Cremation with a smaller carbon footprint

From our client newspaper The Catholic Register in Toronto comes a futuristic story about bio-cremation, with a carbon footprint 20 times less than regular cremation.

Franciscan Sister Renee Mirkes, director of the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha, Neb., claims that once you get past “the yuck factor” it’s clear there’s nothing unethical or un-Catholic about alkaline hydrolysis.

5 Responses

  1. Based on the latest “global warming” fraud, exposed by ClimateGate, a carbon footprint, is not even relevant. How about a “green” burial ( just a wrapping and then burial, no coffin, no liner) instead?

  2. Please forgive me but things like endorsing being dissolved in alkali like a dead horse further erodes the sacred status of mankind. J. Bob’s comment is much closer to the mark since it is consistent with monastic burial which has been practiced for the past 1700 years. When given a choice, always opt for a burial. Even non-believers experience more closure when those who have fallen asleep in the Lord have a more traditional funeral. Since “death” is a dotted line, funerals are for both the “living” and the “deceased”.

  3. I agree with the comment about the further erosion of the sacredness of the human body in our culture. The Lord Jesus took human form, showing us that our bodies are sacred temples of the Holy Spirit. Then His body was risen from the dead, intact. We should do everything possible to respect the bodies God gave us, .which will also be raised from the dead when Jesus comes again. We should not treat our bodies like waste products.

  4. This is just goofy- To even consider whatever “Footprint ” we may or may not leave by cremation is ridiculous. IF we do that then we must start considering the “carbon footprint” of people coming to our funerals by driving their cars or maybe the cutting down of the forest to make paper for our obituary. How about the carbon emitted to light the church during the funeral? Maybe we shouldn’t burn candles at the funeral mass? See how absurd it becomes! Having said that I agree totally with Mary.

  5. Jim, of course all these things have to be taken into consideration! What planet are you living on? You must be living in the USA because those questions would be seen as obvious here in Europe – well, in the UK, Germany and Scandinavia, anyway.

    The fact that you’re aware of them suggests you *know* these are real issues but don’t want to face up to the implications.

    What would be “absurd” would be to ignore the warnings and consign our grandchildren to a planet that can’t sustain the numbers of humans on it – that would be considerably more disrespectful of human bodies, I suggest. Even if only 10% of scientists were right on this (and not 98%) it still would not be ‘ridiculous’ to be thinking about these things.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 753 other followers

%d bloggers like this: