During this month of November, I wanted to write about something that I’ve been seeing pop up in a number of parishes – the building and maintenance of a columbarium for the interment of cremated remains. I first saw these when I lived in North Carolina, and now there are several in Tennessee (but only one in a Catholic parish in the Nashville area). I want to highlight why this is a bad practice.
I’m not so much against the building of a columbarium as part of a Catholic cemetery, even a parish cemetery. The Church requires the interment of cremated remains in a sacred place such as a cemetery. To make this possible for Catholics who choose cremation for legitimate reasons, it makes sense to have them available. My main concern here is with a columbarium located on parish property that has no cemetery associated with it. I’ll explain why . . .
To get a greater understanding of the Church’s teachings on cremation, please check out this 2016 Document from the CDF regarding the practice. The Catholic Church once prohibited cremation as it was often done as a way to show opposition to the resurrection of the dead. In 1963, a new instruction named Piam et Constatem was issued that did allow for cremation. It’s important to note that, once cremated, the ashes are required to be buried like a body would be.
However, this instruction said that the ordinaries (eg bishops) were to ensure, through proper instruction, that “the faithful refrain from cremation and not discontinue the practice of burial except when forced to do so by necessity” and that “the Church’s adverse attitude toward cremation must be clearly evident.” In other words, the practice is not something the Church wanted to encourage but only to permit when necessary. Cremation is to be the exception rather than the rule. Burial remains the preferred practice of the Church. In fact, the need to encourage burial instead of cremation when possible is more pressing today in light of the false ideas regarding the human body that are presented by today’s society.
However, when a parish builds a columbarium, they are, by means of a bad example, essentially encouraging the practice of cremation. After all, they are allowing people to be laid to rest on the grounds of their church, but only if they are cremated. People who can and wish to conform themselves fully to the mind of the Church on this matter have to be buried elsewhere. This really sends the wrong message to people regarding the respect and reverence that is due to the body of the deceased, which was and will be again a Temple of the Holy Spirit.
In one diocese where I lived, there was a rule that, if a columbarium were built, it must be accompanied by instruction that burial is really the preferred practice. However, this is unlikely to be effective. At the same time this instruction is being provided, people are being told that they can choose to be cremated so that their remains can be interred at their church. This also communicates to people that they can feel free to disregard the customs of the Church and do whatever they prefer, which is way too common among American Catholics.
Someone once told me in (sort of) defense of the practice is that a parish was noticing that people were choosing cremation and then doing things prohibited by the Church such as scattering ashes or keeping them in their home. The columbarium was being built so that people would at least bury the ashes properly. This was a well-meaning argument, but I don’t agree. I believe it provides too much accommodation for people’s attitudes to be formed by the surrounding culture rather than by Christ and his Church when really, the truth needs to be preached.
In fact, I remember a priest, preaching at the funeral of one of my family members, tell us that what was in the casket was not our family member. I now know that is not a correct statement. It is a pagan/gnostic attitude that I’ve also heard repeated by a Protestant, though I don’t think the priest realized this. As human beings, we are made to be body and soul. When the soul separates from the body, neither are complete. The body that will decay is not the complete person, but guess what – neither is the soul! The souls in Heaven are longing for their bodily resurrection. Our bodies are not some costume or machine that we inhabit and need to be free from. They are an integral part of who we are.
There may be some people who need to choose cremation, and they need not feel as though they are incurring guilt for doing what the Church permits. However, the local parishes should not be building something that has such a potential to encourage that which is not what the Church prefers. We would be much better served by better catechesis about the body and reverence it required, not to mention our hope of the resurrection.
My Take on Gun Control
If you have seen the news lately, you will have heard that we had a school shooting in Nashville. These things are always horrible, but this one was especially awful because it took place in an elementary school. I just can’t imagine what would bring someone to the point where they wanted to do something like this. I can’t imagine what it would be like to be one of the parents who gets the call that this happened to one of my kids at school.
Of course, here in the United States, it’s met with a “we have to do something attitude,” or, more precisely, “the government needs to do something.” Well, of course we do. One of those things that is often proposed is gun control. I don’t think I’ve written much about this on my blog. To be honest, I’m not someone who really likes guns, but I have mixed feelings about gun control laws, and am probably more against them than in favor of them.
For me to favor anything, I need reason to believe it’s going to make a difference. If any proposal isn’t accompanied by study of how the perpetrators got their hands on their guns and how their proposal will curb that, then I will write it off as an emotional reaction. The last thing we need right now is an attempted solution based on a typical American emotional reaction. Someone may respond to this “Well, come up with a better one.” However, I would leave open the possibility that some “solutions” may be worse than doing nothing.
However, I would not oppose reasonable laws that would help curb the problem of guns getting into the wrong hands. While the people behind them are the ones really responsible for the killing, the guns are a rather convenient tool for them to accomplish their aims efficiently. However, the guns can also be a convenient tool for protecting oneself against such an aggressor. For that reason, I also want law-abiding citizens who are willing to pass necessary (and I emphasize necessary) safety measures to be able to obtain them.
To put it the way a former co-worker of mine once said “We need more gun laws because the criminals are not heeding the ones we have.” There are plenty of guns already in circulation in this country. If they were all of a sudden banned, then the only people who would turn in their guns would be the law-abiding citizens. It may have some effect on the criminal element because people can be stopped in their tracks if a gun is found, but that effect could be negated by another problem.
That problem is best illustrated by the problem of “gun-free zones.” We see lots of establishments that have signs saying that guns are prohibited. Does that keep us safe? It may keep us safe from accidents. It also allows someone who is found to have a firearm to be stopped without having to wait for him to discharge said firearm. However, people with criminal intent are not going to obey those signs. In fact, declaring a “gun-free zone” will even send a signal to someone with criminal intent that, if he shoots, there will likely be no one who can shoot back.
So, I don’t think the problem is solved by the simple passage of some ban of certain types of firearms. The unintended consequences may be worse than our current situation. While I don’t want mentally ill or criminally minded people to be able to obtain guns, I also don’t want them to have easy targets to hit.
In fact, as kind of a side note, I fully support having armed security in schools. This may scare some people. Keep in mind that this should be properly trained, armed security, not just anyone with a holster. You might say that this won’t really solve the problem. I’d agree, but only in the sense that giving someone food to someone on the brink of starvation won’t solve his ultimate problem. It’s not that I like the atmosphere of a school with tighter security. Rather, it’s just that we need to do something to stop the aggressors who are planning their attacks right now.
Just as we don’t want the hungry person to starve while trying to solve the underlying problem, neither can we let kids die while the underlying problems of school shootings are solved. This is going to require taking a good, hard look at ourselves and our society to see what we have become. We need to do this even though we will never completely solve the problem in this world. The ultimate solution is something we cannot and should not try legislate, which is to turn to Christ and his Church.