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.

2. 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.

Mr. B., a firm believer in modern methods of public sanitation, has made provision in his will that after his death his body shall be cremated. May he receive the last Sacraments and Christian burial, and why is the Church so opposed to cremation?

Answer. All civilized nations, both ancient and modern, have regarded the burial of the dead as a religious rite. In ancient Rome, it took precedence over every other service, whether public or private. The Roman soldier could demand leave of absence from the army, not only to bury his dead, but also for the feast of the purification of the family, called feriae denicales, which occurred nine days after the burial. Not only were the last rites of the dead considered religious or sacred, but the burial place also, by virtue of the laws, enjoyed a religious character. It was quite natural, therefore, that, in the nascent Church, the Christians, professing a different religion from the Romans, should also differentiate themselves from the pagans in the manner and place of burying their dead. The common practice in pagan Rome, at the beginning of the Christian era, was to burn the bodies of the dead. This had not been the ancient custom, even among the Romans, and at the dawn of Christianity there still prevailed among them the practice of cutting off a bone from the corpse, or rescuing one from the fire, in order to deposit it in the earth. The reason for this was that the burial of the ashes of the dead after cremation did not render the burial place sacred; it acquired a religious or sacred character and was brought under the protection of the laws only by the burial of some part or bone of the body, that had not been cremated. Each family had its own burial place, restricted to the parents and children and brothers and sisters, and a few intimate friends and favorite freedmen. The idea of a general burial place for all the inhabitants of a town or district was unknown to the ancients. The indiscriminate burial of friends and foes, relatives and strangers, in one monument where their ashes would be mingled together, was especially abhorred by the people and severely punished by the law. It was to be expected, therefore, that the Christians, who believed in the resurrection of the body as one of the great articles of the new faith, should have had, from the very beginning, a great religious care for the bodies of their dead and for all the rites attending their burial. They adhered to the more ancient custom of the Romans, as well as of the Jews, of burying their dead in the ground. They detested the practice, prevailing at that time among the Romans, of burning the bodies of the dead, just as they abhorred the other religious rites and practices of the pagans. Minucius Felix, in the third century, says that the Christians execrate the funeral pile and condemn burial by fire. “We follow,” he says, “the ancient and better plan of burying in the ground.”

From the early writers and Fathers of the Church, we gather many reasons why the Christians preferred rather to bury the bodies of their dead in the ground than to burn them. Burning the dead was a pagan religious rite of the time, from which, as from all the religious rites of the pagans, the Christians wished to dissociate themselves. One of the central truths of the Christian faith was the resurrection of the body. Cremation seemed to deny this doctrine. The Saviour was buried in a tomb, from which He rose triumphant over death. The disciple desired to be buried after the manner of his Master, hoping to rise again in the body, like his Master, from the grave. The immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body were two great beacon lights that illumined the darkness and the sufferings of the first Christians. Burning the body of the dead seemed to them a confession of the total annihilation of the whole man. It shocked their sense of reverence and affection for the dead, but more especially their religious sense. And thus, from the very beginning of Christianity, burying the bodies of the dead in the ground became intimately associated with the Christian faith, and all the rites and ceremonies of the Church that accompany the burial of the dead, the prayers of the Missal and of the Ritual have grown up around and been developed according to the custom of burying the dead in the ground. When we have the bodies of our dead near us we are reminded to pray and offer sacrifice for them, we erect monuments over them that stimulate our piety and proclaim aloud our belief in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. The custom fosters reverence for the dead, whose bodies have been sanctified by so many Sacraments. It is not as repugnant to our natural instincts to allow our dead to return to dust by the slow processes of tender mother earth, as to violently burn and destroy them by fire. These are but a few of the reasons why the Church, throughout the ages, has preferred to bury the bodies of her children in the earth rather than to destroy them by fire.

Cremation does not necessarily deny any truth of revelation. It does not necessarily imply a denial either of the immortality of the soul or of the resurrection of the body. Whether the body returns to dust slowly by the action of the forces of the earth, or quickly by the action of the fire, is, in itself, a matter of indifference.

The Church permits her missionaries, as in India, where cremation is the ordinary method of disposing of the bodies of the dead, to remain passive in cases where they know that the bodies of neophytes are to be burned. (Cong. de prop. fide, Sept. 27, 1884.)

But circumstances may add a very definite character to something that is quite indifferent in itself. And this is the case with cremation, generally speaking. The Church is cognizant of the fact, that the cremation of human bodies, to-day, is not only a departure from the time-honored and world-wide Christian custom of burying in the ground, but that it is meant, as a rule, to be a protest against the Christian faith, The promoters of cremation are endeavoring to rehabilitate the ancient pagan custom of disposing of the bodies of the dead in order to put an end to Christian cemeteries and Christian burial rites and practices, in order to destroy the powerful evidence they bear to the Christian faith, and the influence they exert in promoting Christian piety. By cremating the human body, they wish to signify the total annihilation of man by death. Thus cremation becomes, per accidens, a profession of heresy and an attack on the Christian faith. Hence the Church forbids it. In particular circumstances, as, v. g., during an epidemic, the Church makes no objection to the burning of the human body. The only argument that can be urged in favor of cremation is the argument founded on the consideration of the public health. But the public health is already amply protected by the laws of the Church regarding the location of cemeteries and the manner of burying the body.

The Congregation of the Holy Office has repeatedly, in the last twenty-five years, issued decrees prohibiting the cremation of the bodies of the dead. The following is a summary of these decrees:

It is forbidden for Catholics to belong to any society or organization whose object is the cremation of the bodies of the dead; and if such society be in any way affiliated to the Masons, its members fall under the ban of excommunication.

It is forbidden for a Catholic to order his own body, or the body of any one else, burned; a Catholic may sometimes co-operate, materialiter, in cremating the bodies of the dead, either as officials or as workmen, if such co-operation is not desired precisely because the officials or workmen are Catholics, and as a sign of contempt for the Catholic faith and if the cremation contain no profession of Masonry.

It is not allowed to give the last Sacraments to a dying man or woman, if he or she insists that after death the body shall be cremated; neither is it allowed to give the remains Christian burial, if it be known publicly that the deceased continued in this mind to the end of life.

It is not allowed to say Mass for such persons publicly or in the name of the Church, but Mass may be offered privately.

It is lawful to perform the last rites over the dead, either at their home or else in the Church, but not at the crematory, if it was not the will of the dead that his body be cremated, but the will of those in charge of the funeral, provided, of course, that all scandal be removed.

Again, it is permitted to give Christian burial to those who order that after their death their bodies shall be burned, provided they are ignorant of the Church’s prohibition; also to those who, after having made such provision in defiance of the Church’s laws, desired sincerely, before their death, to revoke the provision, but who for some valid reason were unable to do so.

This is a short synopsis of all the decrees concerning cremation, issued by the Holy Office in the last twenty-five years.

Mr. B., therefore, may not receive the Sacraments of the Church, as long as he continues in his resolve to have his body cremated, because he is in mortal sin, defying a grave law of the Church. And if it be known by the general public that he persevered to the end of his life in his resolve to have his body cremated, he can not receive Christian burial.

I. In a town where the subject of cremation is frequently discussed even amongst Catholics, the priest regarded it as his duty to protest from the pulpit against this pagan practise. He overthrew the arguments brought forward in support of it and showed that, according to genuine Catholic opinion, the churchyard ought to continue to be the resting-place of those Christians who have died in the faith. He explained that Catholic instincts condemned cremation as an abominable abuse (Acta s. sed., vol. XIX. p. 46), and added: "How utterly the Church detests the pagan practise of cremation may be seen from the fact that she excommunicates such as are members of any association that aims at promoting it."

The priest was making a mistake when he uttered the last sentence. A member of an association for promoting cremation incurs the excommunicatio latae sententiae Romano Pontifici simpliciter reservata only if the association is one of freemasons.

A question having been asked whether it were permissible to join any association promoting cremation, the S. Congregation of the Inquisition replied on May 19, 1886: "Negatively; and if the societies in question are daughter societies of the Masonic sect, the penalties enacted against them are incurred."

II. John, an assistant priest, was summoned to give the last Sacraments to a dying man. John was aware that the man was not a freemason, but that he had left instructions in his will for his body to be cremated.

In his confession the dying man did not refer to this matter at all; John also said nothing; but gave him absolution, the Viaticum, etc. John acted quite rightly. If the dying man had consulted him, or accused himself of what he had done, things would have been different, but, as it was, the penitent was bona fide quoad liceitatem cremationis, and John, being afraid that an admonition on his part would do no good, said nothing. "If, after being admonished, they refuse," a priest is bound to refuse absolution. "But as to whether admonition is to be given or omitted, let the rules handed down by approved authors be observed, with particular account taken of the scandal that might be provoked" (Analecta eccles., vol. III. 99).—Prof. Gspann.