Tuesday, 19 July 2011

Bishop Michael Evans' body will be cremated. Is this a sign that the Church is now fully at ease with this practice?

As more details concerning Bishop Michael Evans' funeral arrangements have come to light over the past week or so, it appears that his body, rather controversially, will be cremated not buried. It might be understandable, therefore, that details concerning the cremation are not widely available, and that none of the official announcements seem to mention it. However, the Catholic Grandparents Association, of which Bishop Evans was Patron until shortly before his death, did mention yesterday that his "committal, prior to cremation, will be at 16.30 [on Wednesday, 20 July] at the City Crematorium, Dereham Road [Norwich]*."

I definitely do not wish to speak ill of the dead, and believe, however controversial it may be, that each man should choose the way in which his body is to be disposed of after death. In fact, I remember that Bishop Michael Evans had spoken of wanting to be cremated in the past, especially after blessing his Cathedral's new Columbarium - a resting place for urns especially designed for churches. So it should come as no surprise to those who knew him that he would choose this method of disposition. In that sense, I have wondered whether it is apt to write this post. On the other hand, as so many people will be surprised to know that a Catholic bishop has chosen to be cremated, I think there is some value in discussing now the Church's view on this sensitive issue in a public forum.

As far as I know, since the publication of a decree in 1963 there is nothing to stop a Catholic from being cremated, even if the Code of Canon Law (1983) "earnestly recommends the pious custom of burial be retained" (n. 1176). The Church also usually requires that the body must be present for the public Requiem Mass - so that the temple which housed the Living God may be properly reverenced. Since 1997, though, the Holy See has allowed some Bishops' Conferences to permit cremation before the funeral, as long as the urn is placed on a stand next to the paschal candle during the Mass. After cremation, the Church teaches that the ashes must be kept in an urn for burial or deposition in a place such as a Columbarium - as far as I know, the scattering of ashes is still forbidden. Also, of course, the Catholic Church teaches that cremation should not be used to "demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body" (CCC n. 2301).

Right from its earliest days, and rooted to its Judaic heritage, the Church taught that cremation was an abhorrent practice - both a denial of the resurrection of the body and a desecration of the work of God's hands. According to Fr John Dietzen, though, in his book Questions and Answers (quoted in a Catholic Culture article), "the first general legislation banning the burning of bodies as a funeral rite came from the Vatican's Holy Office in May 1886, noting the anti-religious and Masonic motivation behind the movement. The 1918 Code of Canon Law continued that ban because cremation was still considered a flagrant rejection of the Christian belief in immortality and the resurrection." To this day, even though it normally lacks any anti-religious motivation, many traditional Catholics remain opposed to the notion of cremation, and the practice is still banned in the Orthodox Church - in which those who normally choose to be cremated, unless it is for some "good cause", are usually denied an ecclesiastical funeral or the Church's official prayers for the dead.

Of course, although it is now accepted that many lay Catholics choose to be cremated - for the sake of convenience and to avoid the excessive costs incurred by burial - it remains highly unusual for priests, religious and especially bishops to opt for this means of disposing the body. Firstly, many of the faithful like visiting the graves of those who have cared for them in this life - especially their priests and bishops. Secondly, it is generally accepted that were a person, especially a priest or bishop, to be canonised then their earthly remains would need to be exhumed for veneration, and for the purpose of collecting relics. Thirdly, of course, as the Catholic Church still seems to maintain that burial is preferred to cremation (cf CIC n. 1176), it is somehow only right that her ordained ministers choose to be buried.

Knowing the Church's position on cremation, and aware that Bishop Michael Evans was an honourable and faithful man who fully believed in the resurrection of the body, we can rest assured that he would have weighed these matters carefully when deciding on the way he wished his body to be disposed. It is also well-known that the Columbarium at St John's Cathedral, Norwich, is a beautiful, reverent and peaceful place of rest - a place worthy to receive the ashes of its pastor. One therefore wonders why so little has been said about Bishop Michael's cremation. Are some in the Church still apprehensive about this means of disposition? As Catholics, it is a fact that cremation is still viewed as something alien to our faith, something not yet fully accepted?


*This might refer to the Earlham Road Crematorium (also on Dereham Road).

[Images: Top: Bishop Michael Evans at the Blessing of the Columbarium at St John's Cathedral, Norwich; source: Fr Ray Blake's Blog (this image also appears in numerous other blogs and websites so is assumed to be in the public domain). Bottom: Earlham Road Cemetery - the crematorium (Evelyn Simak) / CC BY-SA 2.0 - this work is attributed to Evelyn Simak and published under a creative commons licence, see link]

41 comments:

Mrs Evans (no connection with the Bishop) said...

It all started in Wales with a relative of mine - Dr William Price.
"On 18 January 1884, Price secured a place for himself in history. As the villagers were coming out of Church, they found him cremating the dead body of his five month old son, Iesu Grist. Cremation was illegal in the British Isles at the time, but his success in the court case paved the way for the Cremation Act, 1902. Before he died at the age of 92, he had fathered another son, Iesu Grist and daughter, Penelope Elizabeth. He died on 23 January 1893, in Llantrisant, and his body was cremated, as he had instructed, on top of two tons of coal".

Priest's Housekeeper said...

Bishop Michael Evans was a great inspiration and many were touched by his humility and kindness. He was a beacon for the priesthood and for our faith.
He suffered ill health for some time and one would have thought he would have devoted much thought and prayer to this matter.
It was at the end his decision and a very personal one.
Let us remember the good Bishop kindly, be grateful for his time here on earth and the legacy of warmth and kindness that he left behind. Requiescat In Pace.

Richard Collins said...

I think it a shame that this holy man is to be cremated. As you say Dylan, it is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the church but traditionalists, especially, believe in the sanctity of the temple (body) that God created and and that nature should take its course rather than the body be destroyed artificially.

Anonymous said...

If some ecumenical input be permitted, please take a look at the first document contained in this link:

http://www.lutheranchurch-canada.ca/synod2011/workbook_g.pdf

The Commission on Theology and Church Relations of Lutheran Church--Canada here sets forth solid grounds for remaining with traditional Christian burial practices and for discouraging the practice of cremation.

Liam said...

Somehow, St Joan of Arc managed to be raised to the altars despite ashes being thrown into the Seine.....

Cremation is nearly universally accepted within mainstream Catholicism. And not to deny the resurrection of the body (since we know that the body that is resurrected is a glorious one, not a resuscitated corpse). That's why the cremation of his remains did not provoke comment.

A Reluctant Sinner said...

@ Liam

Just quickly, as I'm sure you know this, but Joan of Arc was burnt as a heretic a) because such a desecration of the body was at the time seen as an appropriate punishment for those who had usurped God, and b) so that her supporters could not harvest relics from her body. At the time of her death she was a convicted heretic. She was burnt not of her own will but in contravention of it. This is unfortunate, but had she died in other circumstances, I am more than confident that she would have chosen to be buried and that her relics would have been available.

The cremation of the Bishop's remains was nowhere publicised, so could not have generated comment by ordinary Catholics (another example of the Church's over-reliance on "silence"?). One can therefore assume this was done because cremation remains a controversial issue. I can assure you that the cremation of a bishop is nowhere universally accepted within Catholicism. I have never before heard of a bishop choosing to be cremated.

Since the Catholic Grandparents Association published the details of the cremation, which I happened to stumble upon and then republished here, I can assure you that a lot of debate has already been generated. This page alone has received a record number of hits for this blog.

Patricius said...

The "ritual" of the crematorium has always struck me as somewhat bizarre because what one sees is not even a cremation but the closing of a curtain and - this is a personal view- it smacks of the theatre, of sleight of hand, of pretence, of denial. There is something just a bit too tidy about it.

Anonymous said...

Joan of Arc is one the last persons to be made a saint by English bishops.

When St John Fisher was in the tower, the Bishops' Convocation, the name of the Bishops' Conference, sent a sub-committee of bishops to try to persuade him to accept Henry VIII as head of the church as the rest of them had done provoking the martyr's famous words: "The fortress is betrayed even by the very ones who should have defended it."

trek said...

Cremation is nearly universally accepted within mainstream Catholicism. And not to deny the resurrection of the body (since we know that the body that is resurrected is a glorious one, not a resuscitated corpse).

Your first claim is false. As for the second: what a profoundly depressing - and yet telling - comment. It is one which points to the dangers of the cremation mentality, showing that how we treat the dead can affect what we believe of their future.

Our resurrection bodies are not different bodies to those buried in the ground, but are materially identical. This is not a matter of theological opinion. It is de fide. Lateran IV defined that the risen "will arise with their bodies which they have now." Scripture tells us the same. See 2 Mach. 7:11. See 1 Cor. 15:53.

Ludwig Ott, in his treatment of the question, notes that "this identity must not be conceived in such a fashion that all material parts which at any time, or at a definite moment belonged to the earthly body, will be present in the body at the resurrection. As the human body always remains the same in spite of the constant changing of its constituent matter, it suffices for the preservation of the identity, if a relatively small share of the amount of matter in the earthyl body is contained in the body after the resurrection. Thus the fact that the same parts of matter may successively have belonged to several bodies does not raise any difficulty... Cf. ScG. IV.81."

If someone has Iota Unum, they would do the blogosphere a service were they to post Romano Amerio's comments on cremation. I seem to remember them being excellent.

Anonymous said...

That some people cannot accept God's ability to secure the resurrection of the cremated body of a good and holy man, I find almost blasphemous.

And the indiscriminate attack on nearly all priests and bishops is quite overwhelmingly depressing as yet another example of sinful self-righteousness.

trek said...

That some people cannot accept God's ability to secure the resurrection of the cremated body of a good and holy man, I find almost blasphemous.

Has anyone said that, or are you simply throwing around accusations of blasphemy for the sake of it? I doubt those who support the Church's ordinary rejection of cremation do so because they think God unable to secure the resurrection of those whose bodies were reduced to ashes - be they good and holy (e.g. St Joan) or bad and unholy (e.g. Adolf Hitler).

It's a question of the symbolism of the act. Christians believe that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, that human persons are created in the image and likeness of God, that this is the body with which we shall rise from the dead. Absent extraordinary situations, do acts such as burning the body, or stuffing it into a shredder, or feeding it to the dogs... do they communicate those beliefs? Or do they undermine them?

And the indiscriminate attack on nearly all priests and bishops is quite overwhelmingly depressing as yet another example of sinful self-righteousness.

"I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish." - St John Chrysostom

mundabor said...

Iota Unum is online:
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/iota-unum-is-online/

As to the cremation, a bishop should know that "to bury the dead" is one of the seven corporal works of mercy. It is astonishing that the very basics of Catholicism are now utterly neglected even by those who should be our shepherds.

Mundabor

Anonymous said...

"to bury the dead" is indeed one of the seven corporal works of mercy, but it is very shoddy thinking and logic - and we Catholics are allowed to think and make use of logic - to claim that this is the same as a refusal to accept the legitimacy of cremation.

To say: 'that the very basics of Catholicism are now utterly neglected even by those who should be our shepherds'
is just hysterical nonsense, I'm afraid.

Oleg-Michael Martynov said...

> and the practice is still banned in the Orthodox
> Church - in which those who normally choose to
> be cremated, unless it is for some "good cause",
> are usually denied an ecclesiastical funeral or
> the Church's official prayers for the dead.

Not so. In practice, a priest would come to the crematorium, say the required prayers and then put some sand on the cover of the coffin. This is considered as "burial", and after that the coffin with the body is removed to the furnace.

Marie said...

This has opened a can of worms if you will pardon the expression.
We should be concentrating on the Kingdom, not areas where moth and rust doth corrupt. (Matthew 6:19)

Let the dead bury their dead (Luke 9:59-62) and let's get on with Our Lord's command to love one another, committing the souls of the departed to His care and disposing of their mortal remains with dignity but common-sense.

Steve said...

Patricius, you said that there is "something a bit too tidy" about cremation.

Perhaps you meant that cremation offers too quick a sense of closure, whereas a body in a coffin is a more vivid reminder of a real death. If that's what you meant, I certainly understand your point. Though I'm opting for cremation myself, I do get something, spiritually, from attending a funeral and seeing a coffin in the aisle and holy water sprinkled on it.

However, there is much in the preparation of bodies for burial (embalming, application of make-up to the face and hands) and the choice of a casket -- a very contrived, pretty, artificial enviroment (usually complete with a pillow and puffy lining) that perhaps runs counter to what our focus should be on when someone has died.

As for me, I have no doubt whatsoever that God can resurrect my body if I am fortunate enough to make it to Paradise. Having my body cremated will be less expensive for my family and less taxing on the earth that God created. I don't believe at all that I am making God's work of resurrection any more difficult.

mundabor said...

"anonymous", may I know where the hysterical nonsense would lie? You see, when you say such things you should explain why you say them....

The knowledge of - and respect for - the works of mercy would have been normal for every child not later than a couple of generations ago.

That a bishop nowadays doesn't remember the basics or - worse - doesn't care for them, is truly tragic.

Mundabor

Marie said...

Dylan. It has not been possible to seek the permission of this commenter to quote his/her contribution elsewhere on this subject, but it is very relevant here.

Ignatius said...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, following canon law: 'The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body' (section 2301). One imagines that Bishop Evans did believe in the resurrection of the body: why criticise him for acting in accordance with church teaching? The bodies of those who are buried will sooner or later be reduced to dust just as much as those who are cremated, so our resurrection cannot depend on the body being buried. The pious tradition is simply mistaken, and true respect for tradition cannot mean clinging to outdated fables just because they are traditional.
In crowded cities where space for burial is severely limited, those who opt for cremation could be said to be acting unselfishly for the good of society. Is that not just as important as upholding what some insist has to be "Catholic tradition"?

Thank you Ignatius. Very helpful.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (2) (let's call me Anonymous (1) for now!) - your ramblings remind me of the Scribes and the Pharisees. We know what they did, and I know which side I'm on.

mundabor,

You ask: 'may I know where the hysterical nonsense would lie? You see, when you say such things you should explain why you say them'

Well, this is where I see that hysterical nonsense: 'that the very basics of Catholicism are now utterly neglected even by those who should be our shepherds'

What you see as being the 'basics of Catholicism' may not be exactly the same as that which very many other Catholics see as the core of their beliefs. Our faith is not a bureaucracy. What you refer to is not an argument against cremation, it is a call to the practical kindness of burying the dead - stated at a certain time in the history of the Church. You are of course entitled to believe that you are correct.

Wel said Marie (and Ignatius!).

Anonymous said...

Bishop Bootkoski, ordinary of the Diocese of Methuchen, N.J., U.S.A., recently opened the first Catholic crematorium in the United States.

Patricius said...

To enlarge upon what I said earlier. It seems to me that when we lay our departed's remains in the earth we accept in a passive way that there is a natural process of decay which will consume them. By contrast cremation seems to involve a very wilful destruction of the remains while, as the process is carried out in western societies, a denial of that process- being hidden behind a curtain. I understand that even after the incineration bones remain which are then pulverised in some grinding device.
It is interesting that, as I learned when I first visited Rome many year ago, that the early Roman Christians neither cremated their dead as many of the pagans did, nor did they refer to their places of burial by the term "necropolis" or city of the dead but used the term "cemetery"- meaning a sleeping-place.

Sarah said...

A complex, multi-faceted issue.

Check out Time video:
A Cemetery's Waitlist.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Michael was in no way denying the resurrection; this is clear from the interview he gave the BBC in April 2011.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13145354

EditorCT said...

Anybody who still cannot see that the very basics of Catholicism are now utterly neglected (and I would add, often contradicted) by the bishops, needs help. Cremation over burial is just one more piece in the Jigsaw that is the current horrendous crisis of Catholic Faith.

Bishop Evans took his annual retreat at the ecumenical Taize centre, and often took young people with him - part of his alleged ministry to the young, no doubt. So count me out of his fan club, although I will most certainly be praying for his soul.

Marie, when you say "we should be concentrating on the Kingdom..." what do you mean? In my experience, people say this when they really mean, let's concentrate on making this world a better place. Is that what you mean?

EditorCT said...

I didn't realise this was a moderated site, so would you tell me if all comments are moderated, in which case I'll remove the link from our website. I don't normally post on moderated websites and I wouldn't knowingly link to one. I've posted a link to this on our website, so would be grateful to know if only first posts are moderated, or all posts.

Thank you.

Fr. Michael J. Denk said...

I remember during the crypt tour of e Vatican learning that the remains of the early catholics could be distinguished because they were buried, but the pagans were cremated. I think there is a special significance to the burial of the body especially in our culture which is in denial if death. Interesting dialogue... And innerly appreciate the comment that poetically describes cremation as being a veil. http://fathermichaeldenk.blogspot.com/

johncallaghan said...

John O Callaghan
The cremation of the body of Bishop Evans is totally repugnant to the 1917 code of Canon Law, as it is to Catholic minds and feelings, at least to those who still retain them. This code came,in its essence, from the glorious mind of Pope St. Pius X, even if promulgated after his death and signed into law by another Pope.

Furthermore, I do not seek controversy when I declare emphatically, that I do not hold the 1983 Code of Pope John Paul 11 in the same esteem as the 1917 code from this truly illustrious Saint who undoubtedly deserves to be titled Pope Pius the Great.

Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ has shown us, by His own legacy, how we ought to treat our own bodies after our earthly death. To say He knew that He would rise from the dead Three days hence is no contrary argument.

Bishop Evans may or may not have been a holy man, God is the souls judge, no one else, but his last act was an unholy one. It is another triumph for the Satanic masonic lodges. I have refused to attend a funeral of a very dear cousin who's children had her cremated. I have also stayed away from the Masses ( New Order rite of Pope Paul V1)of friends who's ashes were separated, Having dual burials in Ireland and England. A personal observation is that there is a virulent stench of New-Church Paganism from the whole messy affair.

LJM said...

Having arranged for the cremation of my beloved mother at her request I can confirm that it was organised in such a way that it was uplifting and comforting.
The coffin was already in the chapel, invisible under a mound of flowers, the work of a local Christian florist.
It had been specified that no curtain would close, no rollers would move and the congregation would resond as they wished.
They chose to approach the front, look at the flowers, touching the purple cloth barely visible beneath, and quietly leave.
Later the mortal remains would be removed for the final procedures.

The coffin does not immediately slip into a furnace. There is no smoke billowing from a chimney until all ceremonies are completed at the end of the day.
The public is at liberty to visit and examine the work of the crematorium in detail on application to the local authority.
A casket of my mother's ashes remained at the chapel of rest for those unable to attend the funeral, to quietly pray.
A book of remembrance is opened annually on her birthday (not the anniversary of her death, my choice)in a special room at the cemetery.

I am confident that she is in the loving care of God.

Anonymous said...

From Anonymous(1)

Again, that angry, unfeeling and insensitive rant reminds me of the Scribes and the Pharisees. I repeat, I know what they did, and I know which side I'm on.

When I read of 'Satanic masonic lodges' I am reminded of the kind of rhetoric that emanates from the weirdest, extreme right-wing American tele-evangelists. And, no, I am no mason and have no time for them either. I am just turned off by your extreme use of language, and an apparent lack of feelings towards others.

The same goes for EditorCT, who even seems to think that Taize is the work of the devil!!!

LJM's contribution however is wonderful and full of love. After all, Christ's primary commandment to us, above all others, was, and indeed is, to love...

A Reluctant Sinner said...

@ EditorCT

Yes, this is a moderated blog. It wasn't until someone pointed out to me that a commentator had been posting links to horrific pornography on my posts. Since I began moderating comments, I have not had people trying to post porn or other nasty links.

Nearly all comments are published, though, unless they happen to contain foul language or unsubstantiated and anonymous accusations (ie libel) for which I could be liable in a court of law.

In today's world, I think it is unwise to allow anyone to publish anything on one's personal blog.

EditorCT said...

A Reluctant Sinner,

Thank you for your explanation. I know the risks of running an unmoderated blog - our Catholic Truth blog was never moderated. I simply deleted or removed offensive posts when I saw them, by which I mean posts which contained nasty, personally abusive remarks about other bloggers. However, I don't recall any links to porn sites being posted. I'd definitely have removed those, of course.

Anyway, since that is your reason, and since you offer an assurance that most posts get pubished, I'll leave the link on our website.

What I object to is that most moderated blogs, in my experience, are aimed at keeping any comments at bay which are critical of the modern Church or any aspect thereof. They are a waste of time, so I steer clear. I'll credit you with more intelligence (and more Catholic sense) than that. You needn't post this if you don't want to - it is really meant to be a reply to your reply to me, so feel free to NOT post it - I won't accuse you of censorship, I promise!

Marie said...

@EditorCT

You ask me:
"...when you say "we should be concentrating on the Kingdom..." what do you mean? In my experience, people say this when they really mean, let's concentrate on making this world a better place. Is that what you mean?"

Ask Jesus what he meant, not me.

He said "Our Father...Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven..."

As we are infinitely precious, expressed as "every hair of our head is numbered" the disposal of our lifeless bodies is not terribly significant.

Ask Our Lord.

A Reluctant Sinner said...

@ EditorCT

Thank you for your reply, and for the link.

trek said...

When I read of 'Satanic masonic lodges' I am reminded of the kind of rhetoric that emanates from the weirdest, extreme right-wing American tele-evangelists.

"Let us take our helper and intercessor the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, so that she, who from the moment of her conception overcame Satan may show her power over these evil sects, in which is revived the contumacious spirit of the demon, together with his unsubdued perfidy and deceit."
-- Pope Leo XIII on Freemasonry

Perhaps if you spent more time reading papal encyclicals, and less time watching American televangelists, you wouldn't struggle with those negative associations. Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your concern, trek. But I still choose to flee from the Scribes and the Pharisees, preferring the teachings of Christ, and, more immediately, the generous views of gentle, but faithful Catholics like Marie...and, as she stated so eloquently, the words of the Lord's Prayer.

David Werling said...

"Thank you for your concern, trek. But I still choose to flee from the Scribes and the Pharisees, preferring the teachings of Christ, and, more immediately, the generous views of gentle, but faithful Catholics like Marie...and, as she stated so eloquently, the words of the Lord's Prayer."

I think you are in for a big surprise. Do you read the Bible??

Anonymous said...

As someone who was very close to Bishop Michael, I find this public discussion of his decision to be cremated extremely distasteful and upsetting -and I hope that you and those who have responded to your blog on this issue realise just how much this discussiona nd the comments above contribute to the distress and grief odf losing someone dear. have a thought for his family and close friends.

Fr Mark Hackeson

Anonymous said...

Yes, I do read the Bible - in Welsh. And the strange thing is, the Lord's Prayer is in there as well. You may not like Christ's words, but I beg to differ.

Sarah said...

Fr. Mark, Marie and Anonymous

As an illustration of the "Scribes and Pharisees" still clogging the Catholic Blogosphere I have found this discussion helpful.
Please note several are entirely sympathetic to the decision of your friend Father; the others may have been made aware of their lack of Christian understanding, personal fears, biblical knowledge and charity.

One last point from me as one who has a knowledge of Roman and Greek customs-
The penitent thief on the cross was assured by Christ "Today you will be with me in paradise".
The Romans usually forbade burial following crucifixion.
The mutilated dead body of the thief would be left on the cross, considered unclean by "scribes and pharisees", not available to relatives, and left as an example to the masses.
This made no difference whatsoever to the thief whose place in heaven was assured by Our Lord.
As one whose dear relatives have not been buried I am comforted.

A Reluctant Sinner said...

Fr Mark,

I am sorry for your loss and agree with you about some of the more uncharitable comments on here. But I do not tend to censor comments on this blog.

As you know, a bishop is a public person - the most public of people - in the Church, so I'm afraid to say that there was bound to be public reaction to his cremation. Being one of the first bishops in the history of the Church to choose this means of disposition is bound to create strong feeling. It has caused a variety of feelings amongst the people - including shock and anger. But this story has also caused great relief and comfort for many others - who have had relatives and friends cremated. In that sense, there has been some considerable good in highlighting this story.

There is a saying in journalistic circles, though, that says that by choosing not to control a story, we merely let someone else do so. I'm afraid that the Church's apparent silence on this issue left many asking whether this was because of the controversy the cremation was bound to create. Through the use of Google, people, including myself, had happened to read that the Bishop was to be cremated on the Catholic Grandparents Association's website. If those responsible for the official announcement concerning the funeral arrangements had been open about this from the start, I think that people wouldn't have felt so strongly about the matter. I also think that those opposed to cremation could then have written directly to the Church's authorities, as opposed to venting their anger on a public forum. Several blogs posted this story, many of whom have had far more comments than this one.

The sad fact of the matter is that this story is of public interest, as painful as that might be to those who were very close to the Bishop. To think that it would never have come out is, I'm afraid to say, rather unrealistic.

I have no idea why some have reacted so uncharitably, but I can only guess that they feel strongly about this subject. But, thanks to the Catholic Grandparents Association, at least the whole thing is now out in the open, as painful as that might be.

I can honestly say that I did not wish to cause offence or hurt in anyway. In fact, I said this in the blog post itself. In that sense, then, I am deeply sorry for having caused any added pain to you in this time of grief. As to how other react, then that is a matter for them and their own consciences.

As you have my email address, and as I know you personally, it might have been best to write to me sooner and in a personal way. I could then have removed any offensive content under your direction.

With prayer

Dylan

A Reluctant Sinner said...

With respect to Fr Mark Hackeson's comment, and not wishing to add to the distress of those in mourning, I have deleted some of the more uncharitable (especially anonymous) comments on this thread.

Comments are now closed for this post.

May the soul of Michael Evans, third Bishop of East Anglia, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.