It is not permitted to scatter the ashes of the faithful

brooke 2

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

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.

The directive re cremation was issued from the Vatican, so, is peculiarly Catholic. Many former instructions from the Vatican have not always been Christian in nature.

Some, such as the refusal to bury an unbaptised child in consecrated ground, were profoundly cruel. They certainly did not reflect the words of Jesus: 'Suffer the little children come unto me'.

brickmauser

I can't understand the clowns who still have one foot in the Catholic faith. If you don't believe what the Church tell you just become a Protestant or an atheist and feck off.
If you don't like the rules that's just ts.

Savage Tyrant

brooke 2 wrote: »

The directive re cremation was issued from the Vatican, so, is peculiarly Catholic. Many former instructions from the Vatican have not always been Christian in nature.

Some, such as the refusal to bury an unbaptised child in consecrated ground, were profoundly cruel. They certainly did not reflect the words of Jesus: 'Suffer the little children come unto me'.

Even Jesus didn't seem like the most rational of men.

Once again he was going through the village, and a child who was running banged into his shoulder. Jesus was angered and said to him, "You shall go no further on your way.". And immediately the child fell down dead.

recedite

brickmauser wrote: »

I can't understand the clowns who still have one foot in the Catholic faith. If you don't believe what the Church tell you just become a Protestant or an atheist and feck off.
If you don't like the rules that's just ts.

Half of me thinks this way. The other half of me thinks that maybe there is something in the Irish psyche that doesn't like being given orders, and maybe that's a good thing. Its that tendency in people to listen to the instructions from on high, smile sweetly, and say "right you are." And then they go away and do the exact opposite.
In a way, that tendency is the antidote to fundamentalism. And fundamentalism can be very, very bad.

recedite

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

Jesus was angered and said to him, "You shall go no further on your way.". And immediately the child fell down dead.

Ah yes, I think from the Infancy Gospels of Jesus, also known as "Jesus; The Early Years-Uncut". It didn't quite make it into the bible compilation, despite detailing one of Jesus' coolest miracles ever; bringing life to a dried fish.

TheChizler

Interestingly I was reading in the paper earlier that a millionary/priest of a relatively well known order died during the week. Part of the ceremony was held in the local crematorium. Seems like the message either didn't get far or wasn't in any way heeded.

Peregrinus

TheChizler wrote: »

Interestingly I was reading in the paper earlier that a millionary/priest of a relatively well known order died during the week. Part of the ceremony was held in the local crematorium. Seems like the message either didn't get far or wasn't in any way heeded.

It oviously hasn't been heeded in some quarters close to home, anyway. The instruction doesn't rule out cremation; it just requires that ashes be disposed of in a particular way.

Absolam

TheChizler wrote: »

Interestingly I was reading in the paper earlier that a millionary/priest of a relatively well known order died during the week. Part of the ceremony was held in the local crematorium. Seems like the message either didn't get far or wasn't in any way heeded.

But the Instruction doesn't forbid cremation? So... there was no reason not to hold part of the ceremony in the local crematorium, was there?

Hotblack Desiato

infogiver wrote: »

Why do you think this is ?

Because of the average age of those who die, they are part of the only generation still widely affiliated with the catholic church - for now.

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.

Thanks for repeating what I already posted - twice. I don't know who you're trying to stoke up an imaginary argument with, or why, but it's not me.

TheChizler

Absolam wrote: »

But the Instruction doesn't forbid cremation? So... there was no reason not to hold part of the ceremony in the local crematorium, was there?

Sorry I wasn't clear but I meant to refer to the cremation being unofficially frowned upon, not that they forbid it. Just thought it was interesting considering it was a priest.

Absolam

TheChizler wrote: »

Sorry I wasn't clear but I meant to refer to the cremation being unofficially frowned upon, not that they forbid it. Just thought it was interesting considering it was a priest.

But they didn't say it was unofficially frowned upon either, did they? In fact, they said it was officially ok;
"cremation is not prohibited, “unless it was chosen for reasons contrary to Christian doctrine”. In the absence of motives contrary to Christian doctrine, the Church, after the celebration of the funeral rite, accompanies the choice of cremation, providing the relevant liturgical and pastoral directives, and taking particular care to avoid every form of scandal or the appearance of religious indifferentism."
and
"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."

That sounds like the message did get far and was heeded... looks like it's ok to be cremated, even for priests?

recedite

The Vatican wrote:

..the Church insistently recommends that the bodies of the deceased be buried in cemeteries or other sacred places. 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

Its fair to say cremation is "frowned upon" but not outright forbidden. I think they would expect priests to lead by example in this matter.
On the other hand, that priest may have left instructions for his own cremation prior to The Vatican issuing these latest instructions.

The Vatican would probably expect a certain transition period to apply. They are more interested in influencing future trends. They play a very long game.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Its fair to say cremation is "frowned upon" but not outright forbidden. I think they would expect priests to lead by example in this matter. On the other hand, that priest may have left instructions for his own cremation prior to The Vatican issuing these latest instructions. The Vatican would probably expect a certain transition period to apply. They are more interested in influencing future trends. They play a very long game.

Doesn't sound frowned upon at all though? Explicitly permitted, yes. Certainly not outright forbidden, obviously. And certainly a good example from a priest to show that there is no issue by being cremated himself, and having the remains disposed of appropriately...
As for what the Vatican 'would probably' and their imagined interests... I would probably leave that to the conspiracy theorists.

learn_more

Anyone know of any Christian priests that were cremated ?

Just wondering.

Peregrinus

learn_more wrote: »

Anyone know of any Christian priests that were cremated ?

Just wondering.

Here's a blog post (in the blog of a firm of undertakers) from 2011, noting the cremation of the (Catholic) Bishop of East Anglia.

Incidentally, the blog post notes the rules the Catholic Church in England and Wales was operating with regard to cremations in 2011, and they are strikingly similar to the ones contained in last week's Instruction from Rome. Which underlines that there isn't a huge change happening here. A position which used to be adopted by national episcopal conferences has now been "centralised" in Rome, but it's basically the same position that applied before.

Absolam

learn_more wrote: »

Anyone know of any Christian priests that were cremated ?

Just wondering.

And apparently TheChizler does. Unless the Priest he was talking about wasn't Christian of course.

Fleawuss

Here's an ecumenical matter or not depending how the dogma barks snarls or merely points: can RCs even consider the term "Christian priests" anything other than an oxymoron? My memory is fading with the years but I thought that RCC never regarded Protestant ministers as validly ordained. They may as well be dog catchers in the eyes of the RCC. The Orthodox were schismatic but may be considered priests?

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

Here's an ecumenical matter or not depending how the dogma barks snarls or merely points: can RCs even consider the term "Christian priests" anything other than an oxymoron? My memory is fading with the years but I thought that RCC never regarded Protestant ministers as validly ordained. They may as well be dog catchers in the eyes of the RCC. The Orthodox were schismatic but may be considered priests?

Weeell.. would the Catholic Church not just say that the only Christian Priests are those ordained in the Latin Rite and Catholic Eastern Churches?

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

Weeell.. would the Catholic Church not just say that the only Christian Priests are those ordained in the Latin Rite and Catholic Eastern Churches?

No, they wouldn't. They recognise orthodox and oriental priests. They don't recognise (most) Anglican priests.

They also don't consider Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist etc ministers to be priests. But as Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist etc ministers generally don't consider themselves to be priests, that's not really a point of controversy.

In the present context, it's a bit of a red herring. The two examples we've seen in this thread of priests being cremated both involve Catholic priests.

Absolam

Wouldn't orthodox and oriental generally be part of the Eastern Churches, which sit alongside the Latin Rite in the capital C Catholic Church family?

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

Wouldn't orthodox and oriental generally be part of the Eastern Churches, which sit alongside the Latin Rite in the capital C Catholic Church family?

You've got your Eastern Catholic churches - Greek liturgy and traditions, but in full communion with Rome - and then you have your Orthodox churches - Greek liturgy and traditions, but not accepting Rome's claims of primacy and so not in communion with Rome. And you have your Oriental churches, who I think are kind of a subset of the Orthodox churches, but like to be seperately acknowledged. SFAIK none of them are in communion with Rome.

The point is, the validity of the priesthood of all these churches is accepted by Rome, regardless of whether those churches are in communion with Rome or at odds with it.

Fleawuss

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, they wouldn't. They recognise orthodox and oriental priests. They don't recognise (most) Anglican priests.

They also don't consider Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist etc ministers to be priests. But as Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist etc ministers generally don't consider themselves to be priests, that's not really a point of controversy.

In the present context, it's a bit of a red herring. The two examples we've seen in this thread of priests being cremated both involve Catholic priests.

Hmm. So Christian priests includes the various brands of the Eastern Orthodox. The Reformed churches have mere ministers and are happy with that but the Anglican reformed churches priests are the mere dogcatchers.

Fascinating. I think the Eastern churches got away lightly: they contest the procession within the Trinity I think. I wonder were the consequences of that aberration ever teased out fully.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

And you have your Oriental churches, who I think are kind of a subset of the Orthodox churches, but like to be seperately acknowledged.

Not sure what you mean by "oriental churches" but in China, which is obviously the principal "oriental" country, "all religious groups must adhere to the leadership of the CPC, and support the socialist system and socialism with Chinese characteristics" - by order of President Xi.

Therefore the bishops of the Catholic Church in China are approved and answerable to the state authorities, not the Vatican. Which I think puts them in a position very similar to the Anglicans (since Henry VIII's little falling out with Rome over who was Boss)
So that would make them merely dogcatchers too.

Fleawuss

All this talk of dogcatchers is making me itchy!

Hotblack Desiato

How to resolve the schism between Rome and Beijing in one easy step:

President Xi -> President XII

learn_more

Peregrinus wrote: »

Here's a blog post (in the blog of a firm of undertakers) from 2011, noting the cremation of the (Catholic) Bishop of East Anglia.

Incidentally, the blog post notes the rules the Catholic Church in England and Wales was operating with regard to cremations in 2011, and they are strikingly similar to the ones contained in last week's Instruction from Rome. Which underlines that there isn't a huge change happening here. A position which used to be adopted by national episcopal conferences has now been "centralised" in Rome, but it's basically the same position that applied before.

A snippet from the blog:

Cremation is considered contrary to the Christian belief in the resurrection of the body and immortality of the soul. Yet, unable to deny the power of God to resurrect a pile of ashes as easily as a spoiled corpse, the church acquiesced to cremation in 1969.

So, was it the belief in past times that the actual physical body would be resurrected as well as the soul ? I recall in my youth seeing a very disturbing painted image in a school catechisms ( for teenagers ) , of people in a graveyard hugging their loved ones who literally climbed out of their grave.

I though the depiction was just meant as a symbol of resurrection but it seems to me that in the past that's literally what people though would happen.

So what happened in 1969. Did the Church realise that no one is going to buy that physical resurrection stuff anymore so they will focus on the soul, which would seem a bit more plausible.

Btw, I though it was the Christian belief ( or indeed any major religion) that the soul went straight to heaven ( or hell ). Why would the physical remains be of any importance whatsoever in that respect, since they are not required for spiritual continuation.

Peregrinus

learn_more wrote: »

So, was it the belief in past times that the actual physical body would be resurrected as well as the soul ? I recall in my youth seeing a very disturbing painted image in a school catechisms ( for teenagers ) , of people in a graveyard hugging their loved ones who literally climbed out of their grave.

I though the depiction was just meant as a symbol of resurrection but it seems to me that in the past that's literally what people though would happen.

That is how the resurrection was commonly pictured, and probably that is how a lot of individual Christians assumed it would unfold.

But that's not something that was ever formally taught, or universally believed. There's lots of writings from theologians over the centuries pointing out the practical and conceptual problems with this, plus lots of writing going right back to the earliest days pointing out that we can't really know what the final judgment and resurrection will look like, since we have never experienced it; at best we can imagine it but what we imagine is, well, imaginary.

learn_more wrote: »

So what happened in 1969. Did the Church realise that no one is going to buy that physical resurrection stuff anymore so they will focus on the soul, which would seem a bit more plausible.

No. Take a step back a bit.

The church always frowned on cremation for a couple of reasons, already mentioned. But they always felt it wasn't inherently wrong; it just sent the wrong signals about the importance of the human body, the expectation of resurrection, etc, etc. In the right circumstances the church always allowed cremation - e.g. where it was seen as a necessary public health measure in a time of plague or in a besieged fort. It's just those circumstances didn't come up very often.

In fact in societies where Christianity was predominant, cremation was very little practiced, so the question of whether it was acceptable was pretty academic; not many people wanted it.

And there are reasons for this. Not to be gruesome, but it's actually quite hard to cremate a human body. It's not naturally flammable; it takes quite a lot of fuel and, if you're doing it on an open fire and using wood or coal as the fuel, it takes hours and the flames aren't hot enough to vapourise much. So what you end up with after many hours is not ash; it's a lot of burned meat and a charred but still whole skeleton and a lot of grease, all of which still has to be disposed of. Plus it's what those native savage Hindoos used to do, and who wants to be like them? So you can see why there wasn't a huge demand for the service.

Right; skip forward to the nineteenth century, and the development of gas as a fuel, and the use of ovens. Now for the first time you have a process which can be considered hygienic and and which produces an end product that can be seen as clean and bland. And cremation starts to be come popular with rationalists and sceptics and the like, partly because they use it to signal their lack of belief in a resurrection.

Note what's going on here; both the Christian and the Rationalist attitudes to cremation are being driven by the same thing - its symbolism, which they both regard as significant. And this of course intensifies the church opposition to cremation - they see it as being chosen precisely to express a rejection of Christian faith.

So what's going on in the 1960s is not the church giving up on belief in bodily resurrection. It's the church finally coming to grips with the modern world and (among other things) deciding that it's no longer going to define itself and its beliefs and practices in opposition to those who disagree with it. For decades past, cremation has been chosen by people not because they want to send a final up-yours to Christian belief in the resurrection, but because it's cheap, and convenient, and helps to solve problems of space in cemeteries, etc, etc. And Christians of other traditions, equally believers in resurrection, have been being cremated for decades. So the Catholic church finally decides to stop assuming that every cremation decision is a deliberate sign of rejection of Christian faith because the reality is that it isn't. Hence, cremation becomes officially acceptable, provided it's not chosen in order to express disbelief in the resurrection.

learn_more wrote: »

Btw, I though it was the Christian belief ( or indeed any major religion) that the soul went straight to heaven ( or hell ). Why would the physical remains be of any importance whatsoever in that respect, since they are not required for spiritual continuation.

Because, in Christian belief, we're not just spiritual beings; we are creatures of body and soul, and both are intrinsic to what we are, and are equally important and equally dignified. We weren't created to be disembodied spirits and that is not the destiny to which we are called.

recedite

learn_more wrote: »

So, was it the belief in past times that the actual physical body would be resurrected as well as the soul ?

That is still supposed to be peoples belief, even if it isn't really the case any more. The church is now stepping in to remind people of what their own official belief is.

I notice our poster Peregrinus has been beating about this particular bush with a lot of noise and fury, but never really addresses that core issue

Savage Tyrant

It's like everything else.... from execution, to slavery, to women's rights, to harbouring pedophiles... it's an inherently backwards and repressive institution that needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the realms of sense and decency with every individual issue. They tend to only amend these things once they see they are losing the public opinion.
They'll do it for this as they have for those previous issues.... and eventually gay marriage and abortion will follow suit.

recedite

Don't forget that the marketing strategy of RCC is based on being the original and therefore the best of the Christian religions. This means playing up the unchanging nature of their dogma in a changing world. A universal truth never changes, so they say.
Recently they proudly announced that the ban on women priests is forever.

So there's a market for trendy religions that adapt themselves to suit peoples changing beliefs. But there's also a market for one that does not, and instead makes its people conform to an unchanging belief system. Just so long as anything that becomes illegal, or can be objectively proved wrong, is quietly downgraded from a dogma to a mere metaphor. So, never say never.

Fleawuss

Downgraded from a dogma to a metaphor. I like that.

robindch

Fleawuss wrote: »

Downgraded from a dogma to a metaphor. I like that.

The line's a good one indeed and with due deference to recedite's excellent memory, the earliest instance of it which I'm aware of is in Jerry Coyne's takedown of catholic apologist John Haught.

Haught's on first. Then Coyne starts at 26:30 and it's worth listening to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlQ1TunESn8

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

That is still supposed to be peoples belief, even if it isn't really the case any more. The church is now stepping in to remind people of what their own official belief is.

I notice our poster Peregrinus has been beating about this particular bush with a lot of noise and fury, but never really addresses that core issue

What core issue, exactly? That "the church is now stepping in to remind people of what their own official belief is"?

I wouldn't have thought that needed addressing, really. It's completely unremarkable. I mean, that's what churches do, isn't it? Proclaim what they believe, and call on people to accept that and to live in accordance with it.

And, really, they're not doing anything differently from people who advocate for freedom of choice in regard to abortion, or an end to parliamentary prayers, or the ending of funding for religious schools, or a lot of other positions. People proclaim their beliefs, encourage others to accept them and to act in accordance with them.

If I haven't "really addressed" that core issue until now, could it possibly be because nobody else has mentioned it? For the very good reason that it's completely unremarkable.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

What core issue, exactly?

The disconnect between what people believe, and what they are supposed to believe.

Church opposition to cremation stems from its belief that the dead body needs to be held onto and stored properly because it is going to be re-animated at some point. Whereas hardly anybody believes this. They assume their soul will fly off to some place nice, and say bye bye to useless dead body.
I just find it funny that the church and its flock can be at such cross purposes on such a fundamental doctrine.

Some of your own explanations for this church opposition to cremation are, frankly, bizarre;

Peregrinus wrote: »

And there are reasons for this. Not to be gruesome, but it's actually quite hard to cremate a human body. It's not naturally flammable; it takes quite a lot of fuel...

.... cremation becomes officially acceptable, provided it's not chosen in order to express disbelief in the resurrection.

Nobody expects to use their body again, hence they have it burned, partly because its cheaper. And they can't understand what the church's problem is with that.

Peregrinus

As has been pointed out in this thread more than once, rec, the church doesn't have a problem with cremation. "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. Thus cremation, in and of itself, objectively negates neither the Christian doctrine of the soul’s immortality nor that of the resurrection of the body." There's only an issue if cremation is chosen for "motives contrary to Christian doctrine".

You may not like Catholic beliefs about cremation or resurrection. You may not agree with them. But if you're going to criticise[/i[ them, it helps to know what they are.

recedite

I can quote-mine the Vatican document too...

the Church insistently recommends that the bodies of the deceased be buried in cemeteries or other sacred places. 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

Of course the RCC has issues around cremation. They have already been delved into during the course of this thread. Like most religious issues, atheists generally understand them better than the faithful do. That's why we are atheists

Peregrinus

We're both saying the same thing, rec; the Catholic church doesn't reject cremation, unless chosen for the wrong reason, but generally thinks burial is the more fitting option. But this preference isn't based on any belief that cremation makes resurrection more difficult, or less likely, and I'm still not sure why you think that the growing preference for cremation represents a rejection of belief in the resurrection rather than being motivated by the fact that, as you point out yourself, cremation is cheaper.

infogiver

Peregrinus wrote: »

We're both saying the same thing, rec; the Catholic church doesn't reject cremation, unless chosen for the wrong reason, but generally thinks burial is the more fitting option. But this preference isn't based on any belief that cremation makes resurrection more difficult, or less likely, and I'm still not sure why you think that the growing preference for cremation represents a rejection of belief in the resurrection rather than being motivated by the fact that, as you point out yourself, cremation is cheaper.

Because it's much more comforting and calm inducing for an atheist to interpret any cultural shift to the left as a swing away from religion rather than merely economic practicality.
Anything that appears to support the Atheist position will be seized on with gusto.
I live in a large country town 1 1/2 hours drive from the nearest crematorium where graves are very affordable and will remain so and I simply can't recall the last time a local funeral went that route.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

and I'm still not sure why you think that the growing preference for cremation represents a rejection of belief.

Not an active "rejection". There are no "motives contrary to christian doctrine". Its simply a lapse of most peoples belief in the core doctrine, which the RCC (and your good self) seem reluctant to face up to.
For the most part the "faithful" are not even aware of this doctrinal disconnect, hence all the misunderstandings around the issue.

infogiver wrote: »

Because it's much more comforting and calm inducing for an atheist to interpret any cultural shift to the left as a swing away from religion rather than merely economic practicality....

I live in a large country town 1 1/2 hours drive from the nearest crematorium where graves are very affordable and will remain so and I simply can't recall the last time a local funeral went that route.

But your example seems to contradict your first point?
Anyway, its a good point that cremation is not always cheaper or more convenient, depending on the location. I was at a funeral last year which was held in a church, and then the corpse was taken by hearse to the crematorium in Dublin. However nobody accompanied the corpse on its final journey apart from the driver, thereby allowing it a speedy trip on the motorway. There was an awkward moment, seeing the hearse drive off, but the arrangement allowed everyone to take to the beer straight away instead of spending most of the day driving in traffic. So everyone's a winner.

RobbingBandit

Think the thinking that is if the ashes are scattered on Judgement Day it won't be possible for them to reassemble. Non believer myself for a long time now so this is just my assumption rather than canon.

recedite

Ya, I think the forecast is for a gale warning on Judgement Day this year.

Savage Tyrant

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Think the thinking that is if the ashes are scattered on Judgement Day it won't be possible for them to reassemble. Non believer myself for a long time now so this is just my assumption rather than canon.

God is all powerful. But he was never very good at puzzles. He just doesn't need that kind of stress on Judgement Day... he'll be too busy judging people for not believing in the unbelievable to be messing around with jigsaws.

infogiver

recedite wrote: »

Not an active "rejection". There are no "motives contrary to christian doctrine". Its simply a lapse of most peoples belief in the core doctrine, which the RCC (and your good self) seem reluctant to face up to.
For the most part the "faithful" are not even aware of this doctrinal disconnect, hence all the misunderstandings around the issue.


But your example seems to contradict your first point?
Anyway, its a good point that cremation is not always cheaper or more convenient, depending on the location. I was at a funeral last year which was held in a church, and then the corpse was taken by hearse to the crematorium in Dublin. However nobody accompanied the corpse on its final journey apart from the driver, thereby allowing it a speedy trip on the motorway. There was an awkward moment, seeing the hearse drive off, but the arrangement allowed everyone to take to the beer straight away instead of spending most of the day driving in traffic. So everyone's a winner.

The remains went to the crematorium and not one single mourner thought enough about the deceased while they were alive to go along and see the whole thing through?
Must have been an awful p**** altogether when he or she was still around.

recedite

infogiver wrote: »

..not one single mourner thought enough about the deceased while they were alive to go along and see the whole thing through?...

Au contraire... everybody thought about it in advance, and the surviving spouse decided it was best. The rest of the day was spent with everybody celebrating the persons life together, instead of individually being stressed trying to make their way through Dublin traffic, just to attend an industrial process.

Peregrinus

It's unusual for people actually to witness the cremation. If the service takes place at the crematorium, the coffin generally glides away at the end and everybody heads off for beer and sangers. Nobody will observe the cremation, which may or may not follow immediately. Practice varies from crematorium to crematorium, but it costs money to fire up the ovens and they'll generally wait until they have a couiple of bodies to cremate. (They do cremate them one at a time, though, or in separate chambers, so the ashes are distinct.) If the funeral service is on a Saturday the actual incineration may not happen until Monday, to minimise overtime costs.

Of course, if you want to take delivery of the ashes on the day of the funeral they'll facilitate you, but there may be an extra cost involved.

Given all that, if there's a funeral in a church it's not uncommon to have the committal - the bit that would normally take place at the graveside - in the church immediately after the funeral proper, rather than hauling everybody off to the crematorium to have a committal service there. It really depends on the comfort of the mourners - if they're not happy about their last sight of their loved one being his coffin setting off in a hearse into the rush-hour traffic, they can choose to have a committal at the crematorium. But if they make the other choice I don't think that demonstrates a lack of respect or a lack of feeling.

I have also known of cases where things are done in the other order - the body is cremated without ceremony almost immediately after death has been certified, and in due course there's a funeral with the ashes present, or a memorial service with no ashes present.

recedite

BTW the most important tip for any rebels attending a scattering of the ashes ceremony during this prohibition era (or any era).... always check the wind direction before taking up a position

Hotblack Desiato

infogiver wrote: »

Because it's much more comforting and calm inducing for an atheist to interpret any cultural shift to the left as a swing away from religion rather than merely economic practicality.

Cremation is not left wing.

Atheists are not left wing either :rolleyes:

brooke 2

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's unusual for people actually to witness the cremation. If the service takes place at the crematorium, the coffin generally glides away at the end and everybody heads off for beer and sangers. Nobody will observe the cremation, which may or may not follow immediately. Practice varies from crematorium to crematorium, but it costs money to fire up the ovens and they'll generally wait until they have a couiple of bodies to cremate. (They do cremate them one at a time, though, or in separate chambers, so the ashes are distinct.) If the funeral service is on a Saturday the actual incineration may not happen until Monday, to minimise overtime costs.

Of course, if you want to take delivery of the ashes on the day of the funeral they'll facilitate you, but there may be an extra cost involved.

Given all that, if there's a funeral in a church it's not uncommon to have the committal - the bit that would normally take place at the graveside - in the church immediately after the funeral proper, rather than hauling everybody off to the crematorium to have a committal service there. It really depends on the comfort of the mourners - if they're not happy about their last sight of their loved one being his coffin setting off in a hearse into the rush-hour traffic, they can choose to have a committal at the crematorium. But if they make the other choice I don't think that demonstrates a lack of respect or a lack of feeling.

I have also known of cases where things are done in the other order - the body is cremated without ceremony almost immediately after death has been certified, and in due course there's a funeral with the ashes present, or a memorial service with no ashes present.

I remember when the golfer Severiano Ballesteros died, the cremation took place first. Afterwards, his son, carrying the urn, walked along a path towards the church in which the ceremony was held. I thought it was a very neat way of doing the funeral.

feargale

brooke 2 wrote: »

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.

Kenny is an egotistical bombast who loves to parade what he considers his superior knowledge, well able to dish out smartass remarks about everybody and anybody, but a touch-me-not when they fly the other way. Ask Jack O'Connor.

magicbastarder

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Cremation is not left wing.

Atheists are not left wing either :rolleyes:

and there was me thinking jesus was a left wing revolutionary. i would have thought rejecting him would imply a swing to the right.