Section — Koch–Preuss
Section 7: Duties with Regard to the Mortal Remains of the Dead
- GENERAL REMARKS.—The belief that we owe reverence and respect to the bodies of our departed fellowmen is deeply ingrained in human nature.
a) All nations agree that it is the duty of a dead man’s relatives to provide for the decent burial of his body and that his friends and those indebted to him for favors should join in paying him the “last honors,” i. e., accompany his corpse to its final resting-place.1 From this conviction arose certain burial forms or rites, which differed according to the stage of culture. Equally general is the belief that the denial of the customary burial rites is an act of dishonor towards the dead, his relatives and friends. An honest burial may be denied only to those who at the time of their death had notoriously forfeited every claim to honor and consideration.
1 Cfr. Gen. XLVII, 29; L, 1–13; 1 Kings XXXI, 11–13; 2 Kings II, 5.—Cfr. P. Lex, Das kirchliche Begräbnisrecht, pp. 3 sqq.
b) The Catholic Church has approved and sanc- tified these general notions and customs regarding burial. In the light of Christian belief the mortal remains of the dead are invested with a higher significance. We owe them honor and reverence because they were organs of the spirit, and likewise on account of their participation in the supernatural life of grace and virtue led by the Christian believer, and because they are destined to rise again and become reunited with their souls.2 The Church, therefore, did not abolish the civil funeral ceremonies, but transformed them into a religious and liturgical rite, the essential elements of which are the solemn blessing of the corpse, usually in church, and burial in consecrated soil and the offering up of prayers and sacrifices for the repose of the soul.
2 St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, l. I, c. 13: “Nevertheless the bodies of the dead, and especially of the just and faithful, are not therefore to be despised and cast away; the Holy Spirit used them as organs and vessels for all good works.” (Migne, P. L., XLI, 27). Cfr. also the same author’s treatise, De Cura pro Mortuis Gerenda, c. 7, n. 9 (Ibid., XL, 598).
The Church denies the “last honors” of Christian burial only to those who, by some definite sinful act, have deprived themselves of honor among their fellowmen. She permits the erection of beautiful monuments to the dead for the reason that exhibition of honors does not cease with death,3 and honors shown to a dead person reflect glory upon his family. But she condemns mere pomp or hypocritical ostentation as unbecoming.
- BURIAL OR CREMATION?—The interment of the dead, commonly known as burial (inhumatio), dates back to the beginnings of the human race. The divine sentence: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return,”4 was verified among all the nations of antiquity, and even to-day burial is looked upon by all highly civilized peoples as the most becoming method of disposing of the mortal remains of man.
4 Gen. III, 19; cfr. Ecclus. XL, 1.
The custom of burying corpses in the earth, or in sealed coffins in mausoleums above the earth, has entered into the practice and ritual of the Catholic Church. She devotes a special religious cult to the bodies of the dead and surrounds the ceremony of burial (ordo exequiarum), the place of burial, and the monument erected upon the grave with a profound and beautiful religious symbolism.5
5 Rit. Rom., tit. VI, c. 1 and 3; cfr. F. Probst, Die Exequien, Tübingen 1856; C. Krieg, Die Wissenschaft der Seelenleitung, Vol. I, pp. 232 sqq.
a) The custom of burning the bodies of the dead (crematio) is of pagan origin and anciently was practiced mostly in connection with fire worship. The Jews never burned, but always buried, their dead.6 Only in exceptional cases, to aggravate capital punishment, in times of war or epidemics, or to prevent dishonoring by pagan enemies,7 were corpses consigned to the flames. Cremation in the Old Testament was regarded either as a disgrace inflicted on the body, or as a sign of extreme necessity. Certain passages which have been quoted to prove that cremation was customary among the Chosen People, refer to the burning of aromatic spices at burials.8
6 Cfr. Gen. XXIII, 19; XXV, 9 sq.; XLVII, 29; XLIX, 30 sq.; L, 2, 25.
7 Gen. XXXVIII, 24; Lev. XXI, 9; Am. VI, 10; 1 Kings XXXI, 12.
8 Jer. XXXIV, 5; 2 Chr. XVI, 14; cfr. J. Benzinger, Hebräische Archäologie, 2nd ed., Tübingen 1907, pp. 127 sqq.
Christianity followed the Jewish practice of burying the dead, and ever since the earliest days of the Church, inhumation was looked upon as a specifically Christian and cremation as a specifically pagan custom,9 though the New Testament contains no express prohibition of the latter.10
9 Minucius Felix, Octavius, c. 11: “[Christians] both execrate pyres and condemn burials by fire.” (Migne, P. L., III, 267).
10 John XII, 7; cfr. D. A. Petrakakos, Die Toten im Recht, Leipsic 1905.
It is recorded that, in times of persecution, the early Christians risked their lives to recover the bodies of their martyrs, that they might be buried with the sacred rites of the Church. The pagans, to destroy faith in the resurrection of the body, often cast the corpses of martyred Christians into the flames. Minucius Felix thus adverts to their belief that cremation makes resurrection impossible: “Nor do we fear, as you suppose, any harm from [this mode of disposing of the body], but we adhere to the old and better custom of inhumation.”11
11 Octavius, c. 34: “Nor, as you believe, do we fear any harm from burial, but we follow the ancient and better custom of interment.” (Migne, P. L., III, 347).—A council held at Paderborn (Germany), in 785, decreed (can. 7): “Whoever cremates a corpse according to pagan custom, shall be punished with death.” And again (can. 22): “The dead bodies of the Christian Saxons should be brought into the cemeteries of the Church and not buried in the mounds of the heathen.” (Hefele, Konziliengeschichte, Vol. III, 2nd ed., pp. 636 sq.). The Order of the “Teutonic Knights” forbade the Prussians in the peace treaty of 1249 to burn the corpses of their dead. (Voigt, Geschichte Preussens, Vol. II, p. 626).
It is only of late years that in some countries cremation has been substituted for burial, and crematories with rooms for the storage of urns containing the ashes of the dead have begun to take the place of Christian cemeteries.
b) The reasons given for cremation are partly esthetic, partly psychological, partly economic, and partly hygienic.
α) From the standpoint of esthetics,12 the cremationists contend, it is more becoming to the beauty of the human body to be dissolved by fire, which is a pure and cleansing element, than to rot in the earth, which is unclean and soiled. Cremation furthermore makes it possible to realize the poetic idea of preserving a genuine memorial of the departed in the form of their own ashes, kept in an urn, which serves as a decorative object.
12 Cfr. J. Grimm, “Ueber das Verbrennen,” in Kleinere Schriften, Vol. II, Berlin 1865, pp. 211–313; K. Th. Schulz, Eine neue Bestattungsart, Berlin 1897, pp. 61 sqq.
In answer to this argument we may say that the process of cremation, while it is more rapid than that of natural decomposition, is by no means more attractive or more esthetic. The poetic idea referred to is merely a sentimental apotheosis of human nature, and its object can be more effectively realized by honoring the grave in which the mortal remains of the departed rest.
β) From the point of view of psychology this argument is advanced: It is repugnant to natural sentiment, and therefore inhuman, to commit the body of a departed relative or friend to a process of decay which cannot be visualized without a shudder. Cremation excludes the horrors of inhumation and is therefore to be preferred.
We answer: Aside from the fact that in a properly constructed grave the corpse does not become the prey of worms, human sentiment is repelled even more by the brutal destruction of the bodily remains of a relative or friend by fire, whereas, on the other hand, it is consoling to be able to visit the grave where a departed relative or friend has found his last resting-place after the labors and trials of life.
γ) In the interest of agriculture it is asserted that inhumation injures the public good by withdrawing a vast amount of soil from cultivation and confining a number of chemical elements indispensable to vegetation in a place where they cannot be utilized, thus gradually bringing about a lack of food, whereas cremation prevents this danger.
This argument is as unconvincing as the other two. The ground devoted to the burial of the dead in any given country is extremely small in proportion to the total area of arable land. Moreover, the chemical elements into which the body is dissolved in the grave are not lost, but for the most part absorbed by the ground water, which redistributes them in every direction.
δ) The principal argument adduced in favor of cremation is that derived from hygiene. It is claimed that cemeteries are a constant menace to the public health because of the poisonous gases they exhale into the atmosphere and the decayed substances with which they infect the ground water, which feeds the wells and springs of the vicinity.
This specious argument is refuted by the testimony of competent experts, who declare that there is no danger whatever to the public health from properly kept cemeteries. No poisonous gases arise, and if any should arise, they would be instantly dissipated by the fresh air. Poisonous infiltration of the ground water is improbable, and we know of no case where it was ever proved that a well was poisoned by infiltration from a burial ground. Neither has it ever been demonstrated that an epidemic started from a cemetery, or that cemeteries, of which there are so many in or near our cities and towns, are a menace to health.13 If such a danger were ever shown to exist, it could easily be obviated by the proper construction of coffins and tombs and the rational treatment of corpses. The danger of burying apparently dead persons can be avoided by legally enforced autopsy.
13 J. Rochard, “La Crémation,” in the Revue des Deux Mondes, Vol. XCVIII (1890), pp. 916–944; G. Cornet, Die Tuberkulose, Vienna, 1899, pp. 29 sq., 40.
So much for the negative side of the question. Positively, it can be shown that inhumation is the best and simplest means of disposing of the mortal remains of the dead. It has been practiced from most ancient times and appeals to human sentiment as eminently decent and proper. Cremation, on the contrary, runs counter to that sentiment, and is, moreover, impractical. In the first place, crematories and columbaria would withdraw nearly as much soil from agriculture as burial grounds. Second, they are costly to erect and to operate. Third, cremation makes the post-mortem examination of corpses for medical and judicial purposes impossible, or at least extremely difficult, as some crimes cannot be detected by an analysis of the ashes after the corpse is burnt.14 Inhumation has this further advantage over cremation that it makes possible the disinterment of a corpse long after death in case a suspicion of foul play arises where no one thought of it at the time.
14 Cfr. F. Goppelsröder, Ueber Feuerbestattung, Mühlhausen 1890.
It is asserted that cremation can at least be justified in exceptional cases, for instance, during dangerous epidemics or on the battlefield in time of war. But even this is doubtful. When an epidemic rages, the corpses of the victims can be more rapidly buried than burned, and to compel an army to drag along crematories would be an undue burden.
- The Catholic Church forbids her children to enrol in societies established for the purpose of promoting cremation, or to direct that their own bodies or those of fellow-Catholics be burned after death. She has issued this prohibition for the reason that she looks upon cremation as a detestable abuse.15 This opinion is based, not upon any dogmatic teaching concerning the human body and its resurrection,—for God can collect and revitalize ashes as easily as dust,—16 nor on the impossibility of performing the burial rite over the remains of a burnt corpse, which is quite often done for victims of conflagrations, but mainly on the anti-Christian, anti-ecclesiastical, materialistic, and pagan tendency of the cremation movement, and on the human, and particularly the Christian sentiment towards the mortal remains of man. It is repugnant to human nature to interfere arbitrarily and violently with the natural process of decay which the body undergoes after death, and in the second place the faithful Catholic, who regards Christ’s death and grave as the pattern of his own demise and burial, can ask nothing better than that his mortal remains be buried as the sacred body of the Redeemer was buried, like “a seed sowed in God’s acre, to mature in glory on the day of the resurrection.”17
15 “Detestabilis abusus;” S. C. Offic., d. d. 19 May, 1886; d. d. 15 Dec., 1886; d. d. 27 July, 1892 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1863 sq.).
16 Matth. XXII, 29.—Minucius Felix says (Octavius, c. 34): “Every body, whether it dries into dust, or is dissolved into moisture, or is compressed into ashes, or is attenuated into vapor, is withdrawn from us, but is reserved for God in the custody of the elements.” (Migne, P. L., III, 347). And again
17 “Saat gesäet von Gott, am Tage der Garben zu reifen,” as the poet Klopstock puts it beautifully.—Cfr. Matth. XXVII, 58 sqq.; John V, 28 sq.; XI, 23; XIX, 38 sqq.; 1 Cor. XV, 24 sqq.; 2 Cor. V, 10; Phil. III, 21.—St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, l. I, c. 13: “These authorities (Matth. XXVI, 10–13; John XIX, 38–42) do not teach that any sensation inheres in corpses, but signify that the bodies of the dead also pertain to God’s providence, to which even such offices of piety are pleasing, in order to build up faith in the resurrection.” (Migne, P. L., XLI, 27).—St. Gregory the Great says (Moral., l. IV, c. 27, n. 52): “For what else is it to bury than to conceal?” (P. L., LXXV, 633).
“What principally determined the Church to forbid cremation,” says Msgr. Meyenberg, “was the observation that the advocates of this practice everywhere employed it as a means to undermine belief in the resurrection of the dead and to de-Christianize public life.”18
16 (op. cit., c. 11): “As though every body, even if it is withheld from the flames, is not nevertheless resolved into earth by years and ages, and as though it mattered whether wild beasts tear it apart, seas consume it, earth covers it, or flame carries it off, since for corpses every burial is good if they feel, and if they do not feel, it is a remedy by the very speed of destruction.” (P. L., III, 267 sq.).
18 Schweizerische Kirchenzeitung, Lucerne, 1909, p. 53.
The question of cremation does not involve an ecclesiastical dogma, nor is it a purely denominational question, but one in which all Christian churches should be equally interested for the sake of the preservation of an ancient Christian custom which cannot be abolished without grave scandal to the faithful.
It will not do to say that cremation is purely voluntary and must be conceded as a part of that religious freedom of which our age is so proud, for the advocates of cremation aim at making it compulsory, and they are not a religious sect. nor is cremation a religious rite. What they demand is not tolerance, but the enforcement of their impious and un-christian ideas.
The Holy Office has decided19 that if a corpse has been cremated, not by order of the deceased, but at the command of others,20 it may be buried with religious honors, provided the exsequies do not take place at the crematory and no scandal is given. Scandal need not be feared if it is publicly known that the deceased did not wish his body to be cremated. The new Code re-inforces the law that if a Catholic, while living, com- mands his body to be cremated, he is to be denied ecclesiastical burial.21 If any one compelled a priest to give such a person ecclesiastical burial, he would be ipso facto excommunicated.22 Formal co-operation in the act of cremation, be it by command or counsel, is unconditionally forbidden, though material co-operation may be tolerated under certain conditions.23
19 Dec. 15, 1886.
20 “Alienâ voluntate.”
21 C. I. C., can. 1240, 1, 5.
22 Ibid., can. 2339.
23 Decree of the Holy Office, July 27, 1892.
Lehmkuhl lays down the following rules for the guidance of Catholics:
a) It is not permitted actively to promote cremation, or to render it lawful, even for non-Catholics, by a positive concession, because it is objectively bad, saltem ex adiunctis. It is a rite pertaining to religion and consequently subject to the judgment of the Church, who has declared it illicit.
b) It is, however, permissible, for an adequate cause (ex causa proportionate gravi) to permit cremation negatively, i. e., not to prevent others from performing it.24
24 Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 11th ed., p. 676, 6.
- The section of corpses for juridical or scientific purposes is permissible because of its importance for the study of medicine and for the benefit of suffering humanity.25 It goes with- out saying, however, that corpses used for this purpose must be properly interred and must not be abused. To treat human remains (whole corpses or portions thereof, bones, skeletons, etc.) irreverently is a sin, nay, under certain conditions, it may even be a sacrilege. The violation and desecration of graves and the scattering of human remains has always been regarded as a crime and severely punished.
25 Cfr. K. Gegenbaur, Lehrbuch der Anatomie, 6th ed., Leipsic 1895; F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheol., pp. 490 sqq.; J. Donat, S. J., Die Freiheit der Wissenschaft, Innsbruck 1910, pp. 214 sq. (English edition, The Freedom of Science, New York 1913).
Pope Boniface VIII, in his oft-quoted decretal,26 did not forbid the anatomic section of corpses, but only the abuse, which had originated during the crusades, of separating the flesh from the bones in order to make possible the transfer of the latter to the home of the deceased.27
26 Extrav. Com., Cap. I l. 3, tit. 6: “Those who disembowel the bodies of the dead and inhumanly boil them so that, the bones having been separated from the flesh, they may carry them to be buried in their own land, are excommunicated by the fact itself.”
27 Cfr. E. Michael, S. J., Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, Vol. III, p. 433 sq.; Lex, Das kirchliche Begräbnisrecht, pp. 229 sqq.
It has been decided that the hearts of dead persons may be preserved in jars or urns.28 For the honor of humanity let us assume that the horrible crime of the sexual violation of corpses is committed only by insane persons.29
28 S. R. C., d. d. 11 Feb., 1898: “The preservation is carried out in this way: the heart is enclosed in a glass vessel, ordinarily placed in a visible place and among flowers. May this practice be continued? Resp.: Affirmatively, provided that the preservation described does not take place in a sacred place.”
29 Maschka, Handbuch der gerichtlichen Medizin, Vol. III, 192.
READINGS.—J. P. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. II, n. 790–796.—F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 487 sqq.—L. Ruland, Die Geschichte der kirchlichen Leichenfeier, Ratisbon 1901, pp. 2 sqq.—L. Henry, L’Inhumation et la Créma- tion, Louvain 1876.—A. Besi and E. Holzinger von Weidich, Die Beerdigung und Verbrennung der Leichen, Ratisbon 1889.—G. Hassl, Gottesacker oder Leichenofen? Augsburg 1898.—P. Winkler, Verbrennen oder Begraben? Innsbruck 1902.—F. Probst, Die Exequien, Tübingen 1856.—E. Berardi, De Crematione Cadaverum, Bruges 1904.—Wm. Devlin, S.J., art. “Cremation” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, pp. 481–483.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 742 sqq.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 673 sqq.—B. L. Conway, C.S.P., The Ethics and History of Cremation, N. Y. 1923.