It is not permitted to scatter the ashes of the faithful

recedite

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 jewellery or other objects

There you are now. Don't say you weren't told

more info

Pherekydes

RCC trying to exert control in some small pathetic way over their flock.

Who cares?









Frostyjacks, probably. :pac:

LostinKildare

Too bad we weren't told two weeks ago.

My OH's sister died very suddenly a few weeks ago, and just a month after their mother died after a long illness. It's been very traumatic for the family.

We had the sister cremated, per her wishes, and scattered her ashes in a very beautiful local spot that has always held special meaning for her and for the entire family. We had told the priest what we were going to do and he gave us his blessing -- in fact, he referred to it approvingly during the funeral mass as a mark of our love and respect for the deceased.

Personally, as an atheist (a Protestant atheist at that) I don't care a whit about this new decree from on high, but I'm worried now that my elderly father-in-law will read it in the news, or that someone will say it to him at the month's mind.

He will be very upset

Atlantic Dawn

What about getting buried at sea?

magicbastarder

recedite wrote: »

There you are now. Don't say you weren't told

more info

do the RCC object to burial at sea? or are they afraid of some weird homeopathic effect with the ashes?

recedite

Hmmm.. I must refer tricky questions on to The Vatican.
But AFAIK its the "burning and scattering" of the body that is banned. Burial at sea of an entire body is a different matter.

The original Christian thinking was that the actual body would get up and walk again, zombie style. Hence Jesus walking out of his tomb.
There are catacombs on the outskirts of Rome where the bodies of the early Christians are still visible. They are stacked on shelves, still waiting for that great day. In those days cremation and storage of ashes in urns was the favoured burial method of those arch enemies; the pagan Romans. But they were going straight to hell, so that was OK.

Burning and scattering of the body makes a seriously difficult miracle even more difficult to achieve.

Your average catholic has forgotten about all this stuff, and thinks the soul is the only important thing after death. But back in The Vatican, they never forget.

Absolam

I think most Catholics (and Christians) would still be inclined towards the notion that one's final resting place should be on hallowed ground though, which is essentially what the statement from the Congregation is saying.

seamus

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

What about getting buried at sea?

The officially "preferred" method is to be interred on consecrated ground, this is basically what the guideline about the ashes is saying.

It means the church gets to continue to call the shots about what you do, even though you're dead.

In times gone by I also imagine it was a decent source of income with people paying for burial plots on the church-owned land next to a church. Afaik though there are very few church-run cemeteries in Ireland with burial plots available anymore.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

The officially "preferred" method is to be interred on consecrated ground, this is basically what the guideline about the ashes is saying.

It means the church gets to continue to call the shots about what you do, even though you're dead.

In times gone by I also imagine it was a decent source of income with people paying for burial plots on the church-owned land next to a church. Afaik though there are very few church-run cemeteries in Ireland with burial plots available anymore.

As far as Catholics are concerned, burial in the grounds of the parish church (or inside the church itself) hasn't really been a thing since the Reformation. When the Catholich church was reestablished in Ireland, churches and burial grounds were generally constructed separately. For the most part, only e.g. the parish priest would be buried in the grounds of the church itself, and even that was not the norm.

Prior to the Reformation, if you lived in the parish you had a right to be buried in the churchyard. No fee was payable to the parish, but you did have to pay the sexton to open the grave and fill it in again afterwards.

For that matter, even after the Reformation, for so long as the Church of Ireland remained the established church if you lived in the parish you had a right to be buried in the churchyard (so long as there was space). This led to the odd result that most of the people who had a right to be buried in the Anglican churchyard were not Anglicans.

recedite

If you read the document (here it is, on finest internet vellum)there are 3 main aspects to this;

1. The body, bones or ashes will literally come back to life on judgement day. They do not get recycled in the great circle of life as the pagan hippies might have you believe.

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..

2. While they are waiting, the remains should be treated with respect and buried in consecrated ground. Burial is the preferred method, but cremation is allowed if the motives are not impure.

In memory of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord, the mystery that illumines the Christian meaning of death, burial is above all the most fitting way to express faith and hope in the resurrection of the body.

Cremation makes resurrecton difficult, but not impossible for God;

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.

3. This consecrated site should be publicly accessible, so that the whole church community can visit and pray at the site.
So, your mantlepiece is out.

Your typical á la carte catholic is likely to ignore a lot of this, or just say they don't agree with it. Which is technically a heresy. So nothing new there really, just the same old hypocrisy. Being a good catholic while also being a heretic.

Is the RCC seeing a drop in revenue? A grave plot is about 1K. Scattering ashes means no need for a grave plot so saving the family that money but it means the RCC don't get their share?

For some reason this reminded me of the story of the man who died and his final wishes were for his wife to scatter his ashes on the Ganges. A friend of the widow, knowing there was no love lost between the widow and the dis-ceased said to the widow "Isn't it great he's gone? But what are you going to do about the Ganges?". The widow responded, "I flushed his ashes down the toilet, he can make his own way to the Ganges".

TheQuietFella

Absolam wrote: »

I think most Catholics (and Christians) would still be inclined towards the notion that one's final resting place should be on hallowed ground though, which is essentially what the statement from the Congregation is saying.

As a Catholic albeit not a practicing one, I wouldn't agree with the above or
the church on this. It's just another money racket in my view. I will be cremated
and I have already told my family where I want my ashes scattered.
I won't be laid out in a funeral home nor will I be spending a night in a church
but I will rest at home before then going to a church and then off to be cremated.

nomdeboardie

Hmm – how to make room for all those ashes that might now be transferred from the mantelpieces to consecrated ground Sure the church could always evict the unbaptised babies they recently decided to allow in :rolleyes:


Jebus this new captcha-replacement is getting more elaborate - I had to do a multi-part eyesight and intelligence test, presumably because I took too long between starting to write and posting :eek:

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

1. The body, bones or ashes will literally come back to life on judgement day. They do not get recycled in the great circle of life as the pagan hippies might have you believe.

Actually, no. Christianity teaches a bodily resurrection, but it doesn't teach that the same body, bones or ashes are necessarily involved. And when you bear in mind that Christianity also teaches that bread and wine can become the body and blood of Christ, they're obviously not wedded to the idea that a body can only be constituted out of the same atoms and molecules as before.

Human remains should be treated with dignity and respect, in the Christian view, becauyse they were a human body, and this alone is enough to make the signicant, and because how they are treated is a sign of faith in the resurrection. But not because the exact substance of Recedite's old body will be involved in his resurrected body. You can believe that if you want to, but it's not a teaching, and never has been.

recedite wrote: »

2. While they are waiting, the remains should be treated with respect and buried in consecrated ground. Burial is the preferred method, but cremation is allowed if the motives are not impure.

Cremation makes resurrecton difficult, but not impossible for God;

Again, nope, with respect to the last sentence. Nothing in the document to justify it, and it has never been a church teaching.

recedite wrote: »

3. This consecrated site should be publicly accessible, so that the whole church community can visit and pray at the site.
So, your mantlepiece is out.

It's fitting that a burial place be public, but it's not necessary. People have been buried in, e.g. enclosed convents.

It should be permanent and dignified, which is what tends to rule out the mantelpiece. After all, it's unlikely to be your mantelpiece for more than a couple of decades. Plus, the remains aren't your personal property, and they aren't a souvenir or memento, and shouldn't be treated as if they were.

recedite wrote: »

Your typical á la carte catholic is likely to ignore a lot of this, or just say they don't agree with it. Which is technically a heresy. So nothing new there really, just the same old hypocrisy. Being a good catholic while also being a heretic.

Going against church disciplinary rules or instructions (which is what this is) isn't heresy. Never has been. Heresy is about what you believe, not what you do. Denial of the resurrection would be heresy.

Absolam

TheQuietFella wrote: »

As a Catholic albeit not a practicing one, I wouldn't agree with the above or
the church on this. It's just another money racket in my view. I will be cremated
and I have already told my family where I want my ashes scattered.
I won't be laid out in a funeral home nor will I be spending a night in a church
but I will rest at home before then going to a church and then off to be cremated.

I'm not sure what part of the 'money racket' you think you're depriving them of? If your body was buried or your ashes interred, it would more than likely have been in a corporation/county council facility, wouldn't it?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, no. Christianity teaches a bodily resurrection, but it doesn't teach that the same body, bones or ashes are necessarily involved..

I quoted directly from the Vatican website there

in the resurrection God will give incorruptible life to our body, transformed by reunion with our soul.

You can argue until the cows come home about the transubstantiation of atoms, but it does say "our body" will come back to life, become immortal, and be reunited with "our soul" which is presumably waiting for it up in heaven.
That may not be a common belief, but it is the doctrine.

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Jebus this new captcha-replacement is getting more elaborate - I had to do a multi-part eyesight and intelligence test, presumably because I took too long between starting to write and posting

Yep, I'm becoming an expert at spotting flowers on trees, and recognising shop fronts in poorly composed photos :pac:

recedite

Can these dry bones live?

A famous painting on the subject, from 1855.
Maybe the belief in a literal resurrection was still a mainstream one back then.

Savage Tyrant

Meddling in what other people do with the remains of their loved ones..... It's a pity they didn't show the same concern for the bodies of the 800 babies bodies dumped in a septic tank in Tuam.

infogiver

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is the RCC seeing a drop in revenue? A grave plot is about 1K. Scattering ashes means no need for a grave plot so saving the family that money but it means the RCC don't get their share?

For some reason this reminded me of the story of the man who died and his final wishes were for his wife to scatter his ashes on the Ganges. A friend of the widow, knowing there was no love lost between the widow and the dis-ceased said to the widow "Isn't it great he's gone? But what are you going to do about the Ganges?". The widow responded, "I flushed his ashes down the toilet, he can make his own way to the Ganges".

What on earth makes you think that the RCC gets a "share" of the price of a plot? Of all the ridiculous notions I've read on this forum, this is deffo in the top ten!

infogiver

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

Meddling in what other people do with the remains of their loved ones..... It's a pity they didn't show the same concern for the bodies of the 800 babies bodies dumped in a septic tank in Tuam.

800 babies in a septic tank! Another one for the top ten! Please don't link me to 2 year old newspapers please! Have you seen the report?

infogiver

TheQuietFella wrote: »

As a Catholic albeit not a practicing one, I wouldn't agree with the above or
the church on this. It's just another money racket in my view. I will be cremated
and I have already told my family where I want my ashes scattered.
I won't be laid out in a funeral home nor will I be spending a night in a church
but I will rest at home before then going to a church and then off to be cremated.

In what way do you imagine the RCC make money out of burials? Do you really believe that they own the graveyards? You do realise that the local authority own the graveyard??

learn_more

This is clearly a tactical attempt to keep funerals conducted in a church/religious environment.

It's a pathetic statement and stinks of desperation for survival.

They are well aware that the only contact atheists have with the church is through funerals. More so that weddings. Giving a false impression that sympathisers are somehow still part of the catholic flock.

Priests are fighting for their very survival for 'something to do'.

Hotblack Desiato

seamus wrote: »

Afaik though there are very few church-run cemeteries in Ireland with burial plots available anymore.

In Donegal all burial grounds are owned by a church. Consequently it is not possible for a non-christian to be buried in Donegal.

donkeykong5

There is an awful lot more things going on worldwide that are affecting the teachings of the Catholic Church that the Pope needs to rule on. Least would be cremations and scattering of ashes. Maybe if he were to try and reinforce the obeying of the 10 commandments . That would be a good start.

donkeykong5

There is an awful lot more things going on worldwide that are affecting the teachings of the Catholic Church that the Pope needs to rule on. Least would be cremations and scattering of ashes. Maybe if he were to try and reinforce the obeying of the 10 commandments . That would be a good start.

donkeykong5

There is an awful lot more things going on worldwide that are affecting the teachings of the Catholic Church that the Pope needs to rule on. Least would be cremations and scattering of ashes. Maybe if he were to try and reinforce the obeying of the 10 commandments . That would be a good start.

brooke 2

recedite wrote: »

Hmmm.. I must refer tricky questions on to The Vatican.
But AFAIK its the "burning and scattering" of the body that is banned. Burial at sea of an entire body is a different matter.

The original Christian thinking was that the actual body would get up and walk again, zombie style. Hence Jesus walking out of his tomb.
There are catacombs on the outskirts of Rome where the bodies of the early Christians are still visible. They are stacked on shelves, still waiting for that great day. In those days cremation and storage of ashes in urns was the favoured burial method of those arch enemies; the pagan Romans. But they were going straight to hell, so that was OK.

Burning and scattering of the body makes a seriously difficult miracle even more difficult to achieve.

Your average catholic has forgotten about all this stuff, and thinks the soul is the only important thing after death. But back in The Vatican, they never forget.

Heard this being discussed on Pat Kenny during the week. Pat, being the clever clogs that he is, pondered on whether God, being omnipotent, could gather all the ashes on the last day and reunite them with the soul of the person who was cremated.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I quoted directly from the Vatican website there
You can argue until the cows come home about the transubstantiation of atoms, but it does say "our body" will come back to life, become immortal, and be reunited with "our soul" which is presumably waiting for it up in heaven.
That may not be a common belief, but it is the doctrine.

But your quote doesn't say that "our body will come back to life"; it says that god will give incorruptible life to our body. There's no claim that our body then will be the same as our body now. Since long before Christianity humans have been aware that the process of decomposition eventually involves the complete disappearance of the human body.

recedite wrote: »

Can these dry bones live?

A famous painting on the subject, from 1855.
Maybe the belief in a literal resurrection was still a mainstream one back then.

It's a mainstream one even now. And, as I say, you're welcome to picture it as involving your actual bones arising out of your actual grave. But resurrection is equally promised to those who have no actual bones and no actual grave, and to those whose actual bones have been recycled by nature, and may eventually have ended up as someone else's actual bones, several times over.

Christianity teaches resurrection. It does not teach, and has never taught, a one--to-one correspondence between the physical material of your original body and the physical material of your risen body.

Peregrinus

learn_more wrote: »

This is clearly a tactical attempt to keep funerals conducted in a church/religious environment.

Here in the real world, it's clearly the exact opposite. What the Instruction is directed at is the practice of having a Christian funeral, followed by scattering of the ashes. The only sanction threatened in the Instruction is the refusal, in certain cases, to celebrate a Christian funeral.

Consequently the implementation of the Instruction will lead to fewer Christian funerals (since some who are forced to choose between a Christian funeral and scattering ashes will choose the latter), not more.

learn_more

Peregrinus wrote: »

Here in the real world, it's clearly the exact opposite. What the Instruction is directed at is the practice of having a Christian funeral, followed by scattering of the ashes. The only sanction threatened in the Instruction is the refusal, in certain cases, to celebrate a Christian funeral.

Consequently the implementation of the Instruction will lead to fewer Christian funerals (since some who are forced to choose between a Christian funeral and scattering ashes will choose the latter), not more.

Here in my own cynical world I still believe that this pronouncement is an attempt to keep the status quo, in terms of old fashioned burials, for their own purposes.

I think the Vatican recognises a difference between people who want to be cremated and those who want to be buried. ie buried = believers, cremators = atheists.

The only sanction threatened in the Instruction is the refusal, in certain cases, to celebrate a Christian funeral.

A threat ? I'd call their bluff on that one. Things must be getting a bit desperate when one has to threaten people.

I mean , scattering ashes is not 'new'. Surely Jesus would have instructed such 2000 years ago if it were that important. Funny it's taken so long to ban such a thing.

Peregrinus

learn_more wrote: »

Here in my own cynical world I still believe that this pronouncement is an attempt to keep the status quo, in terms of old fashioned burials, for their own purposes.

I think the Vatican recognises a difference between people who want to be cremated and those who want to be buried. ie buried = believers, cremators = atheists.

There n your own cynical world you can think what you like, but that will have no effect on the real world. To maintain your cynical world, it's necessary either not to read the Instruction, or to selectively disregard those parts of it which don't conform to your cynical world. The Vatican's reasons for saying what the Instruction says are set out explicitly in the Instruction. You have given no indication of awareness of what the stated reasons are, and certainly offered no argument for dismissing them. Perhaps such things are considered unnecessary in your cynical world.

learn_more wrote: »

A threat ? I'd call their bluff on that one. Things must be getting a bit desperate when one has to threaten people.

I mean , scattering ashes is not 'new'. Surely Jesus would have instructed such 2000 years ago if it were that important. Funny it's taken so long to ban such a thing.

Again, those with a sounder grasp on reality than you display will know that the church generally banned cremation from the earliest days up until about 50 years ago. Such a ban would obviously have precluded the scattering of ashes. The acceptability of the scattering of ashes only became an issue when cremation ceased to be banned, and even then it only became an issue gradually, as the practice of scattering became popular, which has really only been since the 1980s. (Until well into the 1990s, the dominant way of finally disposing of ashes was to place them either in a family grave plot or in a niche in a columbarium in a cemetery, and in many countries this is still the the case.) And a church restriction on scattering ashes isn't new; such restrictions were put in place in a number of countries by national bishops' conferences as the practice became more widespread.

Mellor

LostinKildare wrote: »

Personally, as an atheist (a Protestant atheist at that)...

What is a protestant atheist? am I a catholic atheist.

seamus wrote: »

It means the church gets to continue to call the shots about what you do, even though you're dead.

You can do what ever you want when you dead. You are above the church in God's hierarchy at that point.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

In Donegal all burial grounds are owned by a church. Consequently it is not possible for a non-christian to be buried in Donegal.

http://www.donegalcoco.ie/media/donegalcountyc/heritage/pdfs/BurialGroundsincareofDonegalCountyCouncil[1].pdf

learn_more

Peregrinus wrote: »

There n your own cynical world you can think what you like, but that will have no effect on the real world. To maintain your cynical world, it's necessary either not to read the Instruction, or to selectively disregard those parts of it which don't conform to your cynical world. The Vatican's reasons for saying what the Instruction says are set out explicitly in the Instruction. You have given no indication of awareness of what the stated reasons are, and certainly offered no argument for dismissing them. Perhaps such things are considered unnecessary in your cynical world.


Again, those with a sounder grasp on reality than you display will know that the church generally banned cremation from the earliest days up until about 50 years ago. Such a ban would obviously have precluded the scattering of ashes. The acceptability of the scattering of ashes only became an issue when cremation ceased to be banned, and even then it only became an issue gradually, as the practice of scattering became popular, which has really only been since the 1980s. (Until well into the 1990s, the dominant way of finally disposing of ashes was to place them either in a family grave plot or in a niche in a columbarium in a cemetery, and in many countries this is still the the case.) And a church restriction on scattering ashes isn't new; such restrictions were put in place in a number of countries by national bishops' conferences as the practice became more widespread.

My comments seem to have hit a nerve with you. For that, I'm eternally grateful.

So if the church restriction on scattering ashes isn't new, why the big announcement then?

I don't know why your asking me to make arguments against the Vatican's Instruction. The Vatican can say what it likes. I couldn't care less what they say but I reserve my right to give an opinion on it.

This is a quote from the BBC article:

Countering 'new ideas'
The Vatican said it was issuing the new guidelines to counter "new ideas contrary to the Church's faith" that had become widespread since 1963.

NEW guidelines...

I'm just casually wondering why 2000 years after the birth of Christ, this has become an issue?

Peregrinus

learn_more wrote: »

My comments seem to have hit a nerve with you. For that, I'm eternally grateful.

Please, don't mention it. Happy to oblige!

learn_more wrote: »

So if the church restriction on scattering ashes isn't new, why the big announcement then?

It wasn't really that big an announcement, was it? It seems to have been picked up quite a bit in the mainstream media but, hey, that happens. There's an endless stream of instructions, constitutions, exhortations, letters, messages etc from Rome - several are issued every week - and the mainstream media pick up on what they pick up on, depending on whether it's otherwise a slow news day.

learn_more wrote: »

I don't know why your asking me to make arguments against the Vatican's Instruction. The Vatican can say what it likes. I couldn't care less what they say but I reserve my right to give an opinion on it.

You're free to give an opinion on it. I'm free to point out that your opinion doesn't appear to be well-reasoned, or well-grounded in fact. Isn't freedom great?!

Face with someone's explanation of their own act, and a different person' explanation of the same act, the actor's explanation would appear to be the better informed and more authoritative one. So, while you're free to offer your account of the church's motivation here, you can't expect anybody to take it terribly seriously unless you (a) explain why you attribute the motives you do, and (b) engage with the reasons offered by the church, and say why you think those are not in fact the reasons which actuate them. You're free, obviously, to do neither of those things, and I'm free to point out that you haven't done them.

learn_more wrote: »

I'm just casually wondering why 2000 years after the birth of Christ, this has become an issue?

Because 2,000 years after the birth of Christ, cremation followed by scattering of ashes is becoming increasingly popular, and more and more Christians are seeking it in the context of Christian funerals. You really need that explained to you?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

But your quote doesn't say that "our body will come back to life"; it says that god will give incorruptible life to our body.

Same thing.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Christianity teaches resurrection. It does not teach, and has never taught, a one--to-one correspondence between the physical material of your original body and the physical material of your risen body.

Again, same thing.
You are inventing tortuous new definitions for relatively simple words, whose meaning is already well understood.

But it does lead to an interesting question; why have people gradually moved away from the core Christian belief in literally being reunited with their body on judgement day?

IMO its because modern people live longer. Their body has reached, and in a lot of cases exceeded, its natural lifespan by the time most people die. Nowadays they want to be released from it. They want their soul to embark on some new existence in the afterlife immediately after death, and their body to be left behind to be destroyed. The physical body can burn or rot; it rejoins the great circle or pantheon of life (a belief which irks the Vatican and is specifically criticised in the recent document).

Back in AD 68, when this stuff was formulated, people were typically dying as kids and young adults. Due to war, violent assault, starvation, and disease. When a young person dies, you want them to come back to life, exactly as they were.
The dream back then was to reanimate the dead body itself.
Christian priests peddled and spun that dream for all it was worth.

Nowadays we accept that its not going to happen. Even people who believe in an afterlife think it will be a different kind of existence, in which a physical body is not needed.

recedite

Mellor wrote: »

What is a protestant atheist? am I a catholic atheist.

He's twice as bad.

http://www.donegalcoco.ie/media/donegalcountyc/heritage/pdfs/BurialGroundsincareofDonegalCountyCouncil[1].pdf

Fixed your link here.
I'm not very familiar with Donegal, but going by the placenames, they look like historic burial grounds. There are a lot of similar ones in Wicklow, usually near the ruins of an ancient church.
Is there any burial place on that council list that is available for new burials?

Fleawuss

990 The term "flesh" refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality.534 The "resurrection of the flesh" (the literal formulation of the Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our "mortal body" will come to life again.535

The Catechism of the RCC. You're entirely correct Recidite in your description of Peregrinus' attempt to redefine traditional RC teaching. The resurrected body is transformed but it still needs to be a body. Scattering ashes is to the theological mind a denial of the resurrection and a declaration however implied that faith is in vain.

Of course it's all a load of mallarkey but aren't they taking themselves terribly seriously again.

Knex*

I can never even comprehend the mindset or the thought process that leads to these decisions. I mean, I doubt the church is inundated with requests for more regulation with regards to cremation.

Does somebody wander into a meeting someday and just suddenly announce that they believe that there should be no more preservation or scattering of ashes. And if so, how does nobody else turn around and say, "Who the hell cares? Moving on to item four. I believe, John, that you wanted to talk about poverty and starvation in the world?".

Then again, if I could wrap my head around it, I probably wouldn't be posting in this forum I suppose.

Hotblack Desiato

Mellor wrote: »

http://www.donegalcoco.ie/media/donegalcountyc/heritage/pdfs/BurialGroundsincareofDonegalCountyCouncil[1].pdf

That's from 2004 and doesn't say if any of them are still accepting burials or not.

Thread here from 2008 has the below in the OP

Irish Times wrote:

IT APPEARS there may be nowhere in Co Donegal where someone who is openly an atheist can be buried.
Such was the discovery of journalist Roy Greenslade this week, following the death of his mother last Saturday.
Her remains could not be buried in Donegal. She was buried in a Derry city cemetery instead.

brooke 2

Fleawuss wrote: »

990 The term "flesh" refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality.534 The "resurrection of the flesh" (the literal formulation of the Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our "mortal body" will come to life again.535

The Catechism of the RCC. You're entirely correct Recidite in your description of Peregrinus' attempt to redefine traditional RC teaching. The resurrected body is transformed but it still needs to be a body. Scattering ashes is to the theological mind a denial of the resurrection and a declaration however implied that faith is in vain.

Of course it's all a load of mallarkey but aren't they taking themselves terribly seriously again.

It sure is a load of malarkey!

Was listening to the radio yesterday as people were talking about Hallowe'en customs in various parts of the country.
One, of which I had never heard before, came from the Monaghan area. Apparently, the gates to fields were removed
and carried to the far end of the field, so that the spirits which had risen from the graves would have free rein to travel
unimpeded to their destination!

People really believed this just as Catholics are instructed to believe the latest nonsense from the Vatican re what to do
with the ashes and why they should do so. Thank God I have thrown off the shackles of the Catholic Church for many a long
year. It is all about obstacles - if you don't do this, that, or the other, you can't get into heaven. Fear, fear, fear! :mad:

My God is a loving one, not one who will punish me if I don't believe in some malarkey emanating from some overfed
ecclesiastic from the Vatican.

Savage Tyrant

brooke 2 wrote: »

Thank God I have thrown off the shackles of the Catholic Church for many a long
year. It is all about obstacles - if you don't do this, that, or the other, you can't get into heaven. Fear, fear, fear! :mad:

My God is a loving one, not one who will punish me if I don't believe in some malarkey emanating from some overfed
ecclesiastic from the Vatican.

I assume this god you believe in is different to the one in the Christian bible then?
Once you start picking and choosing which parts to believe and which to discard, then it's not a huge leap to realise that it's ALL nonsense.

Peregrinus

Maybe the pope has a point after all.

learn_more

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, while you're free to offer your account of the church's motivation here, you can't expect anybody to take it terribly seriously unless you (a) explain why you attribute the motives you do, and (b) engage with the reasons offered by the church, and say why you think those are not in fact the reasons which actuate them. You're free, obviously, to do neither of those things, and I'm free to point out that you haven't done them.

(a) I don't get the (a) question. I don't have motives on boards. I'm not here to change people's minds. I listen to ppls opinion and I like to think I take them on board. I enjoy listening to other peoples point of view.

You responded to me because I gave a very cynical opinion of the Instruction.
If you don't want to consider my cynical view, that's fine with me.

(b) I am really confused by it actually. I though that the soul went straight to heaven or hell. I don't understand why the corpse is of any significance.

I recall in my youth, being given a book that had paintings of people coming out of their graves, and their family looking so happy that they came 'back to life'.

So, I think it's really funny that on the one hand that the soul is considered to be in the grave or in the ashes, but on the other hand it's floated off to heaven immediately after dying.

Well which is it ? If the soul goes straight to heaven or hell, why is the remains of any significance whatsoever?

Peregrinus

learn_more wrote: »

(a) I don't get the (a) question. I don't have motives on boards. I'm not here to change people's minds. I listen to ppls opinion and I like to think I take them on board. I enjoy listening to other peoples point of view.

You're attributing motives to the church. ("This is clearly a tactical attempt to keep funerals conducted in a church/religious environment.") But the instruction sets out explicitly the motives for the ruling; you disregard what the church says it's motives are, and attribute a different set of motives to them, and don't give any reason for doing either of those things.

learn_more wrote: »

You responded to me because I gave a very cynical opinion of the Instruction.
If you don't want to consider my cynical view, that's fine with me.

I'm happy to consider your cynical view. I find, on considering it, that it doesn't make a lot of sense and isn't well-supported, and looks like the kind of view that might be formed by someone who hasn't actually read the document that they are expressing a view about.

learn_more wrote: »

(b) I am really confused by it actually. I though that the soul went straight to heaven or hell. I don't understand why the corpse is of any significance . . . Well which is it ? If the soul goes straight to heaven or hell, why is the remains of any significance whatsoever?

Again, this is discussed in the Instruction. Christianity teaches the resurrection of the body. The body dies, but we don't spend eternity as disembodied spirits. Respectful treatment and disposal of human remains is a sign both of respect for what the body was and of faith in the promised resurrection. Placing remains in a permanent and dedicated place is seen as fitting; leaving them on the mantelpiece or scattering them to the winds, not so much.

You may or may not share this view yourself - presumably you won't, if you're not a Christian and don't believe in resurrection - but the issue here is not whether you believe it, but whether the church does, and whether it's an adequate account of the church's position on the disposal of human remains.

To me, it's certainly a more plausible account than the one you offer. If the church wished to have nonbelievers and the religiously-disengaged celebrate funerals in churches in order to give priests "something to do", as you suggest, the sensible course would be to celebrate funerals for anyone who asked, no matter what they intended to do with the ashes afterwards. This instruction does the exact opposite.

recedite

Whatever is being talked about in mass and religious schools these days, it does not seem to include this particular core doctrine.
A huge section of the nominally "catholic" population seem genuinely surprised and annoyed at the instruction. They don't seem to have realised that the deceased will need those ashes on Judgement Day, for reanimation at the grand resurrection party.

17larsson

God needs to make up his mind and stick to it.
Who did he tell this new instruction to?

Or was this decided on in a meeting of people? Yep. Normal people who wear funny hats and give themselves titles have decided that cremation is a thing that god doesn't like

Hotblack Desiato

I don't see how this can have anything to do with church funerals one way or the other.

For the (declining) proportion of funerals which involve a church, once the funeral is over the body is taken away to grave or crematorium for disposal and the priest may or may not be invited along, whatever happens outside of the church itself is entirely up to the family.

So are priests going to ask for a declaration before going ahead with the funeral that the family promise to either bury the body or dispose of the ashes in a Vatican-approved manner? Hardly.

infogiver

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I don't see how this can have anything to do with church funerals one way or the other.

For the (declining) proportion of funerals which involve a church, once the funeral is over the body is taken away to grave or crematorium for disposal and the priest may or may not be invited along, whatever happens outside of the church itself is entirely up to the family.

So are priests going to ask for a declaration before going ahead with the funeral that the family promise to either bury the body or dispose of the ashes in a Vatican-approved manner? Hardly.

You really really need to go to a "church" funeral soon so you can get your facts straight.
100% of "church" funerals are followed by the cleric attending at either the graveyard or the crematorium.
There's no "inviting" involved.

Savage Tyrant

It just boils down to trying to throw a little bit of authority around.
I won't have a church funeral or any wizards there saying their incantations or spells or whatever they are.... so their opinion on what happens my ashes won't be worth squat.
But it's unfortunate that some people still believe these things and they'll feel compelled to follow the instructions.... and ones who haven't done so in the past will be upset now to think they've done wrong.
Churches really should stay out of people's private lives, but if you entertain them, you can't be surprised when they try to exercise these kind of stupid rules.
I dare say they are only hastening the process of people waking up to what utter nonsense it all is though.

Hotblack Desiato

infogiver wrote: »

You really really need to go to a "church" funeral soon so you can get your facts straight.
100% of "church" funerals are followed by the cleric attending at either the graveyard or the crematorium.
There's no "inviting" involved.

I have done and you're wrong. I was at a catholic funeral followed by a cremation, there was no priest present at the crematorium. Crematoria (and almost all graveyards) are not owned by or even affiliated with the RC church so there is no obligation to have a priest present. Admittedly it would be rare where there is an RC funeral to not then have a priest present at the graveside. This one was the only cremation following an RC funeral I've been at, so based on a sample size of one I can't say whether the absence of a priest at the crematorium is unusual or not. The crematorium part was to all intents and purposes the same as the secular funerals I've been to.

Anyway. The point is that for those who choose an RC funeral for their relative, the priest is in control of what happens inside the grounds of his church but he cannot control the burial/cremation which does not take place on church facilities. He certainly can have no control over the disposition of ashes. This directive is one for the laity to choose to obey or ignore and I expect them to overwhelmingly ignore it.

infogiver

As a sad part of my job I attend a lot of funerals.
Including family member,
In every case the priest was officiating at the graveside/crematoria
There's no obligation on anyone in this world to do anything other than pay taxes and, ironically, die
Bereaved family and friends in the vast vast majority of cases go straight to a cleric even though it's entirely doable to instruct the undertaker to organise an alternative. You can easily check RIP.IE any day of the week and it's once in a very blue moon that a funeral is taking place without a cleric.
Why do you think this is ?
You appear to have some kind of persecution complex wherein the local clergy have some kind of "death" radar and come banging down the front door of a bereaved family demanding to be involved in the arrangements.
I'm happy to tell you that that's not what happens.
The bereaved instruct the undertaker and the undertaker requests the service of the clergy.
You can inform your family of your preferences as to what should happen when you die, so that this doesn't happen.