Cremated remains.

PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
For context, a UK Funeral Director is currently awaiting sentencing for many crimes committed in the running of his business, particularly in the inappropriate way he has dealt with the bodies of the deceased.
Every sympathy goes to the relatives in this disturbing situation. The details make for gruelling reading. Some bodies remained unburied. Other relatives were given the wrong ashes.

In their statements, relatives have revealed a variety of opinions about these ashes. Some said they spoke to the ashes every day, as if their loved ones are still alive. They now felt their grief was misplaced as it had focussed on the wrong ashes. Some have had ashes made into rings and pendants. One person said they had had ashes mixed with tattoo ink and injected into their skin.

Is there a theological understanding about the nature of cremated remains?

Comments

  • Human bodies are holy in the sense that they belong to those God made and loved, and will be raised from the dead some day. Therefore we are not to mistreat them or act as if they didn't matter.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    (The funeral director just got handed a 20 year jail sentence, which seems reasonable in the circumstances.)
  • The Orthodox Church will only cremate bodies in exceptional circumstances as we believe it is more fitting to lower people into the ground. It's not that we believe that God can't resurrect people who've been cremated but cremation is a practice we avoid without, hopefully, sitting in judgement with those who practice it.

    In the case of the funeral director in the OP whether the bodies were intended for cremation or burial he did not treat them with due respect nor respect the wishes of their loved ones.
  • Just today is the anniversary of when my husbands ashes where taken by boat under the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco and out to sea. It was a journey he took many times when he was in the Coast Guard. I think of him every time I cross that bridge, I would be heart broken to think that had not happened. How terrible for the families. I wonder what made the funeral director do such a thing? I am guessing money might have been a motive, but I do not know how.
  • We get cases like this in the news every couple years. One hit the news as I was arranging for my father's cremation. You can believe it made me wary.
  • @Graven Image the funeral director claimed he had cash flow problems.

    It's pretty grisly.
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    The judge stated it can only have been pure greed.
    There was absolutely no respect or dignity for the deceased nor for their relatives.
    From a human point of view any ceremonies which honour the departed and bring comfort to the bereaved are appropriate, but
    I am still interested in finding out if there is any theological understanding of the nature of cremated remains and what may become of them.
  • I think @Lamb Chopped has already answered that question.

    'Human bodies are holy in the sense that they belong to those God made and loved, and will be raised from the dead some day. Therefore we are not to mistreat them or act as if they didn't matter.'

    I'm not sure there's any 'difference' theologically between someone who has been buried, cremated or 'buried at sea' where they are eaten by fishes.

    How about someone who is burned in a house-fire or blown to pieces by an artillery shell in a war?

    The issue is that however we 'dispose' of the body it is done in a respectful way, so far as is possible.

    On the Venetian island of Tortello the impressive basilica contains a medieval fresco showing the 'general resurrection.' As well as people rising from their graves there are depictions of wild beasts vomiting up people whole whom they have devoured.

    So there are people emerging from the mouths of lions, leopards, wolves, bears and even an elephant and camel. Someone clearly didn't tell the artist that the latter aren't carnivorous!

  • Thank God for it!
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited August 1
    I actually made one mistake in what I wrote. Bodies don't belong to human beings, they are one of the constituent parts of human beings, along with the spirit/mind/psyche or whatever we want to call it. People aren't complete without their bodies, which is why we refer to the period after death but before the general resurrection as the "interim state". So those who abuse bodies abuse human beings, even if those human beings are not presently in a position to fight back, so to speak. Ands so the abuse is similar to abuse of infants, the unconscious, or the severely mentally disabled--which makes it all the more heinous.

    My apologies for the mistake, which just goes to show you how far non-Christian culture and resulting ways of speech can creep in to my thinking.
  • I took all that as implicit in what you wrote rather than a 'mistake' or ommission, @Lamb Chopped but yes, non-Christian secular culture and resulting ways of speech can affect all of us.

    The tricky bit is how we recover and/or retain more Christian ways of expressing these things without toppling into 'culture wars' territory.
  • I don't think I'm getting anywhere near the U.S. culture wars. Maybe I've misunderstood.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    edited August 1
    1 Corinthians 15 is very interesting in this respect. The dead shall be raised. We shall be changed. The perishable must be clothed with the imperishable. The mortal shall be clothed with immortality. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

    By which I take it that Paul means mere flesh and blood. What does it mean to be “clothed” with the imperishable, with immortality.

    And of course there is Job! There are translation issues I understand but the commonly recognised translation “in my flesh shall I see God” though his body has been destroyed (by worms etc). Some translations have it as “from my flesh” which does kind of imply some sort of change.

    And the Creeds say the resurrection of the body.

    A fair amount of scope for speculation there! We die at different ages, some very young, some very old. Somehow the resurrected body will be recognisably us, to be individually blessed or individually sent away (Matthew 25).

    We need an immortal body for eternity. Mere flesh and blood with its natural aging and limited life span won’t do.

    So somehow our natural bodies, whether burned, destroyed by decay and worms, or devoured by wild animals, will be clothed with immortality to fit us for the world to come. Viewed against that description, it doesn’t seem to matter whether we are buried or cremated. But I agree very much about respect for remains. It can be a great comfort to the bereaved. It’s a proper recognition, a respectful rite of passage.

    But I don’t think disrespectful handling will do anything to change our eternal bodily destiny. God will see to that.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited August 1
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I don’t think disrespectful handling will do anything to change our eternal bodily destiny. God will see to that.
    I'd go with that.

    And [heresy alert!] I'm not too fussed about what is done to cremated remains. They are ashes, after all.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited August 1
    I don’t think our bodies can be ressurected as such; the constituent atoms are in constant flow. What makes us alive is organisation of the atoms making up our bodies at any given time. Life can be seen as process rather than a type of thing.

    For us to live again that process needs to be given a new place to happen. How continuity of consciousness works there I have no idea - it's like the Star Trek transporter problem.

    I struggle with the idea of an interim disembodied state. That implies a soul/body separation and dualism which I can't find evidence for and can think of strong evidence against.

    I wish we had sermons exploring this sort of thing. The whole interface of traditional understandings of things and science fascinates me but it never gets a hearing.
  • Speaking as an unbeliever, I'm increasingly thinking about the kinds of people we, collectively, want to be. I don't think anyone really wants to be careless with other people's dead bodies. I was thinking about this during a recent trip to Warsaw, where amongst many monstrous histories are some particularly stark memorials to this. Treating bodies carelessly I think is almost as bad as treating live people badly, and the two things often go together.

    Leaving aside these very bad thoughts, I think on a positive side of the ledger that most people would agree that it is right to tolerate other people's burial/death practices even when one does not agree or understand. I do not think it would be considered appropriate to force someone to have their relative cremated if they believed burial was the only correct way.

    The reverse does not really seem to apply, although there are some burial practices that would appear to be hard to allow for other reasons - burning bodies in the Severn would be difficult to justify.

    There are other things to discuss about this but I think I will leave them for the moment.
  • I don't think anybody expects food to resurrect the exact same atoms that composed a body at the point of death. Even during life those atoms are constantly changing, so the body I call "me" is more like a pattern than a particular collection of atoms. I doubt my body holds many of the same atoms it did at age three, and yet the continuity of pattern tells me I am still me. I'm not sure how to solve Dr. McCoy's paradox, however--would a body put through a transporter have actually died and been resurrected in some sense? And if there were a transporter accident with two bodies of the same pattern emerging--what then?
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I don’t think disrespectful handling will do anything to change our eternal bodily destiny. God will see to that.
    I'd go with that.

    And [heresy alert!] I'm not too fussed about what is done to cremated remains. They are ashes, after all.

    On this I am very uncomfortable with public displays of human bodies. It feels like an invasion to display something in a way that the dead person did not consent to.

    Ash from a cremation feels different but I am not sure I can explain why.
  • I am very uncomfortable with public displays of human bodies. It feels like an invasion to display something in a way that the dead person did not consent to.
    Agreed, but I'm not quite sure what you mean - laying out in an open coffin?

  • @Lamb Chopped I don't think you were getting into US culture wars territory. I can think of some who could head that way, but that's by the by.

    @KarlLB - I suspect most preachers wouldn't have sufficient scientific knowledge to preach on that subject but I'm sure we could find some talks or articles online.

    As for an 'interim disembodied state' we are all between the 'now and the not yet' other than those who have gone before us and are in effect 'outside of time' in God's eternal 'now'.

    @Baptist Trainfan no, cremated human remains are not 'just ashes' they are cremated human remains.

    I once 'encountered' some Beaker Folk ashes archaeologists had taken from excavated Bronze Age barrows near here.

    It was a 'weighty' moment as indeed there was a lot of physical weight and substance to them. I felt a sense of awe and seriousness as I was in the presence of human remains from 5,000 years ago.

    The archaeologists had the rare opportunity to examine the flues through which the flames were channelled from burrowed out pits towards the funeral pyres on which the dead were laid.

    They realised that by trial and error over a significant period these people had learned to angle the flues to ensure that the flames were at the right temperature to consume a human body quickly and efficiently.

    The whole thing had evidently been done with great care and reverence.

    It wasn't simply a case of chucking their departed relatives willy-nilly on a bonfire.

    Cremation isn't something we Orthodox do if we can help it but that doesn't mean those who practice it aren't honouring their dead. Those Bronze Age ashes weren't just ashes, they were the ashes of living, breathing human beings made in the image of God.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    People may, and frequently do, express preferences as to what will happen to their remains after they have died, but no one actually has any control once they have gone, over what happens to their mortal remains. I have long been very uneasy with any idea that what is done, or is not done either to the body or for the benefit of the immortal soul after death is going to damage its eternal destiny. Perhaps my understanding of justice is limited. It may well be. I recognise that, but that does not strike me as consistent with God's justice.
    "9 And some there be, which have no memorial; who are perished, as though they had never been; and are become as though they had never been born; and their children after them. 10 But these were merciful men, whose righteousness hath not been forgotten." Ecclesiasticus 44:9-10 AV

  • I don't think anyone here is saying that what happens to our mortal remains determines what happens to us in eternity.

    No-one is saying that because someone is eaten by fishes or cremated or blown up by a bomb they won't be resurrected in the life of the age to come.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I don't think anyone here is saying that what happens to our mortal remains determines what happens to us in eternity.

    No-one is saying that because someone is eaten by fishes or cremated or blown up by a bomb they won't be resurrected in the life of the age to come.
    No, but underlying many of these sort of debates is often a fear that events beyond ones's control might affect that.

    Why else did people endow chantries?
  • [
    I am very uncomfortable with public displays of human bodies. It feels like an invasion to display something in a way that the dead person did not consent to.
    Agreed, but I'm not quite sure what you mean - laying out in an open coffin?

    I was thinking of displays of archaeological remains and so on. I think open coffins are a temporary state so that does not feel the same kind of disgust for me.
  • I have always been confused that in the last certain forms of capital punishment in Christian countries were designed to do things so someone’s body both before and after death in order to deny that person a “good” resurrection, although Christian teaching has always taught that what happens to the body has no bearing on a person’s resurrection or judgment (leaving the issue of purgatory and indulgences aside). Was the Church ok that secular rulers were lying to people about the consequences in the afterlife of certain forms of execution and disposal of the bodies of the executed?
  • I would really like to see the original source of that idea. I mean, it's possible (because people can be hateful), but it's also possible that this is a story somebody made up to explain the various cruelties, and it got repeated all over the place without proper citation.

    Has anybody got a primary source citation? It would pretty much have to be a church authority saying, "Do this so that they won't rise again properly" (which is a damn foolish and faithless thing for any Christian to say, given God's power).
  • @Enoch, but nobody does chantry chapels any more. At least not that I'm aware. I don't think the Orthodox ever did them.

    Which doesn't let us off the hook for other things we've done.

    On the various forms of execution, I think I'm right in saying that the burning of 'heretics' was believed to 'purge' them in order to save their souls.

    The Orthodox tended not to execute 'heretics' but exile them instead. So that's alright then ...

    We did go in for mutilation though - ach y fi! - and both sides in the iconoclast controversy did horrible things to one another.

    The treatment of the Old Believers in Russia was also particularly harsh.

    😞
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    On the subject of resurrection and our mortal remains I love this passage from a wedding (!) sermon preached by John Donne in November 1627
    There are so many evidences of the immortality of the soul, even to a natural man's reason, that it required not an article of the creed, to fix this notion of the immortality of the soul. But the resurrection of the body is discernible by no other light, but that of faith, nor could be fixed by any less assurance than an article of the creed. Where be all the splinters of that bone, which a shot hath shivered and scattered in the air? Where be all the atoms of that flesh, which a corrosive hath eat away, or a consumption hath breathed, and exhaled away from our arms, and other limbs? In what wrinkle, in what furrow, in what bowel of the earth, lie all the grains of the ashes of a body burnt a thousand years since? In what corner, in what ventricle of the sea, lies all the jelly of a body drowned in the general flood? what coherence, what sympathy, what dependence maintains any relation, any correspondence, between that arm which was lost in Europe, and that leg, that was lost in Africa or Asia, scores of years between? One humour of our dead body produces worms, and those worms suck and exhaust all other humour, and then all dies, and all dries, and moulders into dust, and that dust is blown into the river, and that puddled water tumbled into the sea, and that ebbs and flows in infinite revolutions, and still, still God knows in what cabinet every seed-pearl lies, in what part of the world every grain of every man's dust lies; and sibilat populum suum, (as his prophet speaks in another case) he whispers, he hisses, he beckons for the bodies of his saints, and in the twinkling of an eye, that body that was scattered over all the elements, is sat down at[ the right hand of God, in a glorious resurrection. A dropsy hath extended me to an enormous corpulency, and unwieldiness; a consumption hath attenuated me to a feeble macilency and leanness, and God raises me a body, such as it should have been, if these infirmities had not intervened and deformed it. David could go no further in his book of Psalms, but to that, Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord'; Ye, says he, ye that have breath, praise ye the Lord, and that ends the book: but, that my dead body should come to praise the Lord, this is that new song, which I shall learn, and sing in heaven; when not only my soul shall magnify the Lord, and my spirit rejoice in God my Saviour; but I shall have mine old eyes, and ears, and tongue, and knees, and receive such glory in my body myself, as that, in that body, so glorified by God, I also shall glorify him. So very a body, so perfectly a body shall we have there
  • I'd have loved to have had that preached at my wedding.
  • I think it was really long, if I recall correctly!
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    I think it was really long, if I recall correctly!
    Over 6,800 words as printed, so I’d guess over an hour’s listening.
    Source
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Wow! It is long! But I like BroJames’ excerpt. I particularly like “But God raises me a body such as it should have been”.
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    Is John Donne saying that God delights in the perfection of the human body and so the newly married couple can look forward to delighting in each other's bodies?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited 7:17AM
    @Lamb Chopped I don't think you were getting into US culture wars territory. I can think of some who could head that way, but that's by the by.

    @KarlLB - I suspect most preachers wouldn't have sufficient scientific knowledge to preach on that subject but I'm sure we could find some talks or articles online.

    I think most people know that we live in a universe which has developed along naturalistic lines for billions of years and shows no signs of not continuing to do so for billions more. That the universe consists of trillions of stars across millions of galaxies spread across millions of light years of space. That human beings have existed for a hundred thousand years or so (depending on what you define as human). That people's personalities can be totally changed by chemical and physical changes to their brains. You do not need any scientific training to know this; it's basic general knowledge.

    I cannot fathom that people do not seem to explore the implications this has for Christianity in terms of its exceptionalism, its historical hyperfocus, its suggestion of a cosmic eschaton within human timescales, and the whole concept of immaterial souls, especially as what fundamentally makes us us. Perhaps other people don't see the problems?

  • Or can hold them in tension?

    It's a good question you've raised. I can't imagine it won't have occurred to preachers/clergy across the board though.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited 7:47AM
    Or can hold them in tension?

    It's a good question you've raised. I can't imagine it won't have occurred to preachers/clergy across the board though.

    "Holding in tension" in this case just means "look the other way".

    If it has occured to preachers/clergy why do we never hear about it?. It feels like we leave pointing out the issues to the Creationists and the non-realists and their opposite resolutions to the problem.

    I am aware there are a few people coming at this from a reasonable theistic perspective and I could just go and read what they've written but you could say that about anything, in which case why have preaching and sermons at all?
  • Any preaching or teaching on this issue will inevitably reflect the predispositions of whoever is doing the preaching and teaching, of course.

    So in fundamentalist circles I think we'd pretty much have a good idea of what we'd get on this one.

    As we haven't got omniscient insights into what is being preached everywhere else then just because we haven't ourselves haven't heard sermons that explicitly address these issues it doesn't mean that someone isn't preaching on them elsewhere.

    I can envisage a range of responses and approaches in various settings I've experienced or am aware of. FWIW I have heard Fr Gregory who used to frequent these boards allude to cosmology and science, evolution and much else in his Bible studies and occasionally in his sermons.

    He can't be the only clergyperson to do so.

    It very much depends what kind of church we're involved with, I suspect. In my own circles we get short homilies on the Gospel reading for that day. If we want to delve deeper into things we read books or go online etc.

    We don't expect the Sunday morning sermon in and of itself to cover all bases and answer every single question there might be.

    We see it as more a case of gradually developing a Christian lifestyle and way of thinking through participation in the services, through observing the various fasts and feasts, regular reception of the 'Divine Mysteries', through alms-giving, acts of service and mercy both in a church context and in the world around us.

    If I was particularly exercised about the issues you cite I'd talk to people who know more about these things than I do, read around the subject and seek to become more informed.

    We are in a privileged position these days to be able to access all sorts of material on all sorts of issues.

    I'm not sure it's a simple matter of filing these things away in the 'Too Difficult' cabinet but there can certainly be an element of that at times.

    I don’t know much about the church you are attending at the moment but get the impression you are involved with one.

    Perhaps you could ask the clergy / ministers / leaders there what their position is on these things and whether they could address them in some way in the teaching/preaching programme?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I think most people know that we live in a universe which has developed along naturalistic lines for billions of years and shows no signs of not continuing to do so for billions more. That the universe consists of trillions of stars across millions of galaxies spread across millions of light years of space. That human beings have existed for a hundred thousand years or so (depending on what you define as human). That people's personalities can be totally changed by chemical and physical changes to their brains. You do not need any scientific training to know this; it's basic general knowledge.

    I cannot fathom that people do not seem to explore the implications this has for Christianity in terms of its exceptionalism, its historical hyperfocus, its suggestion of a cosmic eschaton within human timescales, and the whole concept of immaterial souls, especially as what fundamentally makes us us. Perhaps other people don't see the problems?

    Well I do!

    And here of course Dead Horses used to be an active forum and I used to Host it. There was plenty of discussion about Evolution and Creation, and Biblical Infallibility, during which people of varying Christian persuasions and other beliefs would argue the toss about the tension between scientific findings about the natural world and Christian beliefs.

    I’m no longer an active Host and I don’t want to junior Host either. But my understanding following the demise of Dead Horses is that you can open a fresh discussion in Purgatory if you want to about the relationship and tensions between the scientific world view and Christian belief.

    Looking at the Purgatory and Epiphanies guidelines it’s possible that a particular topic might veer more towards Epiphanies but that wouldn’t prevent a thread being opened here in Purgatory and transferred subsequently if necessary.

    So I reckon you could start a separate thread here if you wanted to.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I'll try and word an OP. This is more post- creationism vs. science than what went on in DH.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    That’s true re DH as it was but didn’t need to be. Anyway I’ve had an initial go on your new thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.