died), and my inlaws in a close by cemetery. I find, and the family finds, no real issue either way. YMMV

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

Not all ashes scatterers or those who make requests of them are considerate, reverent or thoughtful. There's often no consideration of those who might drink from the rivers, walk in the beauty spots, garden around the famous house without drinking, walking through or digging through human remains. Now it seems that there's no thought for fellow opera lovers either.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37814444

anne

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Now it seems that there's no thought for fellow opera lovers either.

It seems that they could have bypassed the middle man by placing the ashes directly in the opera house vacuum cleaner.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

And the chap responsible should be charged the full price of a ticket every time he wants to visit Granny's resting place... [Snigger]

Oh, and he should also be made to reimburse those who were unable to go to the opera at all, or who had to miss the fourth act.

IJ

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Oh, and he should also be made to reimburse those who were unable to go to the opera at all, or who had to miss the fourth act.

IJ

Absolutely.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Now it seems that there's no thought for fellow opera lovers either.
It seems that they could have bypassed the middle man by placing the ashes directly in the opera house vacuum cleaner.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Which vacuum cleaner would then, of course, be reverently buried in consecrated ground (again, at the perp's expense).

IJ

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Which vacuum cleaner would then, of course, be reverently buried in consecrated ground (again, at the perp's expense).

Not necessary, according to this thread. Just scatter it somewhere it won't cause ecological damage. New Jersey, say.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

There is an interesting (and quite moving IMO) passage in one of John Donne's sermons (the exact reference I can't locate at the moment) in which he meditates on the resurrection of the body, of which parts may have been lost in battle, wasted away by disease, etc. He says in part (more or less) 'God who knows in which cabinet of his every seed pearl lies, whistles and beckons for the bodies of his saints, and at a flash and in a crash each of them is immortal diamond.' I apologise for mis-quotation.

On a more personal level: when my partner died he had left quite specific directions for his funeral and burial. He was to be cremated AFTER the funeral mass, and his ashes buried in a private woodland owned by a friend. So that was done, except 'I kept part of the remains,' and consigned a bit to the nearby stream, which he had loved. Three other bits I kept, the first I had buried in the parish burial garden, one I placed in the outgoing tide at the Atlantic coast, and the last poured into the Seine from the Pont Neuf. Irregular? Perhaps, but he was a sort of 'irregular' personality, and it all connected in various ways. (I had the above-referenced Donne passage read at the church burial service.)

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Why so? I would have thought that "local soil environments" would be pretty well adapted to take advantage of animal carcasses.

Well I suppose it depends what you mean - yes, the microbes and other carrion in the soil will break down a body, but a large carcass may not remain within the soil because there may not be enough local capacity for storing or using it. There is therefore, I'm afraid to say, potential where large numbers of bodies are buried for pollution to groundwater from the embalming fluids, the coffins or from the decomposition products from the bodies themselves.

Which is a very nasty thought.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
There is an interesting (and quite moving IMO) passage in one of John Donne's sermons

Perhaps this, from here - Sermon LXXXI:

quote:
God knows in what cabinet every seed-pearl lies, in what part of the world every grain of every man's dust lies; and sibilat populum suum, (as his prophet speaks in another case4) he whispers, he hisses, he beckons for the bodies of his saints, and in the twinkling of an eye, that body that was scattered over all the elements, is sat down at the right hand of God, in a glorious resurrection. A dropsy hath extended me to an enormous corpulency, and unwieldiness; a consumption hath attenuated me to a feeble macilency and leanness, and God raises me a body, such as it should have been, if these infirmities had not intervened and deformed it.

There is also this, available here - Sermon XIX

quote:
the dead body falls by putrefaction into a dissolution, into atoms and grains of dust; and the resurrection from this fall, is by re-efformation: God shall re-compact and re-compile those atoms and grains of dust, into that body, which was before: and then a third fall in natural death, is casus in dispersionem, this man being fallen into a divorce of body and soul, this body being fallen into a dissolution of dust, this dust falls into a dispersion, and is scattered unsensibly, undiscernibly upon the face of the earth; and the resurrection from this death, is by way of re-collection; God shall recall and re-collect all these atoms, and grains of dust, and recompact that body, and re-unite that soul, and so that resurrection is accomplished:

Which lets us know that Donne, like any great thinker, recycles his thoughts just as God recycles our bodies into a heavenly home as we might suppose.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

Many of my mother's family were buried in Nunhead Cemetery in London, famous for vandalism over a long period before it was rescued and partly restored. There are stories of biker gang members digging up graves for skulls that they would use to decorate their motorbikes. That helped me make up my own mind that cremation and scattering in a special place that is pleasant to remember, and that can't be desecrated, was all I wanted. So far, that's how we have cared for both of my parents, and I'm trusting our children to do the same for me.

I'm not completely closed minded about burial. A lot of my wife's family members are buried in a small cemetery cut out of the cornfields close to their village in Nebraska, near the farms that they worked, and you could hardly imagine a more peaceful place. That works too. I am as sure of God's presence there as by a highland river in Scotland.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

One other less serious argument against cremation that I heard is that on the rare chance that your relative is officially canonized as a saint by Rome, cremation means denying the faithful opportunity for venerating their relics.

Has there been a saint canonized by Rome who was cremated?

[ 30. October 2016, 23:15: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Why so? I would have thought that "local soil environments" would be pretty well adapted to take advantage of animal carcasses.
Well I suppose it depends what you mean - yes, the microbes and other carrion in the soil will break down a body, but a large carcass may not remain within the soil because there may not be enough local capacity for storing or using it. There is therefore, I'm afraid to say, potential where large numbers of bodies are buried for pollution to groundwater from the embalming fluids, the coffins or from the decomposition products from the bodies themselves.

Which is a very nasty thought.

Anglican_brat was referring to wrapping the body in a linen cloth and burying it without a casket, so objections about embalming fluids and coffins are irrelevant. As for the rest - just don't put them all in the same place. Large animals die all the time, but we don't seem to need to comb the forests to remove their carcasses to safeguard the water supply.

(Also - "microbes and other carrion in the soil" doesn't make sense. "Carrion" is the decaying flesh of dead animals, not what eats the decaying flesh of dead animals.)

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
One other less serious argument against cremation that I heard is that on the rare chance that your relative is officially canonized as a saint by Rome, cremation means denying the faithful opportunity for venerating their relics.

Has there been a saint canonized by Rome who was cremated?

What about those burned at the stake?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not necessary, according to this thread. Just scatter it somewhere it won't cause ecological damage. New Jersey, say.

I could have sworn I read "theological damage."

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Anglican_brat was referring to wrapping the body in a linen cloth and burying it without a casket, so objections about embalming fluids and coffins are irrelevant. As for the rest - just don't put them all in the same place. Large animals die all the time, but we don't seem to need to comb the forests to remove their carcasses to safeguard the water supply.

Note the link, cemeteries are a potential source of contamination.

Even a single body, in particular circumstances, can cause pollution. Animal bodies are often eaten by other large animals and are not usually buried in the ground.

quote:
(Also - "microbes and other carrion in the soil" doesn't make sense. "Carrion" is the decaying flesh of dead animals, not what eats the decaying flesh of dead animals.)

Yes, I meant carrion-eaters.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
One other less serious argument against cremation that I heard is that on the rare chance that your relative is officially canonized as a saint by Rome, cremation means denying the faithful opportunity for venerating their relics.

Has there been a saint canonized by Rome who was cremated?

Joan of Arc.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not necessary, according to this thread. Just scatter it somewhere it won't cause ecological damage. New Jersey, say.
I could have sworn I read "theological damage."

Oh that's different. New Jersey, then.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
One other less serious argument against cremation that I heard is that on the rare chance that your relative is officially canonized as a saint by Rome, cremation means denying the faithful opportunity for venerating their relics.

Has there been a saint canonized by Rome who was cremated?
Joan of Arc.

I had her in mind when I mentioned those burned at the stake, but there have been others as well.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Presumably those burned at the stake would not have been reduced completely to ashes - IOW, there would be bones, at least, requiring burial, from which suitable relics could be selected.

This, I guess, applies only to Carflick martyrs!

IJ

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Presumably those burned at the stake would not have been reduced completely to ashes - IOW, there would be bones, at least, requiring burial, from which suitable relics could be selected.

Actually, according to the Wiki article on Joan of Arc:

quote:
Eyewitnesses described the scene of the execution by burning on 30 May 1431. Tied to a tall pillar at the Vieux-Marché in Rouen, she asked two of the clergy, Fr Martin Ladvenu and Fr Isambart de la Pierre, to hold a crucifix before her. An English soldier also constructed a small cross that she put in the front of her dress. After she died, the English raked back the coals to expose her charred body so that no one could claim she had escaped alive. They then burned the body twice more, to reduce it to ashes and prevent any collection of relics, and cast her remains into the Seine River. The executioner, Geoffroy Thérage, later stated that he "greatly feared to be damned."

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

However, according to "Foxe's Book of Martyrs":

"John Noyes, a shoemaker, of Laxfield, Suffolk, was taken to Eye and at midnight, Sept. 21, 1557, he was brought from Eye to Laxfield to be burned. On the following morning he was led to the stake, prepared for the horrid sacrifice. Mr. Noyes, on coming to the fatal spot, knelt down, prayed, and rehearsed the 50th psalm. When the chain enveloped him, he said, "Fear not them that kill the body, but fear him that can kill both body and soul, and cast it into everlasting fire!"

...

"The ashes of the body were buried in a pit, and with them one of his feet, whole to the ankle, with the stocking on".

Delightful (not).

[ 31. October 2016, 15:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

From the date of his death, I take it that the unfortunate Mr. Noyes was a Protestant martyr. It's ironic, given his trade, that one of his feet was spared the burning, complete with stocking (but what happened to his shoe?).

I stand corrected re Joan of Arc. A proper job, indeed.

IJ

Posted by Crotalus (# 4959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

Has there been a saint canonized by Rome who was cremated?

St Maximilian Kolbe.
St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
From the date of his death, I take it that the unfortunate Mr. Noyes was a Protestant martyr.

If he wasn't, he wouldn't have been in Foxe's book.

A work much beloved of the peculiar kind of anti-hagiography enthusiast that a takes special delight in their own particular style of hagiography.

[ 31. October 2016, 20:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Once again, I've failed to pick up the salient point - thanks, Eutychus! I blame my medication.

I'd still like to know what happened to his shoe .....

IJ

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crotalus:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

Has there been a saint canonized by Rome who was cremated?
St Maximilian Kolbe.
St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

My mother's ashes, in a wood she loved, seemed to have been much appreciated by stinging nettles when we revisited, so presumably provided some nutrition. I don't know about Dad's. I'll have to check sometime.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

slight tangent alert/

Intriguingly, there are relics of St. Maximilian Kolbe in existence (according to Wikipedia) in the form of hairs from his head, saved - perhaps with almost miraculous foresight - by his barbers, some years before the War.

IJ

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0