CREMATION. – The term *c.* (from Lat. *crematio* = burning) has by usage been reserved for the act of burning a human corpse. This act, as practiced today in our countries, is a prompt, complete combustion of the corpse according to scientific technique, whereas among less civilized peoples it is a more or less complete incineration accompanied by special religious ceremonial, as was the case among the ancients.
According to a rather conventional symbolism, incineration seems to signify that bodies are forever resolved and dispersed, while the contrary rite of burial associates the idea of death with sleep and more adequately expresses the Christian faith in the final resurrection. This is a matter of symbolic expression, not of reality.
In absolute terms, cremation is not contrary to any natural or revealed truth; still less does it constitute an obstacle to the omnipotence of God for the resurrection of the bodies. Nor can it be said to violate in any way the rights of the human person. The corpse is no longer a person and therefore is not essentially inviolable in itself or for itself.
In practice, however, cremation has been repugnant to the discipline of the Church from its earliest beginnings, contrary to the refined sentiments of Christian piety toward the dead; whereas the contrary rite, burial, through unanimous, uninterrupted, traditional teaching, has come to signify the immortality of the soul and faith in the resurrection of the flesh, and serves as a clear reminder of biblical events and teachings already operative in Jewish tradition, such as the idea of the body as a seed (1 Cor 15:36–44), of the earth as mother (Gen 3:19; Job 1:21; Sir 40:1), and of death as rest and sleep (Dan 12:2; Jn 11:11–39).
A pagan of the 2nd century said of Christians: “They execrate pyres and condemn burials by fire” (Minucius Felix, *Octavius*, ch. 11: PL 3, 267). He also made known the reason: faith in the resurrection of the flesh. This is not merely a matter of custom contrary to pyres, but of execration, a condemnation made on religious principle and so openly that even pagans knew of II. Indeed, precisely to insult Christian convictions, pagans often vented their fury against the martyred remains of martyrs by burning them (Eusebius, *Hist. ecc.*, V, chaps. 1–2, PG 20, 433).
Christians considered themselves gravely insulted by the desecration of the bodies of their brethren, and the apologists protested even while making clear that they had nothing to fear for the resurrection.
Cinerary urns and burnt remains have nevertheless been found in Christian cemeteries; but the place of discovery, often beneath pagan cemeteries, and the inscriptions—none of which has been shown to be Christian—authorize us to conclude that these cinerary urns came from the collapse of the pagan funerary monuments above (cf. O. Marucchi, *Manuale di archeologia cristiana*, Rome 1933, p. 201).
Materialism, superstition, and ridiculous incongruities all contributed to alienate Christian sentiment from cremation, apart from the unnecessary maltreatment to which the corpse was subjected. The Christian practice of burial, already in use among the Jews, took hold in the pagan world against the practice of burning, in proportion to the spread of the Christian faith, and extended to persons of every rank, even the highest, who had embraced Christianity. Converts to Christianity, even of noble birth, preferred Christian catacomb burial to the pyre, while the liturgy of the Church was oriented entirely toward the rite of burial, echoing the lofty meanings that tradition had given to the deposition of the corpse in the earth.
With the victory of the Church between the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th 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. Indirect testimony from councils that legislated on funerary matters documents the universal custom of burying the dead (C. 28, C. XIII, q. 2).
Even outside the Roman Empire, pyres generally disappeared in every country where Christianity took root. The Saxons were pressed to abandon cremation by a capitulary of Charlemagne in 789 (ed. Boretius, I, 69). Before them, the Thuringians had abandoned it, and after them the Scandinavians, the Norwegians, the Swedes, the Danes (1205), and the Prussians (1245).
After the year 1000 a strange funerary custom began to spread in Europe that in some ways had points in common with cremation.
Corpses were artificially dissected after cooking, so that the cleaned bones could be more easily transferred from one place to another. This treatment was applied to the son of Emperor Conrad, to Archbishop Rainald of Cologne (1162), to Frederick I Barbarossa (1167) and some of his officials, to St. Louis IX of France (1270), to Theobald of Navarre, Isabella of Aragon, Philip IV of France, and others (Aimo, *De gestis Francorum*, V, Paris 1514, chap. 55).
A decretal of Boniface VIII (1299) imposed “latae sententiae” excommunication, reserved to the Holy See, on those who ordered and carried out such an operation, and at the same time denied ecclesiastical burial to the body so treated (c. I, *De sepulturis*, III, 6, in *Extravag. Comm.*). The decretal, in its text and context, is also an implicit condemnation of cremation.
The condemnation had its effect, for for centuries no further traces of such abuses are found.
It was the decidedly anti-Christian stance of today’s cremationists and their pro-cremation associations that, in a matter not strictly connected with doctrine, aroused the opposition of believers and the explicit condemnations of the Church.
The origins of the modern cremation movement are traced back to the Revolution of the 18th century. There was indeed a bill before the Council of Five Hundred (2 Nov. 1797) to make cremation optional, but it was rejected. Attempts were resumed later in various European states and with some success.
Freemasonry bears much responsibility in this regard. Although insufficient proof makes it impossible to impute the genesis of the movement to it, it is certain that Freemasonry promoted it in every way, especially out of anticlerical spirit, seeking to give it the character of independence and free thought, of liberation from religious traditions, which was the principal cause of the Church’s condemnations.
The real impetus to the cremationist idea came in Italy in 1857 through Ferdinando Coletti, a physician, who was followed by various colleagues; and in 1867 it became the subject of a parliamentary proposal that, however, was not admitted for reading, at the initiative of Hon. Salvatore Morelli, a famous advocate of divorce. But repeated proposals met with success under the decree of 1874, whose art. 67 permitted cremation, though as an exceptional measure; from an exceptional measure, thanks to propaganda and pressure from some thirty cremation societies that had meanwhile arisen, it became optional under a decree of 1892.
After its brief vogue in the last century, cremation is today in decline in Italy.
In other countries the beginnings of the cremationist campaign likewise date to the last century, and almost everywhere the historically anti-religious character of cremation is evident.
Cremazionism also found traces in other legislations: 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, Argentina (1886), etc. Perhaps Sweden stands at the forefront of cremationist practice, followed by Norway, Switzerland (where the relevant law is cantonal) and Germany.
The Protestant Church has shown itself to be very accommodating on this matter, while the “Orthodox” Church is opposed, and more than all of them, the Catholic Church. But not out of mere prejudice.
Indeed, precisely in this century the Church gave proof of tolerance in the matter with the neophytes of India, allowing its ministers to remain passive, albeit without approving, in the face of cases of cremation of Christian corpses, promoted by pagan relatives for reasons of caste prestige. And this in order not to place obstacles to their conversion (Collecaneda S. Congr. de Propaganda Fide, no. 1626-27, Sept. 1884).
It showed itself, however, intransigent for opposite reasons in the face of cremationists in Catholic countries where the intention to de-Christianize was evident.
In the first document, which is from the Holy Office of the Holy See dated 19 May 1886, the Church condemned cremation as a detestable abuse, forbade the disposal by will or agreement with cremation societies, or in any case, of one’s own corpse to cremation, or to have others cremated; it forbade belonging to cremation societies, which, if affiliated with Freemasonry, are 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 from the same Congregation was issued, which barred priests from entering the crematorium furnace to perform sacred rites, although it allowed them in the home of the deceased or in church, provided that cremation took place at the will of the survivors. For if cremation occurs by the deceased’s own disposition, maintained until death, he is deprived of ecclesiastical burial.
Many moral questions arose from these decrees concerning the Sacraments, suffrages, and cooperation; questions that were addressed in the decree of the Holy Office of 27 July 1892. With this decree, it was forbidden to administer the Sacraments to the faithful who, without being Freemasons, had opted for cremation and did not wish to retract it even after admonishment; and it was forbidden to apply a public Mass in the event of their death; it was declared illicit, under penalty of interdiction from the Sacraments, to cooperate in cremation with the intention of transgressing ecclesiastical precept, while material cooperation was tolerated, provided that any sign of adherence to the week of hostility to the Church was removed from the cremation ceremonies (Collecaneda S. Congr. de Propaganda Fide, no. 1886).
Consistent with these principles on cooperation is
the instruction of the Holy Office of 3 August 1897, in which, in response to the superior of the sisters of “a Matre Dolorosa,” it was tolerated, if carried out upon the explicit order of a physician, the incineration of amputated limbs, although it was recommended, if possible, to bury them in a blessed place (Acta Sanctae Sedis, 30 [1897], p. 630).
The Code of Canon Law upholds 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, disapproves of cremation, and declares void the will of the deceased who had in any way left instructions for the cremation of his corpse, forbidding cooperation in cremation itself in accordance with the decree of 1892. This voiding of the will of the deceased is the only new element in canon law.
The penalty for anyone who, in any way, has disposed that his corpse be cremated and has not retracted it, is, in accordance with canon 2291 no. 5 and 1240 §1 no. 5, the deprivation of ecclesiastical burial, and therefore, in accordance with canon 1204, of the accompaniment to the church, the funeral rites, and burial in a sacred place.
Consequently, the deceased will be deprived of any funeral Mass, even an anniversary one (canon 1241).
The deprivation of ecclesiastical burial remains in force as a penalty even if cremation is not actually carried out, provided it is established that the deceased persisted in his intention to be cremated until death.
If this will is doubtful, ecclesiastical burial is not forbidden. Nor is it prohibited if cremation is carried out against the retraction of the author or otherwise against any previous will of the deceased; but then scandal must be prevented, which can be achieved by making the true will of the deceased public, and the ashes must be buried in a manner similar to the inhumation of a corpse.
The accompaniment of a corpse to the crematorium furnace may be regarded not as an act of religion, but as a duty of civil honours, and from this perspective, even if there were a non-Catholic minister, in accordance with canon 1258 §2, it would be lawful.
If, after being denied ecclesiastical burial, a non-Catholic minister is called, the person who did so is suspected of heresy and cannot be admitted to the Sacraments unless he has repaired the scandal (reply of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Linz, 25 Feb. 1926; AAS, 18 [1926], p. 282).
Cremation societies are certainly forbidden, but not under censure unless they are affiliated with Freemasonry. Even non-Catholics, in accordance with canon 12, are bound to observe the Church’s laws on cremation.
In June 1926, an instruction from the Holy Office sounded the alarm over a resurgence of cremation, almost literally recalling the decrees of 1886 and once again reaffirming the Church’s doctrine.
It is worth noting, however, to avoid misunderstandings, that this is purely a matter of discipline and ritual: if circumstances were to require it, the Church could, without contradiction, change its provisions. And even today it finds nothing to object to, provided that cremation is requested in extraordinary circumstances, such as war or epidemics, for a certain and grave reason of public good, just as it found nothing to object to in the past against the death penalty, applied for the same reasons.
Beyond religious motives against cremation, there is a serious argument of a social nature, drawn from legal medicine, which has among its objects of study the human corpse, even for some time after burial, following a death that may appear violent or criminal. Now cremation destroys with the corpse one of the possible pieces of evidence of the crime; it is therefore also socially dangerous by providing greater security for the crime.
MEDICINE. — Supporters of cremation advance, in its favor, arguments of a historical, technical, hygienic, social, political, and religious nature. In particular:
1) The worsening problem of accommodating corpses in ever-larger necropolises annexed to cities, which are growing due to urbanization: for example, while in 1870 the Verano cemetery in Rome occupied an area of 15 hectares, currently the total cemetery areas of the city (Verano, Flaminio) and its outskirts cover about 100 hectares. 2) The practical difficulty of locating a cemetery in a position and orientation that would truly avoid harming the underground water table through soil infiltration or in relation to the direction of dominant atmospheric currents, which might carry miasmatic exhalations away from inhabited areas. Although experts have clearly demonstrated that a cemetery established according to all the rules of hygiene causes no harm to nearby inhabited areas, it must be acknowledged that practically it is not easy to solve the problem satisfactorily, and there are very few cemeteries that cannot be criticized from a hygienic standpoint. However, both the reasons advanced from the standpoint of spatial encroachment and those of a hygienic nature, while seemingly of considerable importance at first glance, prove in practice to be of little concern. The cemeteries themselves have a relatively short lifespan; in a few years, at most a decade, they complete for the dead that incineration which flame would produce in a few moments. Life advances irresistibly, and while history shows that many cities have risen and many new fertile fields have been won by the plow where our ancestors found a pious burial, it has never spoken of necropolises that suffocated or swallowed cities of the living. From the hygienic standpoint, it has been demonstrated that the soil exerts an excellent filtering power on the most dangerous pathogenic germs (smallpox, cholera, typhus, etc.); observation shows that whenever an epidemic breaks out, the sources of contagion and spread come from the living and not from the dead; that there is never a resurgence of old epidemics when, during the urban development of the 19th century, old cemeteries were overwhelmed by the rise and expansion of new settlements.