Question — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Question Second. On the Prohibition of Cremating Corpses
716. On the prohibition itself. 1. History being witness, several peoples of the gentiles followed the custom of cremating the bodies of the dead; but the Church from her beginnings everywhere observed the custom of burying corpses as the proper custom of Christians, just as the Israelites had observed it.
The reasons for which the Church introduced this custom and inviolably observes it are: a. Burial is the most suitable means of recalling to the faithful several truths of the Christian religion and impressing them more deeply on their hearts, especially the dogma of the immortality of the soul and of the future resurrection with Christ. b. The example of Christ, whose body was placed in a tomb. c. Greater fittingness is discerned in this: that the human body, to which so great a dignity belongs both in itself and before the Christian religion, be resolved not in a violent manner through fire, but by the forces of nature in a slow process. For the human body, fashioned by God in a peculiar manner,2 is an essential part of a rational substance; moreover it was assumed by the Son of God, so that redemption might be accomplished in it, and after the glorious resurrection it might be placed at the right hand of the Father; finally, sanctified by so many sacraments, it is the temple of the Holy Spirit,3 a member of the body of Christ,4 and awaits a future and glorious resurrection. d. Burial alone is consonant with the words of sacred Scripture: In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the earth from which you were taken, because you are dust and into dust you shall return.5 It is sown (the body) in corruption; it shall rise in incorruption,6 and other things of this kind.
- Although cremation of the human body is neither contrary to any truth of the Christian religion nor intrinsically evil, nevertheless from the circumstances in which it is promoted in recent times, it is accidentally evil and, because of the prohibition of the Church, gravely illicit.
a. The reason for the first is that cremation of itself denies neither the immortality of the soul nor the resurrection of the body, although it does not symbolically signify it. Since the body of the deceased by natural destination is to be resolved into parts, of itself it does not matter whether it is resolved by fire into ashes or by earth into dust.
Wherefore, although the Church requires that in those parts of the Indies in which they have kept up to now the custom of cremating bodies, the bodies of the faithful be placed in the earth in the Christian manner, nevertheless she permits that missionaries conduct themselves passively, in order to avoid greater evils, where they know that the body of some neophyte is to be cremated.7
The reason for the second is that efforts to substitute cremation of corpses for burial in recent times proceeded from adversaries of the Church with this express will of restoring a pagan custom. By this restoration they intend on the one hand to remove those things which preserve and promote the Catholic faith, namely the ecclesiastical rite to be observed in burial and Christian cemeteries displaying almost innumerable signs of faith and piety; on the other hand, they intend to profess the annihilation of the whole man, which cremation would signify. Therefore since cremation chosen in these circumstances involves approval of this impious intention and heretical profession, it must be called evil, even if it had not been prohibited by the Church.
The reason for the third is that it is not lawful to change the use and rite introduced by the Church in burying bodies and everywhere observed: for the burial of an inanimate body is a religious act; but the Church preserves the custom of burying, and the religious rite to be performed by ministers everywhere supposes burial. To this is added the explicit prohibition of the Church, as will appear from the declarations soon to be cited.
b. Therefore nothing prevents the bodies of the faithful from being burned in particular cases when a just cause intervenes, as if this is judged necessary for averting danger of contagion.
c. The reasons which are brought forward for promoting cremation of corpses (the aesthetic and economic consideration) are of no weight. The single reason which could be urged against the custom of the Church consists in this, that danger threatens public health from the burial of bodies. But it is sufficiently established that no danger to health arises from the custom of placing the dead in the earth, provided the cemetery occupies a suitable place and the precautions prescribed by the Church are observed in burying bodies.
1 Lehmkuhl II, Appendix I, XIX; Genicot II, n. 628; L. Ruland, Die Geschichte der kirchlichen Leichenfeier (Regensburg: Verlagsanstalt, 1901); Swoboda, Neue Wendungen in der Leichenverbrennungsfrage (Vienna: Mayer, 1901); A. Perger, Zur Beurteilung der Feuerbestattung (Stimmen aus M. Laach, 1892, II, p. 1, 133, 271); Gspann, Sarg oder Urne?, Th. pr. Quartalschrift (Linz), 1906, p. 320, 501; Kirchenlexikon, 2nd ed., VII, 1679.
2 Gen. 1:26.
3 1 Cor. 3:16.
4 1 Cor. 6:15.
5 Gen. 3:19.
6 1 Cor. 15:42.
7 Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, Sept. 27, 1884.
717. Declarations of the Church. Several declarations have been issued concerning this matter, by which the principles just set forth are excellently confirmed:
a. It is illicit both to command that one's own or another's corpses be burned, and to give one's name to societies which have been instituted for promoting the cremation of corpses; and if there is question of societies that are daughters of the Masonic sect, the penalties issued against this sect are incurred.1
Approving this declaration, the supreme pontiff commanded that ordinaries take care that the faithful be taught concerning the detestable abuse of burning human bodies and be deterred from it with all their strength.
b. It is never lawful to cooperate in cremation by command or counsel; but material cooperation can sometimes be tolerated, provided a. cremation is not held as a protest-sign of the Masonic sect; b. nothing is contained in it which directly and uniquely of itself expresses reprobation of Catholic doctrine and approval of the sect; c. nor is it established that Catholic officials and workers are called to the work in contempt of the Catholic religion.2
c. It is not lawful to administer the sacraments of the dying to the faithful who have commanded that their bodies be cremated after death, if they are unwilling to retract this command.3
d. It is not lawful to bestow ecclesiastical burial on those who by their own will chose cremation and persevered certainly and notoriously in this will up to death;4 nor is it lawful to apply Mass for them publicly, but only privately.5 But whenever there is question of those whose bodies are subjected to cremation not by their own will but by another's, the rites and suffrages of the Church can be applied, scandal being removed, both at home and in church, but not as far as the place of cremation. Scandal can be removed if it becomes known that cremation was chosen not by the deceased's own will.6
Nevertheless, those do not seem necessarily to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial who in good faith, ignorant of the prohibition of the Church, commanded that their corpse be cremated; likewise those who could no longer retract the command, which they seriously wished to retract, for whatever reason: for these either never had a gravely sinful will, or at least did not persevere in it up to death.
1 Holy Office, May 19, 1886.
2 Holy Office, July 27, 1892.
3 Holy Office, July 27, 1892.
4 Holy Office, Dec. 15, 1886.
5 Holy Office, July 21, 1892.
6 Holy Office, Dec. 15, 1886.