“Purification” of human remains
December 3, 2009
From Charles Cowling’s excellent blog The Good Funeral Guide I copy a few lines from his last article entitled “Haunting Presence“.
“The beauty of burial is that it results in the permanent relocation of the complete body. You think it’s all over as the soil rattles down on the coffin. It is. Your hands are now empty.
Not so with cremation. You get a version of the body back.”
Actually Charles, this distinction in terms of final disposition between burial and cremation is not always as clear as you make it, certainly not in many aboriginal cultures and not even in all western ones.
This year, on the 3rd anniversary of the death of my Greek wife’s grandmother, my mother-in-law needs to go back to the tomb of her mother to clean out and reinstall the bones back into the grave. This is traditional in Greece. And it doesn’t merely serve practical purposes such as compacting the remains for the next family burial etc. It has a religious meaning I’ve yet to discover.
In many traditional aboriginal cultures, similar practices are common. There are two phases, corresponding to your “cremated remains dilemma”: the purification of the remains by decomposition or other destruction of the fleshy “earthly” parts; then the installation of the cleaned remains in a permanent place of rest. Until their purification, the remains are potentially dangerous to the living, spiritually speaking - although as a pure materialist one could speculate about hygienic concerns being the basis of the spiritual practices. Once purified, the remains become harmless to the living, indeed they become sacred, since they create a symbolic connection with the dead and the afterworld. They form the basis of the ancestor cult.
What is especially relevent here: in some of these cultures, cremation is used for the first purification phase. The cremated remains are then ritually placed in their final home. As something no longer fearful but rather sacred, they can even rest in or near the home.
Essentially your observation in this article points to the enormous need of our secularized society to apply themselves to these death-matters a little more deeply and less tritely. Other cultures understood better the “remains dilemma”, and they figured out psychological/spiritual solutions. Perhaps our own culture, confused and insensitive to these matters, could learn something from them. For example that the final home of cremated remains is an important issue and taking the path of least psychological resistance may not work. (I think in particular of scattering, which I personally object to.)
Father Ed: there is room for every hope
October 20, 2009
BBC World Radio surprised me with a call today, inviting me to take part in a broadcast debate on the “Tina Turner -esque funeral” trend in Britain. I learned from the journalist that an uproar had been stimulated by an Anglican vicar (Revd. Fr. Edward Tomlinson SSC of Saint Barnabas Church) speaking frankly about the - in his view - spiritual emptiness and superficiality of secular funerals.
Given that Perpetua’s Garden is clearly not yet a mainstream initiative (may it one day become the new mainstream!), the journalist presumed I might like to argue the alternative view - he still needed to suss out someone for the “traditionalist” side. Flattered though I am, I will decline - if he even calls back after I told him that Perpetua’s Garden was more about the place (a new kind of cemetery) than what happens there (the funeral rituals).
In fact, I categorically take no sides when it comes to how each person deals with death or wants to celebrate it. Father Ed has his beliefs, as those commenting on his blog have theirs. Fair is fair - as beliefs each is valid. But I am not a vicar, or an atheist, or a humanist - I am simply someone trying to provide a better alternative for EVERYONE, regardless of belief.
Yes, Perpetua’s Garden is hoping to develop a better alternative than the funeral industry (which is every bit as superficial and spiritually empty as Father Ed presents secular funerals to be.) But it has no intention of substituting the spiritual function of the church - rather it will have room to integrate the church’s practises and beliefs, along with those of all other beliefs or non-beliefs. That is, there will be room for every hope, room for every denomination or individual to celebrate their beliefs about life and death - the traditionally religious, the “free-thinkers”, new-agers, environmentalists, atheists, whoever, however.
Whatever my own personal beliefs may be, ABSOLUTE freedom must be allowed to every other person’s faith. Freedom to believe in this, or that, or even specifically in Nothing. If the state of Death has any reality, then it is by default a spiritual one - beyond a decaying body or some cremated remains, it certainly has no material reality. And as as a spiritual matter, let no-one dictate to anyone else what is right and wrong here. We can express and live our beliefs with regard to death, but we must not dictate or impose them on others - people understandably object violently to such efforts. (And anyway, imposed spirituality is quite meaningless - belief is there or it isn’t, full stop.)
In conclusion, it seems fair that Father Ed is reluctant or sees no meaning to secular motifs being aired in his specifically religious place. Perpetua’s Garden on the other hand allows absolute freedom of belief - it does not presume to judge who is closer to the truth and who is therefore allowed entry or not. It will provide space for each to practise in their way.
In Death we are all equal - “ROOM FOR EVERY HOPE” is thus the first and most fundamental premise of Perpetua’s Garden.