Whhen people die, they often instruct their loved ones to scatter their ashes in some beloved place. And survivors sometimes opt to place dear old mom or dad’s remains on top of the family mantel or in some other display rather than bury them. But for Catholics, those practices could abruptly go out of style. As Harriet Sherwood reports for The Guardian, the Vatican has ruled that ashes can only be stored in sacred places such as cemeteries.
According to new instructions just announced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican body devoted to clarifying Catholic doctrine, Roman Catholics should bury ashes in “cemeteries or other sacred places.” The document states that “the conservation of the ashes of the departed in a domestic residence is not permitted” and can be permitted only in extraordinary circumstances. The ban includes the scattering of ashes and the division of ashes among family members and states that descendants who have requested that their ashes be cremated must be denied Christian funerals.
Sherwood reports that Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who leads the Congregation, said that burial is preferable to cremation and that dispersing ashes in the air will not be allowed “in order to avoid any form of pantheistic or naturalistic or nihilistic misunderstanding.”
According to the National Funeral Directors Association, a group of funeral industry professionals, cremation rates have grown in recent years. In 2015, they projected it would surpass the rate of burial, reaching 48.5 percent compared with 45.4 percent of burials. The group projects that by 2030, 71.1 percent of people will be cremated instead of buried. Part of that increase is due to environmental concerns about burial, which not only takes up precious space, but spews embalming fluid into the ground and impacts the environment through everything from fertilizer to water usage at burial sites. Others simply prefer cremation to burial for reasons that range from its reduced cost to the power it gives to families to determine where an how to dispose of the deceased person’s remains.
As the Cremation Association of North America told TIME’s Bess Lovejoy in 2013, approximately a third of people who receive “cremains,” or cremated remains, keep the remains. Another third scatter them, and the remaining third buries them. Scattering ashes is subject to a number of laws depending on the method of scattering—for those who wish to have a burial at sea, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency requires a permit.
Church rules actually haven’t permitted Catholics to cremate their dead for that long—the regulation that allowed for cremation of human remains only became doctrine in 1963. In 2012, Jim Graves reported for Catholic World Report that more and more Catholic families are opting for cremation. Will that change with the new law? Will Catholics even follow the doctrine? That remains to be seen. But given the Church’s intention to deny a Christian funeral to families who wish to hold on to the remains of their loved ones, the doctrinal shift—which even appears to prohibit the time-honored tradition of burial at sea for members of the U.S. Navy—may prompt a sea change in how Roman Catholics commemorate the lives of their loved ones.
hmm
Most people I know who've died have been cremated --- fret not I don't know anyone who wasn't dead who was cremated -- but I only know of 1 person whose ashes have been kept in the house/similar.
All the rest have been scattered.
.. I recall a few british football/soccer clubs having to turn down fans requests for ashes to be scattered on the pitch due to the number of them -- that might be something of an urban myth of course.
Just did an impromptu questionnaire at work, no one has ever heard of keeping the cremains (not that I'm saying there is anything wrong with it, it just seems uncommon).
We scattered my dad's ashes. We're not religious though. Seems like kind of a silly rule, but I guess that's what you get.
My parent's old neighbor (she was in her late 70's) kept half of her husbands ashes. And my Father-in-Law has his mothers as well. I personally don't understand the concept of keeping them, but I'd rather be burned in an open pyre myself (unfortunately illegal here).
Ouze wrote: Just did an impromptu questionnaire at work, no one has ever heard of keeping the cremains (not that I'm saying there is anything wrong with it, it just seems uncommon).
We scattered my dad's ashes. We're not religious though. Seems like kind of a silly rule, but I guess that's what you get.
There's the old jokes about keeping grandma on the mantlepiece, but yeah, it seems very uncommon these days.
That said, over in Taiwan it's very common to bury the ashes, or inter them in a specialised facility rather than scatter them. The one I saw, where some of my wife's family is interred, was a large multi-story building, with hundreds Rooms filled with endless glass cabinets, each containing a number of urns or other vessels. Seemed like a more space efficient way to keep the dead than a traditional graveyard.
Anyway, this ruling by the Vatican is probably going to piss a lot of people off - Catholics who've already scattered the ashes of loved ones will hate being told that they've actually got it wrong, and you can't just hand wave it away as OK without others saying "so why can't we do it then".
Maddermax wrote: Anyway, this ruling by the Vatican is probably going to piss a lot of people off - Catholics who've already scattered the ashes of loved ones will hate being told that they've actually got it wrong, and you can't just hand wave it away as OK without others saying "so why can't we do it then".
This is why, like many things the Church says as official policy, most people will probably ignore the rule. It's kind of like how lots of Catholics ignore the rules about birth control because sex is fun and having accidental kids isn't. If it's an issue they will lie to their local church and say "of course we're keeping the ashes", get the funeral, and then scatter the ashes as planned.
Maddermax wrote: Anyway, this ruling by the Vatican is probably going to piss a lot of people off - Catholics who've already scattered the ashes of loved ones will hate being told that they've actually got it wrong, and you can't just hand wave it away as OK without others saying "so why can't we do it then".
This is why, like many things the Church says as official policy, most people will probably ignore the rule. It's kind of like how lots of Catholics ignore the rules about birth control because sex is fun and having accidental kids isn't. If it's an issue they will lie to their local church and say "of course we're keeping the ashes", get the funeral, and then scatter the ashes as planned.
Can't keep the ashes either, according to the article above. Have to be buried, or stored in a "sacred place" if the article is accurate, probably at some expense.
The cynical part of me thinks it's a good way to get the punters to return to holy places regularly, reminds them to keep going to church.
Maddermax wrote: The cynical part of me thinks it's a good way to get the punters to return to holy places regularly, reminds them to keep going to church.
Also means they get to charge for a grave plot or space in the "sacred place".
Just a bit of trivia, but the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" is only the contemporary name for that particular branch of the Church. It used to be called "The Motherfething Inquisition". Yes, they are still around and they are still telling people what to do.
They probably aren't torturing as many people as they used to, though.
squidhills wrote: Just a bit of trivia, but the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" is only the contemporary name for that particular branch of the Church. It used to be called "The Motherfething Inquisition". Yes, they are still around and they are still telling people what to do.
They probably aren't torturing as many people as they used to, though.
The inquisition you say? I definitely wasn't expecting them.....
squidhills wrote: Just a bit of trivia, but the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" is only the contemporary name for that particular branch of the Church. It used to be called "The Motherfething Inquisition". Yes, they are still around and they are still telling people what to do.
They probably aren't torturing as many people as they used to, though.
The inquisition you say? I definitely wasn't expecting them.....
That's upsetting. My plan was always to be cremated and the ashes scattered in New York harbor. I figured the family can just do it off the back of the Staten Island Ferry.
At least the first part of the plan, being murdered by a jealous husband on my 120th birthday can still work.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: That's upsetting. My plan was always to be cremated and the ashes scattered in New York harbor. I figured the family can just do it off the back of the Staten Island Ferry.
At least the first part of the plan, being murdered by a jealous husband on my 120th birthday can still work.
Kid Kyoto is clearly the person we mere mortals aspire to be.
I want my ashes compressed into a block and then used in a 3-D printer to make a bunch of dice. But put two 1's and no sixes on each dice so that they're disappointing.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: That's upsetting. My plan was always to be cremated and the ashes scattered in New York harbor. I figured the family can just do it off the back of the Staten Island Ferry.
At least the first part of the plan, being murdered by a jealous husband on my 120th birthday can still work.
I hate to be that guy but if you check the smallprint, your mortal remains are owned by Messrs. Yakface and Legoburner.
IIRC they've agreed to have me smoked -- in a hookah one believes.
Remains should be buried in a "sacred" place. I'm sorry, the Earth itself isn't sacred?? You know, the planet God created?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Just did an impromptu questionnaire at work, no one has ever heard of keeping the cremains (not that I'm saying there is anything wrong with it, it just seems uncommon).
We scattered my dad's ashes. We're not religious though. Seems like kind of a silly rule, but I guess that's what you get.
Really? It's not quite as common anymore, but I've still seen it referenced in media a lot. Surprised people are unfamiliar with it.
I'm a Catholic, but not even remotely a very zealous Catholic. I see doctrine like this and I just say, "Really?", and shake my head. It just seems so, petty and obtuse.
squidhills wrote: Just a bit of trivia, but the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" is only the contemporary name for that particular branch of the Church. It used to be called "The Motherfething Inquisition". Yes, they are still around and they are still telling people what to do.
They probably aren't torturing as many people as they used to, though.
The inquisition you say? I definitely wasn't expecting them.....
I picture my cremation as me lying on top of a Ferrari 458 whose wheel arch glue has overheated, in a cradle of unused Note 7's.
Damn Vatican
My Grandfather and Grandmother were simply buried. My Grandmother was a devout Christian, but I get the feeling that most people in the UK prefer burials over cremation. Could just be me though.
Ouze wrote: Just did an impromptu questionnaire at work, no one has ever heard of keeping the cremains (not that I'm saying there is anything wrong with it, it just seems uncommon).
We scattered my dad's ashes. We're not religious though. Seems like kind of a silly rule, but I guess that's what you get.
My aunt is somewhere in ny grandmother's garage. There was never an active decision to keep them, we just never got around to doing anything with them...
"Cremation favoured over burial by Britons, says poll "
More than three times as many Britons want to be cremated as those wishing to be buried, a survey suggests.
Of the 1,546 adults surveyed online by YouGov, 58% prefer cremation when they die, in comparison with 17% of those who would opt for burial.
Of those in favour of cremation, 79% want their ashes to be scattered , and 7% want them to be kept.
YouGov said there was a "strong shift in preference towards cremation as people get older".
While 42% of 18 to 24-year-olds wish to be cremated, this figure rises to 71% among the over-65s.
'Great taboo'
Statistics from the Cremation Society of Great Britain show 75% of people are cremated at present.
When asked at which age they would prefer to die, the most popular choice was between 81 and 100, selected by 44%. This range was the most popular across all age groups, and most of all with those aged 65 and older - with 60% of them choosing it.
The current average UK life expectancy, according to the World Bank, is 81.
The highest age option - to live to 110 or older - was chosen by 14% of people. Of these, 19% of men wanted to reach 110 or older, compared with 9% of women.
Freddie Sayers, editor-in-chief at YouGov said: "It's always interesting to see real numbers about something that people never really talk about.
"I think these figures lift the lid on one of the great taboo subjects."
He added that one of the conclusions that could perhaps be drawn from the poll was that as people got older attitudes to death changed, and rather than keep with tradition people were more inclined to think philosophically and practically.
Funeral colours
When asked if they were scared of death, 58% of men said they were not, compared with 42% of women.
The research also probed the latest attitudes towards what mourners should wear at a funeral.
Wearing black was seen as a requirement by 22% of people. But 45% said wearing other colours was acceptable, so long as they were "dark and sombre".
Another 29% thought it was acceptable to wear any colour of clothing to a funeral.
Checked the "Donate Whole Body" on my driver's license...if they'll have it! Once you've moved on, who gives a feth what happens to the decaying bits. Also, my wife's a doctor, so I'm empathetic to helping out the medical sciences.
EDIT: I wonder what the church says about altruistic efforts regarding the corpus humanus? Eh, don't care.
"Cremation favoured over burial by Britons, says poll "
Huh, interesting read. Thanks for showing me that
BigWaaagh wrote: Checked the "Donate Whole Body" on my driver's license...if they'll have it! Once you've moved on, who gives a feth what happens to the decaying bits. Also, my wife's a doctor, so I'm empathetic to helping out the medical sciences.
You know I have actually been meaning to make myself known as willing to do that, at least for my internal Organs. Not sure about donating my entire body, but honestly, like you, I'm not very fussed about what happens after I'm gone.
BigWaaagh wrote: Checked the "Donate Whole Body" on my driver's license...if they'll have it! Once you've moved on, who gives a feth what happens to the decaying bits. Also, my wife's a doctor, so I'm empathetic to helping out the medical sciences.
EDIT: I wonder what the church says about altruistic efforts regarding the corpus humanus? Eh, don't care.
I think that most of the main religions regard organ donation as something to be applauded. This is trying to remember way back to organ donation leaflets I read whilst waiting for hospital appointments, though
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nostromodamus wrote: I want my ashes to be piled in my back yard with a coiled sword stuck in it Dark Souls style.
Ashen One indeed...
Don't forget to write insightful messages like "Amazing chest ahead", "Keep going, skeleton!" and "Amazing view" in yellow chalk around it.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I think that most of the main religions regard organ donation as something to be applauded. This is trying to remember way back to organ donation leaflets I read whilst waiting for hospital appointments, though
Heretical propaganda from the unbelievers. Organs must be kept with your body so that your zombie doesn't rise and seek revenge upon the doctors and donation recipients. Or something.
I want my parts donated so I can then overcome them and have a whole Legion of people to do my bidding muahaha
We waited and spread Dad and Mom at the same time at Inks Lake-one of their favorite places. We did it at the same and mixed them together as they were in life.
I will not say what my opinion is of the Catholic Church for this pronouncement, other than their view is...misplaced and unfortunate.
BigWaaagh wrote: Checked the "Donate Whole Body" on my driver's license...if they'll have it! Once you've moved on, who gives a feth what happens to the decaying bits. Also, my wife's a doctor, so I'm empathetic to helping out the medical sciences.
EDIT: I wonder what the church says about altruistic efforts regarding the corpus humanus? Eh, don't care.
I think that most of the main religions regard organ donation as something to be applauded. This is trying to remember way back to organ donation leaflets I read whilst waiting for hospital appointments, though
Pretty much yes. Either "go for it" or "it is up for the individual to decide whether he/she wants". Out of all religions I have studied don't know one that would have negative view on it.
BigWaaagh wrote: Checked the "Donate Whole Body" on my driver's license...if they'll have it! Once you've moved on, who gives a feth what happens to the decaying bits. Also, my wife's a doctor, so I'm empathetic to helping out the medical sciences.
EDIT: I wonder what the church says about altruistic efforts regarding the corpus humanus? Eh, don't care.
I think that most of the main religions regard organ donation as something to be applauded. This is trying to remember way back to organ donation leaflets I read whilst waiting for hospital appointments, though
Pretty much yes. Either "go for it" or "it is up for the individual to decide whether he/she wants". Out of all religions I have studied don't know one that would have negative view on it.
Seen a couple medical drama episodes on this (House, Grey's Anatomy), but the only ones I can find are some Orthodox Jews, Gypsies, and some Muslims.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I think that most of the main religions regard organ donation as something to be applauded. This is trying to remember way back to organ donation leaflets I read whilst waiting for hospital appointments, though
I'd say you're right anyways. There's a few fringe (Christian) cults that frown on it, but many of them think it's quite OK if one of their guys get a donated organ. Key being one of their guys - donating their own stuff to people like you and me is a big no-no.
Silly sods.
Making rules about ashes when it is clear that cremation itself is heretical!
For how will your body rise on Judgement Day when it is all burned up eh?
Okay, back to seriousness. Cremations seems to become more and more popular, so what are the reasons people would prefer cremation over burial? Just a question I am interested in.
Iron_Captain wrote: Silly sods.
Making rules about ashes when it is clear that cremation itself is heretical!
For how will your body rise on Judgement Day when it is all burned up eh?
Okay, back to seriousness. Cremations seems to become more and more popular, so what are the reasons people would prefer cremation over burial? Just a question I am interested in.
I'd guess it's cheaper, but also when the world floods due to global warming we won't have to swim through all the caskets like we constantly see in New Orleans.
Told my lot to "Dig a big hole in the garden, and put me in it. Then plant an apple tree there, with two benches." So they can sit there and talk to me. Might as'well bring me their troubles when I'm dead, as they do now.
Iron_Captain wrote: Silly sods.
Making rules about ashes when it is clear that cremation itself is heretical!
For how will your body rise on Judgement Day when it is all burned up eh?
Okay, back to seriousness. Cremations seems to become more and more popular, so what are the reasons people would prefer cremation over burial? Just a question I am interested in.
I'd guess it's cheaper, but also when the world floods due to global warming we won't have to swim through all the caskets like we constantly see in New Orleans.
Also you can still bury the remains after cremation but the plots are smaller so you can fit more into a cemetery.
This reminds me of the notion that barring non-Catholics from the Eucharist is offensive. Why does anyone not in communion with the Catholic Church feel entitled to or even desire to receive communion in the Catholic Church? I can't speak for other faiths, but being Catholic entails accepting a whole body of tradition that is much older, broader, and more significant than individual preferences or opinions. As to the particulars, these kind of rulings can be dispensed when they would result in some larger incongruence.
gorgon wrote: Tell some people that they can't do something, and all they want is to do it. *shrug*
No doubt that is true - but I think it is also a matter of misunderstanding things. How many folks understand that communion is more than a symbol of "togetherness" or whatever? (Even some Christians think that is far as it goes.) Similarly, how many folks understand Christian burial as an act of mercy and hope in the context of an ancient cultural vocabulary? - as opposed to, for example, yet another customizable "life event" focused on self-expression, like how many (most?) people treat weddings.
Manchu wrote: This reminds me of the notion that barring non-Catholics from the Eucharist is offensive. Why does anyone not in communion with the Catholic Church feel entitled to or even desire to receive communion in the Catholic Church?
Well, it's a pretty central ritual in all or most Christian denominations. As long as the ritual itself doesn't require you to do something Catholic-specific it would be both generous and polite to let other Christians take part. YMMVofc.
Spetulhu wrote: As long as the ritual itself doesn't require you to do something Catholic-specific
But that's exactly what it is all about. As I mentioned,
Manchu wrote: How many folks understand that communion is more than a symbol of "togetherness" or whatever? (Even some Christians think that is as far as it goes.)
Iron_Captain wrote: Silly sods.
Making rules about ashes when it is clear that cremation itself is heretical!
For how will your body rise on Judgement Day when it is all burned up eh?
Okay, back to seriousness. Cremations seems to become more and more popular, so what are the reasons people would prefer cremation over burial? Just a question I am interested in.
1. Its bloody cheaper. No hyper expensive casket. No hyper expensive plot. By cheaper I mean $5k - $10k cheaper.
2. No way someone's ing with you after. No one's digging you up to play with your bones. There's a mausoleum in downtown NO thats all torn to hell (thanks Katrina) with remains floating away. I had several generations of family in it.
3. Portable-you place the remains literally anywhere the person wanted.
4. You can make yourself into bullets to shoot at your enemies. From Hell's Depths I stab at THEE! 5. It beats freaking out the garbage crews with new "interesting" discoveries ("just leave me propped up on the curb. I won't care and it will scare the trash collectors" - Mamma Frazzled).
Iron_Captain wrote: Silly sods.
Making rules about ashes when it is clear that cremation itself is heretical!
For how will your body rise on Judgement Day when it is all burned up eh?
Okay, back to seriousness. Cremations seems to become more and more popular, so what are the reasons people would prefer cremation over burial? Just a question I am interested in.
1. Its bloody cheaper. No hyper expensive casket. No hyper expensive plot. By cheaper I mean $5k - $10k cheaper.
2. No way someone's ing with you after. No one's digging you up to play with your bones. There's a mausoleum in downtown NO thats all torn to hell (thanks Katrina) with remains floating away. I had several generations of family in it.
3. Portable-you place the remains literally anywhere the person wanted.
4. You can make yourself into bullets to shoot at your enemies. From Hell's Depths I stab at THEE! 5. It beats freaking out the garbage crews with new "interesting" discoveries ("just leave me propped up on the curb. I won't care and it will scare the trash collectors" - Mamma Frazzled).
You've at least got to give your skull to someone..."Alas, poor Frazzled! I knew him, Horatio..."
The Catholic Church is so removed from Christs teachings it's hard to even blink at silly rules like this one. They're a corporation looking to squeeze more cash from a shrinking following. Like GW!
SlaveToDorkness wrote: The Catholic Church is so removed from Christs teachings it's hard to even blink at silly rules like this one. They're a corporation looking to squeeze more cash from a shrinking following. Like GW!
As much as I enjoy bashing the Catholic Church, they're just a newcomer in a long line of con men. Religion has long been used to suppress and control people, going back to the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, Macedonians.
It's great to be religious or spiritual, but be wary listening to anyone who claims to hear the voice of God.
sirlynchmob wrote: scattering the ashes is so last millennia, now days your ashes can be turned into a jewel or even a tree. I like the tree option myself.
I would love to be tree food when i die. so i can come back and ruin everyones foundations..
Iron_Captain wrote: Silly sods.
Making rules about ashes when it is clear that cremation itself is heretical!
For how will your body rise on Judgement Day when it is all burned up eh?
Okay, back to seriousness. Cremations seems to become more and more popular, so what are the reasons people would prefer cremation over burial? Just a question I am interested in.
I'd guess it's cheaper, but also when the world floods due to global warming we won't have to swim through all the caskets like we constantly see in New Orleans.
Also you can still bury the remains after cremation but the plots are smaller so you can fit more into a cemetery.
Frazzled wrote:
1. Its bloody cheaper. No hyper expensive casket. No hyper expensive plot. By cheaper I mean $5k - $10k cheaper.
2. No way someone's ing with you after. No one's digging you up to play with your bones. There's a mausoleum in downtown NO thats all torn to hell (thanks Katrina) with remains floating away. I had several generations of family in it.
3. Portable-you place the remains literally anywhere the person wanted.
4. You can make yourself into bullets to shoot at your enemies. From Hell's Depths I stab at THEE! 5. It beats freaking out the garbage crews with new "interesting" discoveries ("just leave me propped up on the curb. I won't care and it will scare the trash collectors" - Mamma Frazzled).
So, apart from remains washing away (which is not a problem outside of frequently flooded areas) it is mostly for reasons of economics? Interesting. I think it'd be interesting to see what the popularity of cremations is in rural areas vs urban areas, since in rural areas costs for burials are much lower.
Personally, I would want to be buried somewhere in the wilderness, along with some grave goods and a big grave hill on top. Let's mess with the archeologists
You've at least got to give your skull to someone...
The Blue Raja: Sorry, but am I to understand you've inserted your father's skull inside of that ball for bowling?
The Bowler: No, the guy at the pro shop did it.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: The Catholic Church is so removed from Christs teachings it's hard to even blink at silly rules like this one. They're a corporation looking to squeeze more cash from a shrinking following.
jreilly89 wrote: As much as I enjoy bashing the Catholic Church, they're just a newcomer in a long line of con men.
You guys sound like teenagers explaining why you should get to sleep in on Sunday mornings.
Iron_Captain wrote: I would want to be buried somewhere in the wilderness, along with some grave goods and a big grave hill on top. Let's mess with the archeologists
I saw a buddy of mine throw a fistful of pennies out of the car window into a ditch. When I asked why he did it, he replied "archaeology job creation."
To me, the economic considerations related to cremation seem ... dystopian. At the risk of sounding Swiftian, surely selling off the corpses of loved ones to a cat food factory could be even more cost effective/eco-friendly. One also wonders whether, if ashes scattering does become the principle means of disposing of the departed, whether regulations will eventually pop up, perhaps ultimately leading to some kind of land fill.
Ouze wrote: Just did an impromptu questionnaire at work, no one has ever heard of keeping the cremains (not that I'm saying there is anything wrong with it, it just seems uncommon).
We scattered my dad's ashes. We're not religious though. Seems like kind of a silly rule, but I guess that's what you get.
My mom, along with all of her siblingsm has two small urns with ashes from her father and mother, respectively. The rest of the ashes were buried near family members in Virginia.
To me, the economic considerations related to cremation seem ... dystopian. At the risk of sounding Swiftian, surely selling off the corpses of loved ones to a cat food factory could be even more cost effective/eco-friendly.
If the Church cares about human remains perhaps Holy Mother Church should fund the funeral and burial expenses of those adherents too poor to afford a proper Catholic burial. You know, so the poors don't have to go selling their corpses to Purina and such.
But no, that is all silly. Instead families should go into debt in order to placate the Vatican and put dead meat into the ground.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: The Catholic Church is so removed from Christs teachings it's hard to even blink at silly rules like this one. They're a corporation looking to squeeze more cash from a shrinking following.
jreilly89 wrote: As much as I enjoy bashing the Catholic Church, they're just a newcomer in a long line of con men.
You guys sound like teenagers explaining why you should get to sleep in on Sunday mornings.
Iron_Captain wrote: I would want to be buried somewhere in the wilderness, along with some grave goods and a big grave hill on top. Let's mess with the archeologists
I saw a buddy of mine throw a fistful of pennies out of the car window into a ditch. When I asked why he did it, he replied "archaeology job creation."
To me, the economic considerations related to cremation seem ... dystopian. At the risk of sounding Swiftian, surely selling off the corpses of loved ones to a cat food factory could be even more cost effective/eco-friendly. One also wonders whether, if ashes scattering does become the principle means of disposing of the departed, whether regulations will eventually pop up, perhaps ultimately leading to some kind of land fill.
You can't sell your relatives to the cat factory. I'd love it. I'd be so bitter their little cat heads would explain. SUFFER NOT THE CAT TO LIVE.
There are already laws in some jurisdictions. People pay them no mind. Our church (catholic without the Spanish) has its own dustbin wall as I call it, and I'd proffer at least two hundred people have been off the cliff it overlooks or onto the grounds. Adds a little extra kick to the annual hotdog burn.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: the word often suggests that it isn't a consistent practice, yes?
I only say "often" because the Church provides a huge amount of aid of all kinds to all ages of people, yes even including dead ones, but it's not like a government grant, like Medicaid or something, and I suspect it is handled differently in different places with special emphasis on the particular circumstances in question. If you aren't impressed with the amount of services the Catholic Church provides, it is probably because you are ignorant of them - which doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on you, these things are not really advertised like most do-gooding. But just assuming the opposite is pretty shameful.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: the word often suggests that it isn't a consistent practice, yes?
I only say "often" because the Church provides a huge amount of aid of all kinds to all ages of people, yes even including dead ones, but it's not like a government grant, like Medicaid or something, and I suspect it is handled differently in different places with special emphasis on the particular circumstances in question. If you aren't impressed with the amount of services the Catholic Church provides, it is probably because you are ignorant of them - which doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on you, these things are not really advertised like most do-gooding. But just assuming the opposite is pretty shameful.
Does the Catholic church provide free burials to all of its practitioners? If no, then requiring them to be buried and not cremated, despite the costs involved in burial, which many adherents can't afford, is pretty shameful. Your admonishment of people choosing cremation for economic reasons and sarcastically suggesting that they can just as easily sell their dead to pet food companies is also pretty gross, considering people often go into large debt in order cover unexpect funeral expenses.
I live in a Catholic heavy population and I see frequent collections on street corners and in convenience stores to help pay for burials. That gak ain't cheap, and for an institution as wealthy as the Catholic church to put that sort of financial burden on its followers is, well, let's use your word: shameful.
So let me just see if I understand the false dilemma: it's pay for all funeral costs or remain silent on the issue of funeral rituals?
Criticizing cynical considerations is fair game. Funerals are not really about disposing of the body, so to speak. If that is becoming the main concern then we are already, conceptually speaking, in a very dark place. Following the argument to its logical conclusion is perforce disturbing (that's the point).
Manchu wrote: So let me just see if I understand the false dilemma: it's pay for all funeral costs or remain silent on the issue of funeral rituals?
Why wouldn't the Church want to provide for its adherents? Especially given that the Church is decreeing that a particular (and costly) form of burial is required of those adherents?
If the Vatican isn't willing to facilitate that decree then, yes, I think they should remain silent on the issue. Otherwise they are placing unnecessary burden on their followers--many of whom are already burdened and desperate.
If the Church isn't willing to provide a free burial for every Catholic, why not? The Vatican has immense wealth, (often tax free) lands, and the means to enable their poorest and most disadvantaged followers a proper burial. Wouldn't that be what God would want? The Church taking care of its flock?
The church really shouldn't require people to attend mass, not without providing affordable housing, transportation, and a job that lets me attend all the required services.
As already discussed, it does want to and it does. It also provides for non-adherents. I think we can probably breeze past a lot of what I am sure is talking past each other pretty quickly by distinguishing between the Catholic Church and a state. But then again your argument that X must be funded by whoever requires X is not even applicable to the state.
Manchu wrote: But then again your argument that X must be funded by whoever requires X is not even applicable to the state.
Maybe not legally, but it sure seems to be a common argument. For example, remember how some of the opposition to Obamacare was based on "the government shouldn't be allowed to force me to buy insurance with my own money"?
Sure I recall but I think we can agree that whatever merit that argument might hypothetically have is a matter of the specific issue of health insurance and the federal government rather than as a general principle. I mean, I know there are people who object to the idea of state-mandated automobile insurance as a matter of principle but I don't consider their arguments applicable here, much less credible generally.
Manchu wrote: Sure I recall but I think we can agree that whatever merit that argument might hypothetically have is a matter of the specific issue of health insurance and the federal government rather than as a general principle. I mean, I know there are people who object to the idea of state-mandated automobile insurance as a matter of principle but I don't consider their arguments applicable here, much less credible generally.
No, I don't think that's true at all. I think the argument was just what it sounded like: an objection to the idea of a government mandate buy X with their own money. It just happens to be the case that insurance is one of the few (only?) things the government normally forces people to buy.
Maybe not legally, but it sure seems to be a common argument. For example, remember how some of the opposition to Obamacare was based on "the government shouldn't be allowed to force me to buy insurance with my own money"?
That argument always confused me, at least when it regards something that could potentially concern your health. Here in the UK, everyone pays towards supporting the NHS, whether they go through its doors once in their lives or once a week, so that people who may suffer an unexpected injury or disease that they can't afford to get treated can still be treated.
It works well in that scenario, however I think even regarding collective communities, paying your share doesn't always make sense. Regarding paying for other's burials within a religion, I'd say that, despite funerals being an unexpected happening, they are a very personal event, and one that should be logically paid for by the family and possibly their friends. Perhaps it'd be a nice gesture for the forefront of that religious group to help pay for a funeral and burial, but I wouldn't say it's logically mandatory for the sake of common decency.
I'm not sure why I care what the Vatican "rules", but for some reason I find this deeply offensive. When my father died, he requested to have his ashes scattered in a place that he loved. I personally carried his ashes across land and sea to that place, and carried out his wishes, which was a profoundly important and meaningful moment for me. How dare the Vatican say there is something wrong with that. Where do they get off telling people how to live, who it is "okay" to marry, or how to die? I don't think I've ever been more disgusted with this belief system than I am right now.
You can disagree with something without being insulting and stepping over the rule 1 line. Keep that in mind, motyak
My father grew up in Ireland, so my family is very very Catholic. My aunty (his sister) still attends mass every Sunday, and lights a candle for him (when appropriate). I'm obviously non-religious, but I still find this hurtful.
My father grew up in Ireland, so my family is very very Catholic. My aunty (his sister) still attends mass every Sunday, and lights a candle for him (when appropriate). I'm obviously non-religious, but I still find this hurtful.
Fair enough then.
I was mainly asking because I see this mostly as a "private members club" making rules that really only apply to the members of the club, and I know in this thread we already had a lot of people being very passionate about something that doesn't really apply to them at all.
Either you accept Catholic faith and tradition, including the magisterium, or you don't. If you don't then getting offended and upset is simply nonsensical. It's exactly like the whole thing about non-Catholics being offended about the fact that they shouldn't receive communion at mass. If you don't want to be in communion with the Catholic Church, i.e., if you don't want to be Catholic, then what on earth does it matter to you?
Smacks wrote: I don't think I've ever been more disgusted with this backwards bigoted belief system than I am right now.
This applies exactly to how your posts are coming off, to me at least.
Well, on one hand you're completely right, it doesn't matter to me, I don't even believe in it. On the other hand... it's a bit like if a gay person were confronted with a "god hates fags" banner (if I may make an analogy). You don't have to believe in god to find that offensive.
It insinuates that people who aren't laid to rest on "sacred" (I'm guessing church owned) land, are somehow "unholy" or otherwise not good enough.
If you take a look at what's going with your reaction to this I think you may find that you're projecting your own righteousness on someone else's religion. What is at stake here is a Catholic funeral ritual. The Catholic authority on such things, to greatly oversimplify matters for the sake of discussion, has concluded (I assure you, not arbitrarily) that certain contemporary customs, which are gaining in popularity, are incompatible with Catholic belief and practice. That's it.
As for your hypothetical banner ... I don't think it's at all the same thing. The slogan in that case is pretty clearly being presented specifically to intentionally offend.
So for practising Catholics, such as my aunty, what are they supposed to do if a loved one's ashes have already been scattered? The implication here is that the loved one won't get into heaven (which is kind of the objective of the religion). It's not like you can go and gather the ashes back up, and move them.
I don't know if the Vatican has ex-post-facto laws, but reading the actual paper it doesn't really look like it affects burial practices prior to this "ruling".
An actual Catholic might have a better answer to that though.
Edit: Additional question from me:
If someone is denied an ecclesiastical funeral, does that invalidate their salvation or other aspects of their Faith in Christ in the view of the Catholic Church?
Smacks wrote: The implication here is that the loved one won't get into heaven
Wrong again and another example of projecting. Lack of Christian funeral is not ipso facto a sentence to hell. Furthermore, the only persons denied Christian funeral according to this teaching are those who "notoriously" choose to have their ashes scattered "for reasons contrary to the Christian faith." So in other words, if you intend to use your death as a big midle finger to the Catholic faith, don't expect the Church to cooperate. Seems reasonable.
Manchu wrote: I don't think that actually responds to the point I made, which boils down to that the argument you cited is a poor one when made in general terms.
I didn't say it was a good argument, only that, contrary to your claim, it's an argument that people make about the state. Whether or not it's a good argument people do make the argument "if someone requires X they should pay for X" in other contexts. Outside of insurance or funerals there's the argument of "if you're going to require painted models in tournaments then you should pay for my models to be commission painted".
d-usa wrote: If someone is denied an ecclesiastical funeral, does that invalidate their salvation or other aspects of their Faith in Christ in the view of the Catholic Church?
No. But denial of Christian burial is pretty serious and generally a result of someone having acted intentionally in a way comtrary to Christian faith (as discussed above).
Peregrine wrote: contrary to your claim, it's an argument that people make about the state
Manchu wrote: Furthermore, the only persons denied Christian funeral according to this teaching are those who "notoriously" choose to have their ashes scattered "for reasons contrary to the Christian faith." So in other words, if you intend to use your death as a big midle finger to the Catholic faith, don't expect the Church to cooperate. Seems reasonable.
This seems like a rather significant clarification. So a person who chooses to have their ashes scattered because they can't afford a place in a cemetary or to be with their spouse who had their ashes scattered or whatever would still be given a Catholic funeral as long as they aren't doing it as some kind of anti-Catholic statement?
Manchu wrote: The Catholic authority on such things ... has concluded (I assure you, not arbitrarily)
I don't feel very assured that it isn't "arbitrary". Did Jesus himself come back and decree it? I must have missed that on the evening news. It sounds to me like the very fething definition of "arbitrary", in fact some might say "completely made-up BS"... some might say.
d-usa wrote: If someone is denied an ecclesiastical funeral, does that invalidate their salvation or other aspects of their Faith in Christ in the view of the Catholic Church?
No.
So to potentially over-simply this:
When the Catholic Church finds that you cannot take communion for whatever reason, it doesn't automatically mean that you are stripped of your salvation and send to hell upon your death, it just means that you cannot take communion right now?
So is this kind-of a funeral version of this concept? It's less about the status of your salvation, it's more about "activity X comes with these rules, if we don't follow the rules we can't perform activity X for you" and not "if you don't do activity X your entire life was meaningless and you go to hell"?
Manchu wrote: The Catholic authority on such things ... has concluded (I assure you, not arbitrarily)
I don't feel very assured that it isn't "arbitrary". Did Jesus himself come back and decree it? I must have missed that on the evening news. It sounds to me like the very fething definition of "arbitrary", in fact some might say "completely made-up BS"... some might say.
The actual text from the Vatican can be found here:
Yes bearing in mind that we are hugely oversimplifying something, almost to the point of treating theology like the rulebook to some child's game, you are generally speaking on the right track.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: I don't feel very assured that it isn't "arbitrary".
I don't feel very assured that you understand what the word arbitrary means. The competent authority reached a theological conclusion in the light of faith, reason, and tradition.
Well then there is no reason not to scatter people wherever the hell you like, is there?
The reason would be, because it is contrary to the faith of the deceased.
Yes bearing in mind that we are hugely oversimplifying something, almost to the point of treating theology like the rulebook to some child's game, you are generally speaking on the right track.
Well, I tried to see if I understand the very basic concept of it without getting stuck deep in theological mud .
Digging through the footnotes of the actual paper, I found it helpful to try and find a better understanding of the meaning of "ecclesiastical funeral" or "Christian funeral". Looking through the Code of Canon Law I found this as the most basic definition of what the Catholic Church considers such a funeral:
"§2. Ecclesiastical funerals, by which the Church seeks spiritual support for the deceased, honors their bodies, and at the same time brings the solace of hope to the living, must be celebrated according to the norm of the liturgical laws.
I don't know if some people have a problem with this ruling because they think that being refused this specific Catholic funeral is indicative of the refusal of the deceased's salvation in the eyes of the Catholic Church, but I was thinking that maybe this might help some of them.
So if I understand it correctly, "ecclesiastical funeral" does not mean "the only way of burying someone while retaining their salvation", but rather means "the specific way the funeral is conducted for those that survived and the church at large".
So, again to potentially over-simplify this, an "ecclesiastical funeral" might be viewed comparatively to a "military funeral"? With that I mean that if you qualify for the rites, and agree to conduct them in the way that is required, you get the rites. If you are catholic and agree to have your remains buried in a specific way, the local parish will conduct the appropriate song and dance for you, your survivors, and the community at large. If you are a military veteran and agree to have your remains buried in a specific way, the local veterans cemetery will do the fancy military ceremony during your funeral for you, your survivors, and the community at large. Not agreeing to the specific requirements of the catholic funeral just means that the catholic church won't conduct the funeral, it doesn't mean you weren't a catholic. And not agreeing to the specific requirements of the veteran funeral just means that you won't get a military funeral, it doesn't mean that you weren't a military veteran.
Peregrine wrote: So a person who chooses to have their ashes scattered because they can't afford a place in a cemetary or to be with their spouse who had their ashes scattered or whatever would still be given a Catholic funeral as long as they aren't doing it as some kind of anti-Catholic statement?
Sort of. The issue is, Catholics cannot legitimately justify the choice economically or semtimentally. But obviously there are cases where we are not talking about a choice at all, perhaps as a matter of ignorance or perhaps as a matter of some tragic circumstances like indigence. In these cases, I think we are talking about equities, to evoke a legal concept, and the bishop would probably dispense with the usual requirements/procedure. You have to keep in mind that the point of these things is not to harm the innocent but rather to preserve our faith. Even in the instruction in question, which strictly forbids the loved ones keeping thenashes at home, there is some mention of taking into account "grave and exceptional cases dependent on cultural conditions of a localized nature."
d-usa wrote: Not agreeing to the specific requirements of the catholic funeral just means that the catholic church won't conduct the funeral, it doesn't mean you weren't a catholic.
Well it certainly doesn't mean you are damned to hell. But I think it is tricky to say whether you have quite got it because part of being Catholic, I think a big part of it, is assenting to tradition on these matters. As a Catholic, I receive my values as they are handed down; not just on a "if I agree with it" basis. Sometimes this challenges me, no doubt about it. But ultimately, I believe that the Church has preserved and handed down more wisdom and insight than I have managed to acquire. It's a matter of faith, naturally. And reason. If the Church teaches, this is what the funeral rites are about and are like, as a Catholic I accept that. I am not going to reinvent these wheels. I think this is partly because for me, and I think this comes from reflecting on the history of Christianity and culture generally, these kind of things are not about self-expression as they clearly are for many contemporary Westerners (again, weddings are a great example).
Manchu wrote: To me, the economic considerations related to cremation seem ... dystopian. At the risk of sounding Swiftian, surely selling off the corpses of loved ones to a cat food factory could be even more cost effective/eco-friendly.
Maybe they aren't looking so much for cheapest method but reasonably priced rather than paying church more than reasonable since they are holding kind of a monopoly on the thing and are looking to get even more. This ruling is just one more way for church to extort money.
Manchu wrote: Actually that has nothing to do with reality.
So you claim they DON'T ask for big pile of money for the funeral? So for example another person in post was incorrect in statement that had " By cheaper I mean $5k - $10k cheaper. ".
If burial is thousands more expensive than crematory then that's pure greed by church.
Manchu wrote: So let me just see if I understand the false dilemma: it's pay for all funeral costs or remain silent on the issue of funeral rituals?
Its the you break it you bought it belief. Frankly little baby Jebus didn't say jack about, so as far as I'm concerned its made up nonsense.
What about everyone who's ever died and not been buried in a consecrated graveyard?
EDIT: Join the Anglicans. We don't care what you do, and fully support being buried along with your favorite bottle of whiskey. I'm going with the last shot of TBone's special reserve rum I had made.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: The Catholic Church is so removed from Christs teachings it's hard to even blink at silly rules like this one. They're a corporation looking to squeeze more cash from a shrinking following.
jreilly89 wrote: As much as I enjoy bashing the Catholic Church, they're just a newcomer in a long line of con men.
You guys sound like teenagers explaining why you should get to sleep in on Sunday mornings.
Rather than posting a snarky gif, care to disagree like an adult? Trust me, I've spent plenty of my college time studying religion and it's impact on people, especially women. I know all about organized religion.
TBH that reply was far more than you deserved. If all you've learned about religion during your "college time" amounts to dismissing Catholicism and religion generally as some kidn of con then adult conversation isn't possible.
Manchu wrote: TBH that reply was far more than you deserved. If all you've learned about religion during your "college time" amounts to dismissing Catholicism and religion generally as some kidn of con then adult conversation isn't possible.
Can you report a mod to a mod if you think they're overstepping it a bit?
Seriously though, neither of those responses were particularly helpful.
I'm not qualified enough to say whether the Catholic Church consists of a bunch of con men or not, but even so, that's a bit of a harsh label to apply to every commune that may practice the religion, isn't it?
Frazzled wrote: What about everyone who's ever died and not been buried in a consecrated graveyard?
What about them?
The issue here is much simpler: if you want a Catholic funeral, you can't choose to have your ashes scattered and the family members who survive you can't take your ashes home, barring exceptional circumstances, or turn them into trinkets or something similar.
It's sort of like, if you want to receive the Eucharist, you can't take it home, or wear it on a necklace, or throw it into a pond.
Frazzled wrote: Nothing actually. I found where this is not a post facto law.
This has come up before but I think people have the wrong idea - that not having had a Christian funeral somehow dooms the soul of the departed, such that this instruction might retroactively doom souls. But none of that is true or, more importantly, even relevant to the topic, which is only about denying Christian funeral to those who intentionally flout the Christian faith, which just makes sense. I'll repeat the analogy again because it is pretty apt: the Church is not going to allow you to take a Eucharistic host home, wear it on a necklace, or crumble it up and throw it in the dirt or in some water. If you receive communion, you consume it. The faith is just as serious about our bodies as the body of Christ, hence this teaching on funeral rites.
Manchu wrote: TBH that reply was far more than you deserved. If all you've learned about religion during your "college time" amounts to dismissing Catholicism and religion generally as some kidn of con then adult conversation isn't possible.
Isn't it? I stated before "It's great to be religious or spiritual, but be wary listening to anyone who claims to hear the voice of God". I have no problem with people who practice and believe, but I think organized religion is a joke. And yeah, all my "college time" did teach me was the many ways religion was used to suppress, extort, and hurt people. God forbid I have a bad view of the Catholic church.
jreilly89 wrote: God forbid I have a bad view of the Catholic church.
I snorted when I read this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: This has come up before but I think people have the wrong idea - that not having had a Christian funeral somehow dooms the soul of the departed, such that this instruction might retroactively doom souls.
It's not like someone on earth could say "Ope, no, that's not good," and then a bunch of souls just get ripped out of heaven and shot straight to hell. I have no dog in this fight, but it seems like a step back for the church, who have been seeming to me to become more "with the times," so to speak. Economical concerns for your worshippers should be considered, in my opinion, because you don't want people dropping out of your religion because "it's too expensive." I also realize it's theoretically not up to humans to decide this anyway, if you go in for such things, it's "word of God" whether you can afford it or not.
Manchu wrote: The only qualifications to make such a statement are hatred and ignorance.
Most likely; honestly I never keep up with most religions, being an agnostic, but even if I think one religious group within a collective is being unreasonable, I wouldn't pass that label onto everyone else in that religion. People seem to like doing that to a certain religious group that I won't mention here, for the sake of this thread staying open for another few pages.
Even so, the forefront of a religious group coming out and saying to all their followers that they've been doing something wrong all this time, is a little peculiar, and will certainly create even more divides within the group than those that already exist.
Manchu wrote: TBH that reply was far more than you deserved. If all you've learned about religion during your "college time" amounts to dismissing Catholicism and religion generally as some kidn of con then adult conversation isn't possible.
Isn't it? I stated before "It's great to be religious or spiritual, but be wary listening to anyone who claims to hear the voice of God". I have no problem with people who practice and believe, but I think organized religion is a joke. And yeah, all my "college time" did teach me was the many ways religion was used to suppress, extort, and hurt people. God forbid I have a bad view of the Catholic church.
I hear the voice of Dog every time someone comes to the door. They greet him by singing the song of their people.
Frazzled wrote: Nothing actually. I found where this is not a post facto law.
This has come up before but I think people have the wrong idea - that not having had a Christian funeral somehow dooms the soul of the departed, such that this instruction might retroactively doom souls. But none of that is true or, more importantly, even relevant to the topic, which is only about denying Christian funeral to those who intentionally flout the Christian faith, which just makes sense. I'll repeat the analogy again because it is pretty apt: the Church is not going to allow you to take a Eucharistic host home, wear it on a necklace, or crumble it up and throw it in the dirt or in some water. If you receive communion, you consume it. The faith is just as serious about our bodies as the body of Christ, hence this teaching on funeral rites.
A tinge defensive (understandable) but I get it. Now you can still have a memorial service with a priest correct? They are just saying priests following this rule can't provide official funeral services?
Jacksmiles wrote: Economical concerns for your worshippers should be considered, in my opinion, because you don't want people dropping out of your religion because "it's too expensive."
Economic considerations don't trump the dignity of the human person. The Church has helped people with funeral expenses for 2000 years and it is no different today. This teaching doesn't price people out of Christian funerals. The issue is, the practice of scattering ashes (and taking them home and making trinkets from them) is at odds with Catholic practice, according to the competent authority. This also isn't set in stone forever. Cremation itself was thought to be at odds with Catholic practice until 1963. Scattering ashes was allowed by Italian bishops until just now. It's not the practice in itself that is the trouble so much as the heretical beliefs (such as pantheism) that become associated with them, but this is probably getting too deep into it for this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Annoyance wrote: the forefront of a religious group coming out and saying to all their followers that they've been doing something wrong all this time
But that's not what happened.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Now you can still have a memorial service with a priest correct? They are just saying priests following this rule can't provide official funeral services?
I think you may still be looking at it the wrong way around. I think this is the situation the instruction envisions: Catholic person A insists on the scattering of their ashes contrary to the magisterial teaching of the Church so Catholic person A will be denied "Christian funeral," i.e., the various "public" (as it were) funerary rites of the Catholic Church. I know that in some cases, for example involving alleged heretics, some priests have willfully disobeyed their bishops and provided the rites anyhow (not that they themselves were not in turn punished). But there could also be "private" memorials, perhaps even surreptitiously attended or led by clergy (who knows?), notwithstanding a "public" ban.
Frazzled wrote:
Now you can still have a memorial service with a priest correct? They are just saying priests following this rule can't provide official funeral services?
I think you may still be looking at it the wrong way around. I think this is the situation the instruction envisions: Catholic person A insists on the scattering of their ashes contrary to the magisterial teaching of the Church so Catholic person A will be denied "Christian funeral," i.e., the various "public" (as it were) funerary rites of the Catholic Church. I know that in some cases, for example involving alleged heretics, some priests have willfully disobeyed their bishops and provided the rites anyhow (not that they themselves were not in turn punished). But there could also be "private" memorials, perhaps even surreptitiously attended or led by clergy (who knows?), notwithstanding a "public" ban.
Wow, ok. Thats amazingly harsh, considering the pronouncement is based on what testament of Christ again?
Catholic priests can't run a memorial service-with attendant prayers? Thats a pretty big you to the deceased and their family.
Dropped in to see how this seemingly innocuous topic turned into so many pages and, well, I think I'll turn around now and return to the civility of the US Politics thread.
First, you seem to want to get into a chapter and verse quoting type race. Not gonna happen. Neither of us have the education to properly interpret the ancient texts in question.
Second, on topic, keep in mind the circumstances we are talking about; i.e., the decedent choosing funeral arrangements contrary to Catholic teaching. Are we talking about someone who even wants a priest leading prayers at some kind of vigil? The hypothetical person decided to break with Catholic practice as their last public act. And even if they do want XYZ for whatever reason ... ah well. Using the Eucharist analogy once again, Catholics consume the host at communion. Maybe you want to take it home and crumble it up and throw it all over your yard or some scenic spot but you don't get to do that.
BigWaaagh wrote: Dropped in to see how this seemingly innocuous topic turned into so many pages and, well, I think I'll turn around now and return to the civility of the US Politics thread.
I know... right? Sheesh...
This is a religion ya'll... that's a commitment, not some joyride.
First, you seem to want to get into a chapter and verse quoting type race. Not gonna happen. Neither of us have the education to properly interpret the ancient texts in question.
Second, on topic, keep in mind the circumstances we are talking about; i.e., the decedent choosing funeral arrangements contrary to Catholic teaching. Are we talking about someone who even wants a priest leading prayers at some kind of vigil?
Ours did a Eulogy for both my mom and dad at the same time.
The hypothetical person decided to break with Catholic practice as their last public act.
I imagine this means divorced people and gays don't get funeral rights either. Again an excellent way to say you to the deceased.
And even if they do want XYZ for whatever reason ... ah well. Using the Eucharist analogy once again, Catholics consume the host at communion. Maybe you want to take it home and crumble it up and throw it all over your yard or some scenic spot but you don't get to do that.
No no, you take Christ Checks home with milk and some brown sugar. Come on dude, everybody knows that.
Tactical_Spam wrote: I'd like to hear the rationale of this decree. It seems arbitrary to place rules like this on the dead's ashes.
It's not arbitrary at all.
Spoiler:
Instruction Ad resurgendum cum Christo regarding the burial of the deceased and the conservation of the ashes in the case of cremation
1. To rise with Christ, we must die with Christ: we must “be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). With the Instruction Piam et Constantem of 5 July 1963, the then Holy Office established that “all necessary measures must be taken to preserve the practice of reverently burying the faithful departed”, adding however that cremation is not “opposed per se to the Christian religion” and that no longer should the sacraments and funeral rites be denied to those who have asked that they be cremated, under the condition that this choice has not been made through “a denial of Christian dogmas, the animosity of a secret society, or hatred of the Catholic religion and the Church”.1 Later this change in ecclesiastical discipline was incorporated into the Code of Canon Law (1983) and the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches (1990).
During the intervening years, the practice of cremation has notably increased in many countries, but simultaneously new ideas contrary to the Church’s faith have also become widespread. Having consulted the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts and numerous Episcopal Conferences and Synods of Bishops of the Oriental Churches, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has deemed opportune the publication of a new Instruction, with the intention of underlining the doctrinal and pastoral reasons for the preference of the burial of the remains of the faithful and to set out norms pertaining to the conservation of ashes in the case of cremation.
2. The resurrection of Jesus is the culminating truth of the Christian faith, preached as an essential part of the Paschal Mystery from the very beginnings of Christianity: “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve” (1 Cor 15:3-5). Through his death and resurrection, Christ freed us from sin and gave us access to a new life, “so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rm 6:4). Furthermore, the risen Christ is the principle and source of our future resurrection: “Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep […] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:20-22).
It is true that Christ will raise us up on the last day; but it is also true that, in a certain way, we have already risen with Christ. In Baptism, actually, we are immersed in the death and resurrection of Christ and sacramentally assimilated to him: “You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col 2:12). United with Christ by Baptism, we already truly participate in the life of the risen Christ (cf. Eph 2:6).
Because of Christ, Christian death has a positive meaning. The Christian vision of death receives privileged expression in the liturgy of the Church: “Indeed for your faithful, Lord, life is changed not ended, and, when this earthly dwelling turns to dust, an eternal dwelling is made ready for them in heaven”.2 By death the soul is separated from the body, but in the resurrection God will give incorruptible life to our body, transformed by reunion with our soul. In our own day also, the Church is called to proclaim her faith in the resurrection: “The confidence of Christians is the resurrection of the dead; believing this we live”.3
3. Following the most ancient Christian tradition, the Church insistently recommends that the bodies of the deceased be buried in cemeteries or other sacred places.4 In memory of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord, the mystery that illumines the Christian meaning of death,5 burial is above all the most fitting way to express faith and hope in the resurrection of the body.6
The Church who, as Mother, has accompanied the Christian during his earthly pilgrimage, offers to the Father, in Christ, the child of her grace, and she commits to the earth, in hope, the seed of the body that will rise in glory.7
By burying the bodies of the faithful, the Church confirms her faith in the resurrection of the body,8 and intends to show the great dignity of the human body as an integral part of the human person whose body forms part of their identity.9 She cannot, therefore, condone attitudes or permit rites that involve erroneous ideas about death, such as considering death as the definitive annihilation of the person, or the moment of fusion with Mother Nature or the universe, or as a stage in the cycle of regeneration, or as the definitive liberation from the “prison” of the body. Furthermore, burial in a cemetery or another sacred place adequately corresponds to the piety and respect owed to the bodies of the faithful departed who through Baptism have become temples of the Holy Spirit and in which “as instruments and vessels the Spirit has carried out so many good works”.10
Tobias, the just, was praised for the merits he acquired in the sight of God for having buried the dead,11 and the Church considers the burial of dead one of the corporal works of mercy.12
Finally, the burial of the faithful departed in cemeteries or other sacred places encourages family members and the whole Christian community to pray for and remember the dead, while at the same time fostering the veneration of martyrs and saints.
Through the practice of burying the dead in cemeteries, in churches or their environs, Christian tradition has upheld the relationship between the living and the dead and has opposed any tendency to minimize, or relegate to the purely private sphere, the event of death and the meaning it has for Christians.
4. In circumstances when cremation is chosen because of sanitary, economic or social considerations, this choice must never violate the explicitly-stated or the reasonably inferable wishes of the deceased faithful. The Church raises no doctrinal objections to this practice, since cremation of the deceased’s body does not affect his or her soul, nor does it prevent God, in his omnipotence, from raising up the deceased body to new life. Thus cremation, in and of itself, objectively negates neither the Christian doctrine of the soul’s immortality nor that of the resurrection of the body.13
The Church continues to prefer the practice of burying the bodies of the deceased, because this shows a greater esteem towards the deceased. Nevertheless, cremation is not prohibited, “unless it was chosen for reasons contrary to Christian doctrine”.14 In the absence of motives contrary to Christian doctrine, the Church, after the celebration of the funeral rite, accompanies the choice of cremation, providing the relevant liturgical and pastoral directives, and taking particular care to avoid every form of scandal or the appearance of religious indifferentism.
5. When, for legitimate motives, cremation of the body has been chosen, the ashes of the faithful must be laid to rest in a sacred place, that is, in a cemetery or, in certain cases, in a church or an area, which has been set aside for this purpose, and so dedicated by the competent ecclesial authority. From the earliest times, Christians have desired that the faithful departed become the objects of the Christian community’s prayers and remembrance. Their tombs have become places of prayer, remembrance and reflection. The faithful departed remain part of the Church who believes “in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are being purified, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church”.15
The reservation of the ashes of the departed in a sacred place ensures that they are not excluded from the prayers and remembrance of their family or the Christian community. It prevents the faithful departed from being forgotten, or their remains from being shown a lack of respect, which eventuality is possible, most especially once the immediately subsequent generation has too passed away. Also it prevents any unfitting or superstitious practices.
6. For the reasons given above, the conservation of the ashes of the departed in a domestic residence is not permitted. Only in grave and exceptional cases dependent on cultural conditions of a localized nature, may the Ordinary, in agreement with the Episcopal Conference or the Synod of Bishops of the Oriental Churches, concede permission for the conservation of the ashes of the departed in a domestic residence. Nonetheless, the ashes may not be divided among various family members and due respect must be maintained regarding the circumstances of such a conservation.
7. 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. These courses of action cannot be legitimized by an appeal to the sanitary, social, or economic motives that may have occasioned the choice of cremation.
8. When the deceased notoriously has requested cremation and the scattering of their ashes for reasons contrary to the Christian faith, a Christian funeral must be denied to that person according to the norms of the law.16
The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect on 18 March 2016, approved the present Instruction, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation on 2 March 2016, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 15 August 2016, the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Gerhard Card. Müller
Prefect
Luis F. Ladaria, SJ
Titular Archbishop of Thibica
Secretary
___________________
[1] AAS 56 (1964), 822-823.
2 Roman Missal, Preface I for the Dead.
3 Tertullian, De Resurrectione carnis, 1,1: CCL 2, 921.
Manchu wrote: The Church exists to preserve an pass on the faith, not to validate each person's choices whatever they may be.
But the Church also must interpret the faith according to acceptable theological principles. As this impacts every Catholic they better have sound theological underpinnings.
I'm sure you didn't actually mean to post something as absolutely fething stupid and offensive as this.
Now you understand how your posts have impacted others who have deeply felt feelings as well. But fair point. Will modify.
Your posting of the papal bull bolsters my view, however. I was hoping this was based on something more impactful. But hey Americans ignore most of this stuff anyway or come over to the dark side. We have cookies.
Frazzled wrote: Your posting of the papal bull bolsters my view.
(1) It's not a bull.
Its not a papal pronouncement? Are there different levels of pronouncements? How does that work? This is not an attack. I thought all statements of policy were called "bulls" (or maybe a Latin term).
Actually its not contrasting my view that they needed strong sourcing. I get the "body is holy" and "funerals are for the greater body of Christ" thing. I was hoping for a little more direct sourcing from the Bible itself however. EDIT: This is indeed personal for me. Following this stricture would have meant Mom couldn't have been with Dad. How messed up is that?
What if someone is not buried on hallowed ground? - battlefield for instance? Also what about those who aren't actually buried? Mausaleums for example? You can't bury someone in NO proper, unless you want to see them again with the next flood.
Manchu wrote: It's sort of like, if you want to receive the Eucharist, you can't take it home, or wear it on a necklace, or throw it into a pond.
Cripes man, I've been pocketing it and throwing it into the pond for YEARS!! Are you sure that isn't cool? I make sure to say a couple Hail Marys after I chuck it.
Honestly, I'm DEEPLY OFFENDED AND OUTRAGED by this crusade against Eucharistic Ejection!
Manchu wrote: It's sort of like, if you want to receive the Eucharist, you can't take it home, or wear it on a necklace, or throw it into a pond.
Cripes man, I've been pocketing it and throwing it into the pond for YEARS!! Are you sure that isn't cool? I make sure to say a couple Hail Marys after I chuck it.
Honestly, I'm DEEPLY OFFENDED AND OUTRAGED by this crusade against Eucharistic Ejection!
OT but at one of the missions in San Antonio (Alamo de Bejar was just one of a chain) they have one of the original wafer molds. What is that 400+ years old?
Tactical_Spam wrote: I'd like to hear the rationale of this decree. It seems arbitrary to place rules like this on the dead's ashes.
It's not arbitrary at all.
Spoiler:
Instruction Ad resurgendum cum Christo regarding the burial of the deceased and the conservation of the ashes in the case of cremation
1. To rise with Christ, we must die with Christ: we must “be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). With the Instruction Piam et Constantem of 5 July 1963, the then Holy Office established that “all necessary measures must be taken to preserve the practice of reverently burying the faithful departed”, adding however that cremation is not “opposed per se to the Christian religion” and that no longer should the sacraments and funeral rites be denied to those who have asked that they be cremated, under the condition that this choice has not been made through “a denial of Christian dogmas, the animosity of a secret society, or hatred of the Catholic religion and the Church”.1 Later this change in ecclesiastical discipline was incorporated into the Code of Canon Law (1983) and the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches (1990).
During the intervening years, the practice of cremation has notably increased in many countries, but simultaneously new ideas contrary to the Church’s faith have also become widespread. Having consulted the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts and numerous Episcopal Conferences and Synods of Bishops of the Oriental Churches, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has deemed opportune the publication of a new Instruction, with the intention of underlining the doctrinal and pastoral reasons for the preference of the burial of the remains of the faithful and to set out norms pertaining to the conservation of ashes in the case of cremation.
2. The resurrection of Jesus is the culminating truth of the Christian faith, preached as an essential part of the Paschal Mystery from the very beginnings of Christianity: “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve” (1 Cor 15:3-5). Through his death and resurrection, Christ freed us from sin and gave us access to a new life, “so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rm 6:4). Furthermore, the risen Christ is the principle and source of our future resurrection: “Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep […] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:20-22).
It is true that Christ will raise us up on the last day; but it is also true that, in a certain way, we have already risen with Christ. In Baptism, actually, we are immersed in the death and resurrection of Christ and sacramentally assimilated to him: “You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col 2:12). United with Christ by Baptism, we already truly participate in the life of the risen Christ (cf. Eph 2:6).
Because of Christ, Christian death has a positive meaning. The Christian vision of death receives privileged expression in the liturgy of the Church: “Indeed for your faithful, Lord, life is changed not ended, and, when this earthly dwelling turns to dust, an eternal dwelling is made ready for them in heaven”.2 By death the soul is separated from the body, but in the resurrection God will give incorruptible life to our body, transformed by reunion with our soul. In our own day also, the Church is called to proclaim her faith in the resurrection: “The confidence of Christians is the resurrection of the dead; believing this we live”.3
3. Following the most ancient Christian tradition, the Church insistently recommends that the bodies of the deceased be buried in cemeteries or other sacred places.4 In memory of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord, the mystery that illumines the Christian meaning of death,5 burial is above all the most fitting way to express faith and hope in the resurrection of the body.6
The Church who, as Mother, has accompanied the Christian during his earthly pilgrimage, offers to the Father, in Christ, the child of her grace, and she commits to the earth, in hope, the seed of the body that will rise in glory.7
By burying the bodies of the faithful, the Church confirms her faith in the resurrection of the body,8 and intends to show the great dignity of the human body as an integral part of the human person whose body forms part of their identity.9 She cannot, therefore, condone attitudes or permit rites that involve erroneous ideas about death, such as considering death as the definitive annihilation of the person, or the moment of fusion with Mother Nature or the universe, or as a stage in the cycle of regeneration, or as the definitive liberation from the “prison” of the body. Furthermore, burial in a cemetery or another sacred place adequately corresponds to the piety and respect owed to the bodies of the faithful departed who through Baptism have become temples of the Holy Spirit and in which “as instruments and vessels the Spirit has carried out so many good works”.10
Tobias, the just, was praised for the merits he acquired in the sight of God for having buried the dead,11 and the Church considers the burial of dead one of the corporal works of mercy.12
Finally, the burial of the faithful departed in cemeteries or other sacred places encourages family members and the whole Christian community to pray for and remember the dead, while at the same time fostering the veneration of martyrs and saints.
Through the practice of burying the dead in cemeteries, in churches or their environs, Christian tradition has upheld the relationship between the living and the dead and has opposed any tendency to minimize, or relegate to the purely private sphere, the event of death and the meaning it has for Christians.
4. In circumstances when cremation is chosen because of sanitary, economic or social considerations, this choice must never violate the explicitly-stated or the reasonably inferable wishes of the deceased faithful. The Church raises no doctrinal objections to this practice, since cremation of the deceased’s body does not affect his or her soul, nor does it prevent God, in his omnipotence, from raising up the deceased body to new life. Thus cremation, in and of itself, objectively negates neither the Christian doctrine of the soul’s immortality nor that of the resurrection of the body.13
The Church continues to prefer the practice of burying the bodies of the deceased, because this shows a greater esteem towards the deceased. Nevertheless, cremation is not prohibited, “unless it was chosen for reasons contrary to Christian doctrine”.14 In the absence of motives contrary to Christian doctrine, the Church, after the celebration of the funeral rite, accompanies the choice of cremation, providing the relevant liturgical and pastoral directives, and taking particular care to avoid every form of scandal or the appearance of religious indifferentism.
5. When, for legitimate motives, cremation of the body has been chosen, the ashes of the faithful must be laid to rest in a sacred place, that is, in a cemetery or, in certain cases, in a church or an area, which has been set aside for this purpose, and so dedicated by the competent ecclesial authority. From the earliest times, Christians have desired that the faithful departed become the objects of the Christian community’s prayers and remembrance. Their tombs have become places of prayer, remembrance and reflection. The faithful departed remain part of the Church who believes “in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are being purified, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church”.15
The reservation of the ashes of the departed in a sacred place ensures that they are not excluded from the prayers and remembrance of their family or the Christian community. It prevents the faithful departed from being forgotten, or their remains from being shown a lack of respect, which eventuality is possible, most especially once the immediately subsequent generation has too passed away. Also it prevents any unfitting or superstitious practices.
6. For the reasons given above, the conservation of the ashes of the departed in a domestic residence is not permitted. Only in grave and exceptional cases dependent on cultural conditions of a localized nature, may the Ordinary, in agreement with the Episcopal Conference or the Synod of Bishops of the Oriental Churches, concede permission for the conservation of the ashes of the departed in a domestic residence. Nonetheless, the ashes may not be divided among various family members and due respect must be maintained regarding the circumstances of such a conservation.
7. 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. These courses of action cannot be legitimized by an appeal to the sanitary, social, or economic motives that may have occasioned the choice of cremation.
8. When the deceased notoriously has requested cremation and the scattering of their ashes for reasons contrary to the Christian faith, a Christian funeral must be denied to that person according to the norms of the law.16
The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect on 18 March 2016, approved the present Instruction, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation on 2 March 2016, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 15 August 2016, the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Gerhard Card. Müller
Prefect
Luis F. Ladaria, SJ
Titular Archbishop of Thibica
Secretary
___________________
[1] AAS 56 (1964), 822-823.
2 Roman Missal, Preface I for the Dead.
3 Tertullian, De Resurrectione carnis, 1,1: CCL 2, 921.
So the battlefield question - the issue is not where so much as why. Why would someone be denied a Christian funeral by the Catholic Church? Because they happened to die at X location where their remains cannot be recovered? No. Because they were too poor to afford to have the ideal funeral? No. The reason that the Church would deny someone Christian funeral is because they notoriously flouted the Christian faith, such as by choosing funeral arrangements at odds with the faith.
To your other question, this is not a pronouncement by the Bishop of Rome, a.k.a., the pope, but an instruction of the competent curial authority of the Holy See ("the Vatican"), namely, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (f.k.a., the Holy Office), approved of by the pope. A bull is a letter from the pope himself; other types of papal letters include briefs and encyclicals. Bulls are generally administrative decrees, such as for creating a diocese.
To you other question, this is not a pronouncement by the Bishop of Rome, a.k.a., the pope, but an instruction of the competent curial authority of the Holy See ("the Vatican"), namely, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (f.k.a., the Holy Office), approved of by the pope. A bull is a letter from the pope himself; other types of papal letters include briefs and encyclicals. Bulls are generally administrative decrees, such as for creating a diocese.
Oh, good to know. Never knew that.
Reading through it again, if the priests consecrated a given location (lets say a pond) then it appears they could still give the funeral. Thinking about it, thats pretty much the equivalent of burial at sea.
Also looks like cremation etc. are permitted, its more of the "on holy ground" thats the requirement.
For your reference, the type of papal letter most people talk about these days is called an encyclical. These are generally pretty long, usually addressed to bishops but sometimes addressed to "all people of good will" (so including non-Catholics), and talk about Christian doctrine. Instructions from the CDF are also about Christian doctrine, and are also addressed to bishops, but tend to be more about which practices are in accord with doctrine and why.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: if the priests consecrated a given location (lets say a pond) then it appears they could still give the funeral
I guess in a purely hypothetical sense but consecration is limited by its own set of historical and theological issues.
Manchu wrote: For your reference, the type of papal letter most people talk about these days is called an encyclical. These are generally pretty long, usually addressed to bishops but sometimes addressed to "all people of good will" (so including non-Catholics), and talk about Christian doctrine. Instructions from the CDF are also about Christian doctrine, and are also addressed to bishops, but tend to be more about which practices are in accord with doctrine and why.
Interesting.
Note: My apologies, this struck a nerve I did not know I had.
Manchu wrote: The reason that the Church would deny someone Christian funeral is because they notoriously flouted the Christian faith, such as by choosing funeral arrangements at odds with the faith.
Catholic Church =/= Christianity. One can have a Christian funeral entirely in line with the Christian faith without obeying the rules of the Catholic Church.
Frazzled wrote: My apologies, this struck a nerve I did not know I had.
No worries, my post above what not sarcastic, I really did know it was not your actual intention to be offensive. As far the nerve goes, it is interesting that so many people who are not Catholic and ostensibly do not care what the Catholic Church has to say about XYZ do in fact pay attention from time to time, albeit unfortunately often in misleading contexts (e.g., recent Hillary wikileaks).
Peregrine wrote: One can have a Christian funeral entirely in line with the Christian faith without obeying the rules of the Catholic Church.
Debatable from the Catholic POV (unless you are strictly speaking of the Orthodox communions not in union with Rome) which is all I mean to address here. Members of other communions can speak for themselves.
Manchu wrote: The reason that the Church would deny someone Christian funeral is because they notoriously flouted the Christian faith, such as by choosing funeral arrangements at odds with the faith.
Catholic Church =/= Christianity. One can have a Christian funeral entirely in line with the Christian faith without obeying the rules of the Catholic Church.
As the OC (well the EO disputes that) I don't think thats personal. EDIT: What Manchu said.
As far the nerve goes, it is interesting that so many people who are not Catholic and ostensibly do not care what the Catholic Church has to say about XYZ do in fact pay attention from time to time, albeit unfortunately often in misleading contexts (e.g., recent Hillary wikileaks).
Manchu wrote: The reason that the Church would deny someone Christian funeral is because they notoriously flouted the Christian faith, such as by choosing funeral arrangements at odds with the faith.
Catholic Church =/= Christianity. One can have a Christian funeral entirely in line with the Christian faith without obeying the rules of the Catholic Church.
And this only deals with the specific funeral rites of this specific branch of this specific religion.
Manchu wrote: I'll repeat the analogy again because it is pretty apt: the Church is not going to allow you to take a Eucharistic host home, wear it on a necklace, or crumble it up and throw it in the dirt or in some water.
However, I've found their willingness to leave holy water in very public locations with unlocked doors (or better, the willingness to bless whole glass ampules from the river Jordan) to be a godsend on occasion.
General Annoyance wrote: the forefront of a religious group coming out and saying to all their followers that they've been doing something wrong all this time
But that's not what happened.
They may not have explicitly said that anyone who has scattered their loved one's ashes was doing it wrong, but typically when you rule something as no longer being accepted or welcome within a group or collective, it implies that anyone who may have been doing whatever it was that way previously was incorrect.
It'd be like me coming out as the representative of all model painters and saying that the use of a rattle can has been banned in favour of using an airbrush instead, because the solvent in rattle cans can be harmful to the environment. By saying that, I've suggested that anyone using a rattle can hasn't been considerate of the environment when spraying their models, which will certainly create a negative response both from and towards them.
Of course, that's all an analogy - I think if a model painting representative of the world existed, and I was in that role, all hell would break loose
Anyways, I don't feel like being dragged into another potentially toxic argument, so I'm stepping out while I'm still ahead.
Here's my question, and it's probably very easy to answer: Why would non Catholics get all upset about a declaration within the Catholic Church?
As far as Catholics go, I can understand there would be serious emotions about this with some, but at the end of the day, the Pope is their spiritual leader and either they either have faith in him and his connection to divine inspiration or they don't.
If they don't have faith in him, why are they still Catholic?
You know, the planet God created?
ing with you after. No one's digging you up to play with your bones. There's a mausoleum in downtown NO thats all torn to hell (thanks Katrina) with remains floating away. I had several generations of family in it.
