CREMATION.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XIX, Issue 38, 26 June 1891, Page 25

CREMATION.

(By a Theologian, in the Liverpool Catholic Times.') It is difficult to account for the revival of this p^gan custom. The reasoLs against it are so strong and the plea for it so weak th»t we are compelled to t.-ick it is based on a radical misconception both of facts and piiuciples. It is without doubt a practical subject of the day. Crematoiiums are established in some places, and in others will soon be pouring forth their unsavoury fumes. There seem to be many persons who desire their dead bodied to be burned and who balance the prospect us agaiust its repulsive features in its favour. The objections against the practice, however, are si., i that we doubt whether it will spread widely or prevail for any long time. lieligion is against it. As a fact the religious mind, feeling, and sentiment condemn it. No Catholic opinion is to be found on its eide. Earnest thoughtful persons in every place dislike it. This fact is pain and noturiouß. Yet here science steps in and interposes its veto. Religion v declares ought not to speak on the matter. This arrogant claim of scientific men will assuredly be r, aisted. For it is not a purely scientific question. Of all bigots the scientific bigot is the most obstinate and the most conceited. His notions and conclusions may abide in his mind for only twenty-four hours, bat co iong as they there abide tney are god-like and infallible. The scientist may expel them himself, but no other man may so much as touch them. The sciuntifis veto, therefore, must be despistd. Science is not ever) tlii g, a^d tna hm.ts of su uce must be cleaily ascertained. Thu Catholic Chi.ich has nL-ver sanctioned cretnatiou. The burning of dead bodies may be allowed in some cases fcr exceptional

reasons, as in the plague and on the field of battle. But she has never gone beyond this. It may be allowed, and a thing allowed is never the same as a thing prescribed and laid down to be done as an ordinary rule of life and conduct. In recent times the practice has been again condemned in Rome. The popular voice agrees with this disciplinary decree. The sentiment of the people is at one with the Church on the point. This again is a fact. Cremation is the pet of laboratories, the fad of plutocrats ; it has never been embraced by the people. We do not say it never will be. The people are not infallible nor impeccable. They may grow used to the inhuman chimney of the crematoriums ; they may, as experience shows, sink to any corruption. But their first simple instincts are proofs of right, and it it our business to guard them from perversion. What are the principles of this fact ? Religion generally, the Catholic Church in particular, the people are against cremation And why 1 In the first place cremation is not in itself wrong, otherwise it could never in any circumstances be allowed. No eternal principle bars its way. Dead bodies are no more than corpses, things without life, feeling, aim or object in this world. Nevertheless they are human bodies. They are not mere thing*. No sophistry can make them so. It is impossible to treat a body as a mere material thing. The cremationists surround their horrible custom with ceremonies that prove the fact. A dead human body cannot be thrown aside and burned like a piece of brushwood in a field. Yet why not? Because the sentiment of mankind would revolt at the idea and deed. The cremationists are thus driven to own that sentiment comes into the matter and has a predominant sway. The objection, it is said, to cremation, is one of sentiment. Granted ; but if sentiment is not to be respectsd, then a body may be quite rightly carted away and burned upon the nearest dost bill. Our contention is that every sentiment which is based on reason ought to be respected. Human life is made up largely of sentiment The sentiment of modesty, of affection, and of all the rest, what are they but human treasures, holy bonds without which society would colUpse ? The question is, does this sentiment against cremation rest on reason ? We remember the shudder with which we heard of an agnostic mother declaring that she had destined her little boy's corpse to be burned in case of death. Was this shudder a well-ordered one ? Yes, we declare it was ; it was argument that the maternal love in that mother's breast could not be as it ought to be, as it would be in the heart of one who would not for a moment associate the idea of cremation with her darling. Yes, indeed, there are sentiments in the human heart which are in themselves pleas and proofs for the holiest and most august truths. They overwhelm us as against cremation, and we have space only for a few. A lawful, reasoDable sentiment is a part of hnman nature itself People who try to <lo without it never succeed. It returns upon them It will not be denied. God has planted it in our heart. The scientific Gradgrind may put forth his unholy hand to pluck it out, but Booner or later the retribution will tell upon him. The further question then is, is this a reasonable or unreasonable sentiment? There are no doubt sentiments that are altogether perverse, that must be rooted up. Is this one of them ? The sentiment againbt cremation flows from that love and care for the body which is one of the primary principles of Christianity itself. There issues from this a dictate of reason not to destroy the body. Hence ensues that profound horror of death and corruption which man can never wholly disavow or renounce. To destroy the body living and dead by any violent overt act is therefore against the sentiment of nature and reason. To bring openly before sense the total destruction of the human frame by violence is a shocking action that outrages and tortures the deep sentiment and feeling in the heart of man. Cremation does this. It reveals the secrets of the grave. It parades the corruption of man. It disguises, ignores, and denies the fad dishonour of death, the mournful darkness of the tomb. By no other process is this accomplished. Man is buried. What goes on then is unknown, and so far as possible bidden altogether out of sight. The friends see the body, changed indeed, but not by their act, and still with the loved features upon it of one loved. The cremationists revel in the after thoughts of death, and flaunt dust and ashes before the eyes of mourners. We have spoken the language of sentiment, of that sentiment which supports the opposition to cremation — a fact not to be denied, The sentiment here expressed finds an echo in unexpected quarters Cremation was introduced by three scientific gentlemen. The only one of the three <vho has died was not cremated. To the great disappointment of his colleagues, he left no directions for that purpose. He was buried by hiß Catholic wife at least like a Christian. The sentiment of his heart did not respond to the cold calculation of his scientific plans. Sentiment is reasonable, lawful and true. There are false senti ments ; there is also a higher law of necessity which controls al sentiment, to which they must be conformed and by which they may be superseded ,

The next question is :— Does this higher necessity exist ? For ages bodies have been buried. Put cremation in the place of burial and what a different picture is presented to our eyes in the Holy Scriptures. Its passages of beauty become orgies of death. The antiquity of the custom ia evident from the Sacred Pages. In other countries cremation was never the uaiv9rsal rule. The Egyptians embalmed, the Greeks and Romans entombed their dead. Their instinct was to preserve. If destruction must now be the law we must demand the ground for it. We are told that the cemeteries arer c crowded. Well, a little thought and care will obviate this difficulty After all cemeteries take up very little room. Let there be more cemeteries. Let the graves be dug deeper. Let open coffins be used, and not the bouses of wood which occupy the ground, and prevent a natural and decent dissolution. Let the costly mausoleums of the rich be taxed, and they will become fewer. We can think of a great many ways by which the difficulties of the case may be met, whioh an earnest conference of able men would bring forth as practical expedients for an acknowledged evil. If a precedent must besought for in antuiquity why should not the science of embalming be revired f It is far superior to the vile custom of cremation. The public necessity, we assert, has not been proved. There are alternative methods of burial not yet tried. The present method may be improved. Only at the very last resort can cremation be tolerated. Not in this serious spirit has this vile practice been introduced ; far otherwise. It comes from men of little or no faitb, from agnostics, infidels, materialists, from men still lower, who rejoice to think that man is but dust, that an urn can enclose his last analysis. There are purely Catholic sentiments against cremation which we must at present pass by. They have been ably treated by other pens. A writer in tht Month showed its connection with the doctrine of the Resurrection. The grave covers bones that will be clothed with flesh again and with the glory of heaven. Is it right, is it decent, to calcine those bones by violence with a light heart and label them as curiosities in a museum ? This cannot detain us further at present. The Bishop of Middlesbrough penned an eloquent and persuasive letter o the subject not long ago in his cathedral city. The scientific ground in favour of cremation is that the corruption of the body is hurtful to the living. Let scieoce prove that point. Science must not go beyond that. It becomes, then, a moral question on which custom, sentiment, and religion must speak. It is a practical question, with many ramifications and connections. The coc sequences of cremation will be curious and painful. The body is useless, say the cremationists. But science will advance rapidly, untrammelled by sentiment. The body is useful will be the axiom ef another generation. Why this waste ? Let the corpse serve for use. Let it feed the furnace and the mill, let it manure the field, let it underlie the growth of the commerce of mankind. We contend that sentiment is a principle plain, true and poweifnl and that it is altogether adverse to cremation, and that no higher necessity can be shown for the practice.