CREMA — Sanctuary of S. Maria delle Grazie, by G. Battagio da Lodi (15th century).
the outrage committed against the corpses of their brethren, and the apologists protested, while making it clear that they had nothing to fear for the resurrection.
Nevertheless, cinerary urns and cremated remains have been found in Christian cemeteries; but the place where they were discovered, often beneath pagan cemeteries, and the inscriptions, none of which has so far been found to be Christian, authorize us without hesitation to conclude that these cinerary urns had arrived there through landslides from the pagan funerary monuments above (cf. O. Marucchi, Manuale di archeologia cristiana, Rome 1933, p. 201).
Materialism, superstition, ridiculous inconsistencies—all contributed to alienating Christians from cremation, in addition to the useless maltreatment to which the corpse was subjected. The Christian custom of inhumation, already practiced among the Jews, also gained ground in the pagan world against the practice of burning, in proportion to the spread of the Christian faith, and extended to people of every rank, including the highest, who had embraced Christianity. Converts to Christianity, even when of noble birth, preferred Christian cemetery loculi to the pomp of the funeral pyre, while the liturgy of the Church turned entirely toward the rite of inhumation, echoing the profound meanings that tradition has attributed to the deposition of the corpse beneath the earth.
With the victory of the Church between the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century, cremation ceased in the Roman Empire.
The very rarity, or near absence, of canonical documentation on the matter is an indication of the absence of abuses. The indirect testimonies of the councils, which legislated on funerary matters, document for us the universal custom of burying corpses (C. 28, C. XIII, q. 2).
Even outside the Roman Empire, funeral pyres generally disappeared in every country where Christianity penetrated. The Saxons, reluctant to abandon cremation, were compelled to do so by a capitulary of Charlemagne in 789 (ed. Boretius, I, 69). Before them, the Thuringians had abandoned cremation, and afterward so did the Scandinavians, the Norwegians, the Swedes, the Danes (1205), and the Prussians (1245).
After the year 1000, a strange funerary custom had spread through Europe, which in some respects had points of contact with cremation.
Corpses were artificially stripped of their flesh, after being boiled, so that the cleaned bones could more easily be transferred from one place to another. Similar treatment was applied to the son of the Emperor Conrado; to the archbishop of Cologne, Rainaldo (1162); to Frederick I, Barbarossa (1167), and some of his dignitaries; to S. Luigi IX of France (1270); to Teobaldo, king of Navarre; Isabella d'Aragona; Filippo IV of France; and others (Aimoino, De gestis Francorum, V, Paris 1514, chap. 55).
A decretal of Boniface VIII (1299) punished with excommunication latae sententiae, reserved to the Holy See, those who ordered and those who carried out such an operation, while also depriving the body so treated of ecclesiastical burial (c. i, De sepulturis, III, 6, in «Extravag. Comm.»). The decretal, in both its wording and context, is also an implicit condemnation of cremation.
The condemnation achieved its effect, for no further traces of new abuses are found for centuries.
It was the decidedly anti-Christian attitude of modern cremationists and of their pro-cremation associations that, in response to a practice not in itself strictly connected with doctrine, would arouse the aversion of believers and the Church’s explicit condemnations.
The origins of the modern movement for cremation are generally connected with the Revolution of the eighteenth century. In fact, there was a bill before the Council of Five Hundred (11 November 1797) seeking to make cremation optional, but the proposal was rejected. Attempts were nevertheless resumed later in the various European states, with a certain degree of success.
Freemasonry bears considerable responsibility in this regard. Although, owing to insufficient evidence, its role in the genesis of this movement cannot be asserted, it certainly promoted it in every way, above all out of an anti-clerical spirit, taking care to give it the character of independence and freedom of thought, of emancipation from religious traditions, which was the principal cause of the Church’s condemnations.
The real launching of the cremationist idea took place in Italy in 1857 through the efforts of Ferdinando Coletti, a physician, who was followed by various colleagues; and in 1867 it became the subject of a parliamentary proposal, although this was not admitted for debate, initiated by the Hon. Salvatore Morelli, the celebrated advocate of divorce. But the repeated proposals succeeded with the decree of 1874, whose article 67 permitted cremation, though still as an exceptional measure; from being exceptional, thanks to the propaganda and pressure of some thirty cremationist societies that had meanwhile arisen, it became optional by decree in 1892.
After its quarter-hour of success in the last century, cremation is now in decline in Italy.
In other countries as well, the campaign for cremation began in the last century, and almost everywhere its historically anti-religious character is evident.
Cremation also found a place in other legislation: it was admitted in France (1887), Belgium (1932), red Spain (1932), Portugal (1910), Denmark (1892), Czechoslovakia (1919), England (1902), Finland (1926), Austria (1922), in many of the states of North America, in Argentina (1886), etc. At the forefront of cremationist practice perhaps stands Sweden, followed by Norway, Switzerland (where the relevant legislation is cantonal), and Germany.
The Protestant Church has shown itself very accommodating in this matter; the «Orthodox» Church, on the other hand, has been opposed, and the Catholic Church more than any other. But not out of preconceived hostility.
Indeed, in this very century the Church gave proof of tolerance in the matter with the neophytes of India, permitting its ministers to remain passive, though without approving, in cases of cremation of the corpses of Christians, arranged by pagan relatives for reasons of caste prestige. This was done so as not to place obstacles in the way of their conversion (Collectanea S. Congr. de Propaganda Fide, no. 1626–27, September 1884).
It showed itself uncompromising, however, for opposite reasons, toward cremationists in Catholic countries where the intention to dechristianize was evident.
In the first document, issued by the S. Congregation of the Holy Office on 19 May 1886, the Church condemned cremation as a detestable abuse; it prohibited anyone from designating by will or agreement with cremation societies, or in any other way, his own corpse for cremation, or from having the corpse of another cremated; and it prohibited membership in cremationist societies, which, if affiliated with Freemasonry, were subject to the ecclesiastical penalties imposed against the latter (Acta Sanctae Sedis, 19 [1886], p. 46). On 15 December of the same year, another decree of the same Congregation was issued, prohibiting priests from entering the crematorium to perform the sacred rites there, while permitting them to perform the rites in the deceased person’s home or in Church if the cremation took place at the wish of the survivors. For if cremation occurs in accordance with the deceased’s wishes, maintained until death, he is deprived of ecclesiastical burial.
Many moral questions concerning the Sacraments, suffrages, and cooperation arose following these decrees—questions addressed in the decree of the Holy Office of 27 July 1892. By this decree, the administration of the Sacraments was forbidden to the faithful who, without being Freemasons, had opted for cremation and did not wish to retract their choice even after admonition; it also prohibited the public application of the Mass for them in the event of death. Cooperation in cremation was declared illicit, under pain of interdiction from the Sacraments, when undertaken with the intention of transgressing the ecclesiastical precept, while material cooperation was tolerated provided that every sign of adherence to the Masonic sect or hostility toward the Church was removed from the ceremonies for cremation (Collectanea S. Congr. de Propaganda Fide, n. 1808).
Consistent with these principles concerning cooperation was the instruction of the Holy Office of 3 August 1897. In response to the superior of the Sisters “a Matre Dolorosa,” it tolerated the incineration of amputated limbs when carried out on the express order of a physician, while recommending, if possible, burial in a blessed place (Acta Sanctae Sedis, 30 [1897] p. 630).
The Code of Canon Law retains the principles and sanctions of the aforementioned decrees, and the relevant canons must be interpreted in their light. Canon 1203 § 1 prescribes the burial of corpses, condemns cremation, and declares null the will of the deceased who may have left instructions in any manner for the cremation of his corpse, prohibiting cooperation in the cremation itself in accordance with the decree of 1892. This nullification of the will of the deceased is the sole new element in canonical legislation.
The penalty for anyone who, in any manner, has ordered that his corpse be cremated and has not retracted the order is, under can. 2291 n. 5 and 1240 § 1 n. 5, deprivation of ecclesiastical burial and consequently, under can. 1204, deprivation of accompaniment to the Church, funeral rites, and deposition in a sacred place.
Consequently, the deceased will be deprived of every funeral Mass, including an anniversary Mass (can. 1241).
Deprivation of ecclesiastical burial remains in force as a penalty even if cremation is not in fact carried out, provided that it is established that the deceased persevered in his intention to be cremated until death.
If this intention is doubtful, ecclesiastical burial is not forbidden. Nor is it prohibited when cremation is carried out contrary to the retraction of the person who ordered it, or simply contrary to any prior wish of the deceased; in that case, however, scandal must first be prevented. This may also be achieved by making the deceased’s true wishes public, and the ashes must further be buried in the manner prescribed for the interment of a corpse.
The accompaniment of a corpse to a crematorium may be regarded not as an act of religion but as a duty of civil honor, and in this respect, even if a non-Catholic minister were present, it would be licit under can. 1258 § 2.
If, after ecclesiastical burial has been denied, a non-Catholic minister has been summoned, the person who summoned him is suspected of heresy and may not be admitted to the Sacraments until he has repaired the scandal (response of the Holy Office to the bishop of Linz, 25 February 1926; AAS, 18 [1926], p. 282).
Societies for cremation are certainly prohibited, but are not subject to censure unless they are affiliated with Freemasonry. Non-Catholics too, under can. 12, are obliged to observe the laws of the Church concerning cremation.
In June 1926, an instruction of the Holy Office sounded the alarm over a resurgence of cremation, recalling almost verbatim the decrees of 1886 and reaffirming once again the doctrine of the Church.
It is nevertheless appropriate, to avoid misunderstandings, to point out that this is a matter purely of discipline and ritual: should circumstances require it, the Church could change these provisions without contradicting herself. Even today, she finds nothing objectionable when cremation is requested in extraordinary circumstances, such as war, epidemics, and so forth, for a certain and grave reason of the public good, just as in the past she found nothing objectionable in the death penalty when applied by cremation.
Apart from the religious reasons against cremation, there is a serious argument of a social nature, drawn from forensic medicine, which includes among its objects of study the human corpse, even for some time after its burial, following a death that may appear violent or criminal. Cremation destroys with the corpse one of the possible proofs of the crime; it is therefore also socially dangerous, since it affords greater security to criminal activity.
A. Rota, È ammissibile la c. dei cadaveri? Scritti contro la c., Venice 1882; A. Chollet, La crémation, in Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques, 54 (1886), pp. 981 ff.; A. Besi, Inumazione e c. dei cadaveri, Padua 1886; E. Valton, s. v., in DThC, III, cols. 2310-23; J. Besson, Incénération, in DAFC, II, cols. 628-44; H. Leclercq, Incénération, in DACL, VII, cols. 502-508; E. P. Regatillo, Crematio cadaverum, in Sal Terrae, 17 (1928), pp. 706-13; C. S., De crematie corporis humani, in Periodica de re mor. can. lit., 18 (1929), pp. 62-82; E. Voosen, De inhumatione, in Collaciones Namurcenses, 36 (1932), pp. 349-62; V. Dalpiaz, De cadaverum crematione, in Apollinaris, 17 (1934), pp. 246-54; F. Abba, La c., Turin 1936; N. Jung, Crémation, in DDC, IV cols. 757-62; E. Righi-Lambertini, De vetita cadaverum crematione..., Venegono inf. 1948. Pietro Palazzini
MEDICINE. — In favor of cremation, its advocates advance arguments of a historical, technical, hygienic, social, political, and religious nature. In particular:
1) The worsening of the problem of disposing of corpses in the ever-expanding necropolises attached to cities, which are growing as a result of urbanization: thus, for example, whereas in 1870 the Verano cemetery in Rome occupied an area of 15 hectares, today the city’s (Verano, Flaminio) and suburban cemetery areas together cover approximately 100 hectares. 2) The practical difficulty of establishing a cemetery in conditions of location and orientation such that it would truly cause no harm to the underground water table through seepage into the subsoil, or in relation to the direction of the prevailing atmospheric currents, which are supposed to carry miasmatic exhalations away from the inhabited area. Although experts have clearly demonstrated that a cemetery established in accordance with all the rules of hygiene causes no harm to the neighboring inhabited area, it must be acknowledged that in practice it is not easy to solve the problem satisfactorily, and very few cemeteries are beyond criticism from the hygienic point of view. Nevertheless, both the reasons advanced concerning the occupation of space and those of a hygienic nature, although they may at first sight appear highly significant, prove in practice to be of little concern. Cemeteries themselves have a relatively short life; in a few years, at most a decade, they accomplish in the dead the incineration that a flame would produce in a few moments. Life advances irresistibly, and while history shows that many cities arose and many new fertile fields were won for the plow where our ancestors had already found compassionate burial, it has never spoken of necropolises that suffocated or swallowed up cities of the living. From the hygienic point of view, the excellent filtering power exerted by the earth upon the most dangerous pathogenic germs (smallpox, cholera, typhus, etc.) has been demonstrated; observation shows that whenever an epidemic breaks out, the sources of contagion and transmission originate among the living and not the dead; nor does one ever witness the revival of old epidemics when, during the urban development of the nineteenth century, old cemeteries were overwhelmed by the emergence and expansion of new inhabited areas.