Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-11-05
CREMATION AND THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH.

A lengthy and labored essay in the
Catholic Quarterly Reriep for October, from
the pen Of the Rev. Dr. Brann, explains
why the Catholic Church opposes the
cremation of the dead. In brief the rea-
son is that it is antagonistic to the letter
and spirit of her liturgy and the universal
custom of the Hebrew and Christian dis
pensation. Among other reasons advanced
are these; Cremation prevents the preserv-
alton of the relics and honoring of the
bones of deceased saints, and the putting
OF portion of their bodies upon the altar
The Church holds to the resurrection of the
material body, and hence cremation is OPP
posed to this belief. The body that the
Church has blessed and Amounted is sacred
flesh, and must be honored even in the
grave. The esSayiSt admits that if the
Church chose il could recognize cremation,
and that in great emergencies she has con-
scented to the disposal of the body by other
means than inhumation, that in all essen
tlals amount to cremation as, in the
casting of quicklime upon the corpses of
those who die Of plague. He says that
should great necessity arise, as a great
epidemic, to Justify cremation, the Church
could and might permit it. Aside from
the long citation of authorities establish
ing the doctrine of the resurrection, and
the right Of the Church to care for her
dead and to consecrate ground for their
repose, these are all the points of the
essay.
So far as the doctrine of the resurrection
Is concerned, we submit that DR.. Brann
conlesses the whole question when he ad-
mits that under great necessity the Church
might and could permit cremation. If in
cineration antagonizes the dogma of
the resurrection of the body, and
that is an essential of the doc
trine of the Church, it follows logically
that under no circumstances whatever
could she consent to it. Again, it is a con-
ceded scientific fact, that Dr. Brann will
not question, that the ultimate of crema-
ton and inhumation is the same. In
either case the body comes to the same
end. 1t Is only in process that the attain
ment of the end differs. 1t is dust to dust,
and earth to earth. in both cases.
Now, then, the catechism of the Church
inculcates this philosophy; Nothing is
hard or impossible to God" Therefore,
if, under the supreme mandate ofthe law of
God, the ashes and dust that are the re-
suit Of decay can and viii be raised liv-
ing material body, so can and Will the
ashes and dust that have been resolved by
heat. If, by the doctrine of the Church,
the relics of the saints scattered among
the faithful in all lands under the sun
may be called together, and rebuilded into
new body at the resurrection, so may the
lnurned ashes be, clean swept from the floor
OF crematory. But the Church insists
that the body shall be placed in holy
ground, and there's cared for aud held as
sacred flesh. But as in time the body be-
comes ash by decay, and reunites with
vegetable growth from the soil, why may
not then equal solemnity and sacredness be
observed IN the case of the inhumation of
loved ashes that have been resolved in an
incinerator. Obviously there is no force
in this part Of the learned divine's argu-
ment. The whole matter resolves itself
into the question of burial of body in its
decaying state, and the burial Of the body
in its refined and purified state. Burial,
conservation of ground. care for sacred
flesh, and all that, is not in the remotest dc
gree touched, or interfered with by crena-
tion. Therefore, all the argument adj
Sanced against it on the basis that it dis