The Vatican on Tuesday urged Catholics not to scatter the ashes of the dead after cremation and instead to store them in places approved by the Church.
The new guidelines published by the Church also say that the ashes of the dead should not be kept at home but should instead be kept at a cemetery or other sacred place.
Doing so reduces “the risk of shielding the dead from prayers for them and the memory of their family and the Christian community”, German cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, the prefect of the doctrinal watchdog, told journalists.
“We also avoid eventually forgetting (them) and the lack of respect which can happen, especially after the passing of the first generation,” he said.
“Conserving ashes in a home is not authorised,” Mueller said.
I wonder how long it took them to come up with this “shielding the dead from prayers” business. I know the church has to come up with new bullshit on a regular basis, lest all the faithful start to get a glimmer of how pointless and corrupt the church is, but this hardly speaks of putting an effort in. C’mon, guys, you’re supposed to baffle them with bullshit, seeing as your dazzling days are long over.
The new guidelines come just in time for “All Souls’ Day” on November 2 when the faithful typically pray for the dead.
“The body is not the private property of the family. A dead person is a son of God. It is part of the body of Christ, it is part of God’s people. It’s for this reason that there is not only private rites for the deceased but it’s a public ceremony,” said Mueller.
Hmmm. Well, if a corpse isn’t the property and responsibility of kin, then I guess the Vatican is going to pry open that vast wallet and start paying for all death and funeral expenses, right? After all, if a corpse is a god’s property, then let a god pay. Or a god’s representative.
Bishops will however be able to authorise exceptions to the new guidelines “in serious and exceptional circumstances linked to local customs and practices”.
The new rules also prohibit the scattering of ashes at sea, said Mueller.
Right, well, there’s the out the Catholic church always provides itself.
The Vatican has said that cremations “do not touch the soul” and do no “prevent the all powerful God from resurrecting the body”.
They decided that in 1963. Before that, cremation was a big ol’ no no. It never ceases to amaze just how little that all powerful god can actually do. Doesn’t add up to much.
But the guidelines will not be applied retrospectively to the relics of saints whose remains have been preserved over the centuries “to avoid provoking a war between believers”, according to one of Mueller’s aides.
Ah yes, different rules for everyone, that’s the way!
Via Raw Story.
Wait, there are natural prayer shields? How do I find one? What are they made of? Can I build myself a suit of prayer armor? Would it protect me in battle against God? I have serious questions for the Vatican’s scientists (or is it alchemists?) who discovered this!
Considering oceanic burial is forbidden, maybe the shield is water, or salt, or maybe phytoplankton.
And what if I’m a dirty unforgivable sinning atheist? Maybe I’d want my soul to be shielded when I die. Perhaps it would be safest to request a burial at sea, so as to minimize the danger of my soul escaping my remains and being damned to hell.
invivoMark:
This is information I’m interested in too. It seems that having your ashes placed in a container of some sort, and placed on the family mantle, or in a closet or something, is a natural prayer shield. That wouldn’t work in my case, so ashes at sea it is!
I an baffled that anyone still takes them seriously.
My mum’s already been getting enough shit from a couple of my dad’s sisters; I certainly hope they don’t renew their harassment on behalf of the greataunt with this new information. :P
Call me Mr Cynical, but I wonder how much money they stand to lose if people stop having church burials/ash-spreadings.
The RCC is so stuck in the past.
The Problem™ is that the Remains must be stored in or on Hallowed Ground.
The Church could allow priests to Bless your mantle or cupboard so you could safely store Mom’s ashes there.
Blessing to be renewed annually.
Online renewal available.
Paypal or credit card or automatic debit.
Papal Paypal?
OP:
Call me crazy, but keeping the ashes at home would seem to “avoid eventually forgetting”.
I’ve got my Dad’s ashes on a bookshelf in the home office, awaiting a time when I can get to the British Virgin Islands to scatter his ashes at sea, as he requested. It was his body to decide what to do with while he was alive, and since I paid for the memorial/cremation you’re damn right the ashes belong to me now.
Graves are rented for typically 25 years in Germany. Because I never actually cared about what happens after the funeral*, I did a quick Google search about what happens after those 25 years. The answers from an undertaker:
-Many urns actually decompose in 25 years, the remains become part of the ground (especially nowadays with new material instead of the traditional metal tins.)
-those that don’t decompose are often just left where they are (and a new grave is dug upon it)
-or they get buried in a communal pit or stored in some space like a garage.
Yes, you read that. After 25 years the urns get stacked in an old garage. That’s supposed to be more respectful than keeping it at home? Not that I could ever forget my great grandma as long as my brain is still working fine, even though her grave is long gone…
*I want to be buried in a so-called “Friedwald”: a wild forest where you can get buried at the roots of an old tree. If my descendants then wish to “visit my grave” they can go for a nice walk in the woods. You can get a family tree or a spot under a “community tree”. The ranger there says that by now there are circles of friends who met because they were curious about the people they would share a tree with after their dead.
Giliell:
That’s pure awesomeness. If that was an option for me, I’d do that. As it stands, options in uStates are highly limited, and I don’t want a funeral, nor do I want Rick to have to pick up the tab for corpse shipping and cremation, so it’s full body donation for me. Whatever is left will be cremated and returned to Rick.
Caine
Yeah, if anybody needs any spare parts they can have it. Not like I’ll need them again. My husband’s uncle’s wife was buried in the Friedwald and the surrounding makes it so peaceful. It’s the living kind of quiet you get there, not the dead kind you’d get in any religious or secular building.
I think we’ll get ourselves a tree one day. At least the money we spend there will go towards the preservation of the forest as a primary forest.
I’m working on related documents for myself, and my thoughts on this topic have been in the general direction of Caine’s at #10 -- and that comment has given me some additional thoughts. But being an organ donor, or full body, has always been the main idea.
Giliell, I really like the idea of the “Friedwald”.
Jim:
I figure it’s a win all the way around. The older I get, the less use I might be to anyone in need of an organ, but if there’s any use to be had, I’m good with it. I’m signed up for medical research and/or training, there’s zero cost involved, which is a bonus. Initially, my first thought was to donate the bod to UND, but it turns out they want nearest kin to be responsible for shipping, at a cost of roughly two grand. I figured they don’t need corpses enough.
Oh, the cremation business factored into the decision as well -- Ndakota doesn’t allow cremation except in one particular place in the state, and to ship a corpse, you have to buy a coffin, even if the “coffin” is basically a cardboard box which will be burnt. It doesn’t cost as much as a full on funeral and burial, but you’re still going to be stuck with around 5 grand. No thanks.
I really wish we’d had the money for 40 acres or more -- that way, I’d could be buried at home, with a Willow planted on top of me.
Caine:
Excellent points about the costs. That’s one aspect that your post got me to think more on.
I guess I blotted out how much I paid for both parents’ cremations/etc. :-) I’m fortunate that there’s life insurance, but makes sense to have my remains be as useful as possible as well as leave more to my survivors so they can take care of any other obligations and then go enjoy themselves on my “dime”.
GIliell
I love the idea of the Friedwald. Latvian cemeteries are already very park-like, but that takes it a step further.
I’ve already told Husband that I don’t want a grave or much of a ceremony (not a religious one, at least), and I don’t want my ashes kept as a grave, either. I haven’t figured out where they should be scattered yet, though. But in any case, there’s a very large grave-tending culture here, and I don’t want to burden future generations with the upkeep of my grave. If they remember me, it’ll be in other ways, and that will be good, too.
Jim:
I think money is for the living, not the dead. Now, if I had an option like Friedwald, I would invest in that, because it would be an investment for the living -- keeping one part of the earth wild and safe, and providing oxygen for future generations.
I think some of the most beautiful cemeteries I’ve seen were in Germany. (Can I move back there, please?)
The only thing I remember about the Okinawan graves were the rather large tombs all over the island, often in very strange places, like the middle of a city block.
I want either a Viking style funeral (if I still have some archer friends), or preferably, I’d just as soon take a long hike out into the desert and let the coyotes eat me. The ultimate recycling….. =)