I just finished reading a short news clip concerning burying the dead with respect and dignity.  I read nothing new in this short article save for the fact that the author was a clergyperson associated with the Unitarian-Universalist Church.  Having been a Unitarian myself for years I found it interesting that a clergy of this particular denomination would even give the issue of treating the dead with respect and dignity a glance, let alone compose a short epistle on the subject.  Bravo – I personally thought it a breakthrough of sorts to have a leader in an extremely liberal religious movement, where many of the Memorial Societies in the country are located and who historically have promoted cremation and memorial services, to take up the torch that the dead deserve respect and dignity.  This clergyperson focused her outline on an examination of the seven corporal acts of mercy, the seventh being “burial of the dead.”

It would be a miracle if this clergyperson’s thoughts took hold in the mainstream, but hope springs eternal and concerning the care of the dead I have discovered, at times much to my chagrin and at times much to my own humor, that almost anything goes these day.  In fact I had a conversation with a buddy of mine yesterday conceiving the idea that what we could do next with cremated remains is load them up in empty shot gun shells, blast them into the sky, and gather the casings and get them bronzed and engrave the name of the deceased on the outside – and sell them.  I then discovered that once again my imagination is not that sharp, for a farmer in Iowa is already offering this type of service to his community – does death creativity and invention have any limits? 

Will Durant, the great Columbia University philosopher, once remarked that “religion is the last subject the intellectual tackles,” and so right was Mr. Durant.  If you want controversy just start talking religion and surely you will find the controversy you are looking for.  

However let’s tackle religion a bit concerning this haunting 7^th Corporal Act of Mercy – burial of the dead.  From the outset let me assure my associates and friends that I am not anti-cremation, and I recognize the foolishness of taking such a position in this period of death care history (but as any student of history knows the popularity of cremation will change over time).

With that disclaimer said let me state a few facts regarding the historical traditions of the Judeo-Christian tradition in regards to this 7^th Corporal Act of Mercy.  Historically the Christian church and the Jewish temple have basically been against cremation – it’s true.  Now of course this stance against has changed in a big way, but the history has not changed.

For years I have been told by not just a few people that funerals are “pagan.”  It is abundantly clear that those who pontificate such remarks have no clue as to the relationship of paganism and cremation.  It was the pagans, not the Jews or Christians who embraced cremation.  Throughout the history of Judaism and for most of Christian history cremation has been an extremely rare practice, and the early Christian believed firmly that cremation was not a wise decision, based on the following:

• Pagan cultures used cremation as a method to deny the reality of the Christian conception of a bodily resurrection and hence used the burning of a dead human being to mock the Christians belief in a bodily resurrection.  We need to remember that the dualism of body and soul is not a Christian concept, but it instead emerged in the Greek philosophies of Plato and Aristotle.  
• The Bible clearly teaches that the human body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit and cremation was viewed as an extremely destructive process as compared to earth burial.
• Jesus was not cremated.
• The early Christian equated fire with hell.
• Cremation caused practical problems even in the early period of Christianity in determining foul play and the cause of death.
• Cremation was formally prohibited by Constantine the Great, the first world leader to embrace Christianity.

In time the issue of cremation became so frustrating to the Roman Catholic Church that Pope Leo the XIII issued Canon Law #1203 which reads:  “The bodies of the faithful must be buried; cremation is forbidden.”  Then #1203 goes on to prohibit all Roman Catholics from joining memorial and/or cremation societies whose purpose according to the church is to deny the bodily resurrection.

On May 8, 1963, Pope Paul VI removed Canon Law #1203, and recently I was informed of the cremation of a Monsignor in the Roman Catholic Church.  Things have indeed changed.

However this history, while possibly interesting to some, does not address the 7^th Corporal Act of Mercy which was not removed by any council of the church; the concept is alive, but maybe not well.  “Burial of the Dead” continues to impact our culture and life, and when one stops and seriously ponders this act of mercy some sobering thoughts come into mind.

First the 7^th Corporal Act of Mercy does not say “Cremation of the Dead.”  It clearly states “Burial of the Dead.”  I think however what this really is saying has not so much to do with the method of final disposition – I mean what you have in a grave over a long time, you have in a crematory chamber in a very short time.  The implications must be of a deeper more thoughtful nature.

I think this 7^th Corporal Act of Mercy is a clear call to those of us who decided to devote our lives to the ethical care of the dead – regardless the method of disposition.  It falls, in a big way, to every funeral profession, embalmer, cemeterian, everybody involved with our great profession, to think out, practice, and instill the ethic of Reverence for the Dead in the minds, hearts, and nay souls of everybody involved with this terribly important work.

To be sure the family unit is fractured, and sometimes the very next of kin are not in the least concerned about what happens to Dad’s body – but that does not automatically mean that you and I should abandon our level of care, abandon the 7^th Corporal Act of Mercy – just because we are standing in the shadows of a disunited, disgruntled, disharmonious family unit.  No our work, our mission, our calling supersedes the agenda of any wacky family.

I have only to alert my associates and friends to the horrors of necrophilia, to the atrocities of the German concentration camps where millions of dead people were treated in a most repulsive manner, to the anguish that a family and community feels when a dead body cannot be found, to prove that someone has to be charged with the responsibility of maintaining the 7^th Corporal Act of Mercy, and my dear friends that charge falls to you and me.  This is a good profession to be involved with.

However one last question lingers in my mind and I will simply poise the question without any attempts at answers or analysis.  The Christian perspective is of a true bodily resurrection; the scripture writers do not separate the body and the soul as the Greeks did.  No one talks much about this, and the last time I taught this stuff in a Sunday School class, people who had chosen cremation for others and also themselves got mighty defensive and did not much like the historical background.

Still, whether it is popular, or even in our contemporary culture, rational, if the bodily resurrection is accurate, if the ancient teaching is true,  then the question can easily be raised: What is going to happen to all the hundreds of thousands of people who have been cremated?  I have found very few people interested in exploring this with me. Anybody in blog land have a thought or two?  I would be mighty interested.

Anyway that’s one old undertaker’s opinion.

 TVB

Well, my friends, a new industry scandal has happened again and in a big way.  No pushing things under the rug with this mess.  No polite excuses this time.  No escaping the brutal facts concerning how the dead were treated, and the ultimate consequences of how the living are being treated-- those whose loved ones were, I guess, buried or something in Burr Oaks Cemetery.  Unethical treatment of the dead always results in unethical treatment of the living – they go hand in hand. 

Lawyers have already come out of the woodwork, and with good reason.  The people who it is alleged did these dastardly deeds should have to give an accurate and truthful account of what happened.   Right now it looks like great big fines and long prison terms might just be in the offing if what has been alleged happened.

The reader might honestly ask, “Just what is the problem?”  Search for news concerning the Burr Oaks Cemetery in the greater Chicago area and you will find the answers. Let me give a quick overview.  It appears that greed was alive and well on the grounds of Burr Oaks Cemetery.  In a nutshell, it is alleged, with some mighty impressive probabilities, that dead bodies were removed, not buried, shoved here and there or God knows what, and then the grave lots were sold again, and, it is alleged, again and sometime again.  It appears that a group of cemetery employees had devised a dandy scheme to make a quick buck by using and abusing dead people by reselling graves in which a dead body had already been buried.

Pretty sick stuff, but that is the alleged story.  The sheriff has now arrived on the scene and the group of ghouls is being handled by the legal system and the word felony is being bantered around in the district attorney’s office.  One congressman from the district has made a sincere and urgent public call for major burial reform, protection of graves, security, systems of monitoring. In other words, the congressman wants people to give the care of dead bodies some serious attention – now there is an interesting idea, ethically caring for the dead. The thought has never crossed Todd Van Beck’s mind before (that’s a joke HA, HA). Now, as in the Tri-State Crematory (remember that gem) debacle several years ago, everybody is standing up in indignation and anger.  I do feel for the victims.  Most of them, I am certain, entered into the burial experience with a heart filled with trust, and it now is alleged that that sacred trust has been brutally violated.

However as sympathetic as I am to the majority of victims in any case, I am not naïve to “victims.”  Too many times I have served as an expert witness in legal cases where at the time of the death of a family member the next of kin basically says to the cemeterian and undertaker,  “To hell with Dad, cremate him, cheapest thing possible, don’t bother me with the details.”  We all know this happens, but in polite society we just don’t talk about this much – but we all know it happens and is happening more and more as time goes by.  Then two years later when the disengaged next of kin discovers that Dad was not actually cremated but instead his dead body was dumped in a forest, then a miracle of reconciliation and concern happens, and the next of kin says to their brand new lawyer friend, “Dad was a saint, we loved him so much.  We are mentally falling apart over this.  How much do you think we can get?”  Of course, regardless of personal motivation, when the dead are not taken care of as instructed by the next of kin, that is a breach of contract pure and simple and something needs to be done.

For years, I have been totally confused concerning the glaring gap between people saying on the one hand, “Oh, when you’re dead, you’re dead, it doesn’t make any difference,” or “When I am dead I don’t really care what you do which me – hell, I’ll be dead and won’t know the difference,” or “When I am dead just roll me over in a ditch.”

Then when something like Burr Oaks happens in real life, when dead bodies are alleged to actually have been in effect rolled over in ditches, and the body in question is now their mother or father, or son or daughter, or husband or wife, or brother or sister, or cousin, or simply a friend or just any human being who lived life and has had their dead body is treated in such a despicable manner – then the shouts and cries come that such treatment of the dead is a moral abomination and should never happen again. But it does happen again, and again, and again.

So why does something like Burr Oaks happen?  I mean, folks, they even desecrated Emmitt Till’s old casket.  Could the culprits just be stupid?  Mr. Till is possibly the most famous person buried on the Burr Oaks grounds, and his former casket was just put in an old garage and was not even closed.  Were they so greedy, so out to lunch, so slow to the switch that they possibly thought that abusing Emmitt Till’s original casket, which was to be used at a later date in a permanent memorial, would not be found out? That the result would not be the community going “nuts” and a possible prison sentence?  Obviously these cemetery ghouls (if they did what is alleged, that is what they are) did not soberly weigh the community and/or legal response to the discovery of such activities.

They are finding out now, but now it is much too late, as of course it was much too late at Tri-State Crematory.  It seems that so much in life comes to our attention much too late.  Are those not haunting words: "too late."?  Some of most grievous and disastrous happenings in recorded history and on the face of the earth have occurred simply because it was “much too late.”

So why does something like Burr Oaks happen?  We still have not yet answered the question.

I have one thought concerning why this type of irreverence for the dead, this violation of a basic human ethic which proclaims the right of the dead to rest in peace, stems not from the stupid, greedy people who get caught, but comes in part from the basic attitude of apathy and distance our culture has created putting a wall between the living and the dead.  People, many people, are totally removed from such moral issues as ethical care of the dead – is it just not a sexy, popular subject.  Apathy on the part of the regular members of the community concerning the safe and ethical care of the dead does in a true way open to door for the stupid and greedy to abuse the silent world of the cemetery.

In the “good old days," when families and communities regularly visited the graves of their loved ones and even went so far as to tend to the graves themselves, when there was a constant living visible presence of people – many people – on the grounds of cemeteries, incidences of such abomination to the dead were basically unheard of.  Certainly in the 1850s grave-robbing occurred, but with the burial vault that creepy activity was brought to an abrupt halt.  Also, I am not referring to the ever present incidences of cemetery vandalism where a group of teen-agers or weird adult cults dare each other to jump the cemetery walls and behave recklessly and/or participate in odd and strange rituals.

The group of alleged creeps at Burr Oaks obviously went undetected for some time with disastrous results, and heads will no doubt roll. How could this have happened? The state regulatory boards cannot possibly monitor the activities of every cemetery and funeral home in the United States – it is an impossible job, always has been and always will be. However, if each member of every community in this country got reconnected with the dead, with their own dead, and made certain that things were OK at grandpa’s burial site, even by asking a friend, if you live out of town, to stop by any take a look at “Pop's” grave, I believe things would be much different.  I know that sounds so simple, but I truly believe that a greater presence of the regular members of any community on the grounds of any cemetery would make a difference.

My sainted grandmother had a great saying, “An untended grave is a shameful thing,” and you know she was not talking about perpetual care, as I am certain my grandmother did not even know what perpetual care was.   She was talking about every human being giving attention to graves. Attention is where the words “attend or tend” originated.

When I drive by a cemetery and see tens, sometimes hundreds of people musing and walking around a cemetery looking at graves, it does my heart good.  It is a form of community cemetery security system no doubt.  When I drive by a cemetery and see no one on the grounds I worry, and I have worried about this human absence on cemetery grounds long before Burr Oaks.  An unvisited cemetery is just more vulnerable than one which welcomes and encourages and plans for the locals to come in and commiserate with the living and the dead.  In fact I believe it is the only place on earth where such unique commiserations can take place, and take place forever, for a cemetery is usually around for a long, long time.

I suspect privately that the folks at Burr Oaks did not welcome visitors on the grounds with a warm cordial handshake and say, “Spend all the time you need here, we are glad you visited.”  It would not surprise me to learn that with all that has been alleged, the management and staff and Burr Oaks probably found visitors, the regular members of the community, a nuisance.

Of course the most secure way to protect a dead body is to cremate it and scatter the remains to the wind so absolutely no one on earth knows where the body is.  This way it is quick, simple, safe – powerful motivators these days with today’s consumers. I wonder how well this, quick, simple and safe method of caring for the dead will work for cemeteries which in these times really, really need to sell graves to survive and prosper.  In a real perverted and sick way it appears that Burr Oaks really, really needed to sell graves, but what a bizarre and sick way to do it.  I really think there are better ways – don’t you?

Sadly I fear in the end everybody connected with death care will pay a price for the allegations of what happened at a place called Burr Oaks.

Here is an example of the price that just might be in the offing for the future of some cemetery and/or funeral home in the not too distant future.  Might it be that the outcome of the allegations about Burr Oaks will not be improved management of cemeteries, or improved community monitoring and visitation of cemeteries, or improved state regulations overseeing cemeteries, but instead something much more invisible, but yet extremely powerful such as this:  Archie Bunker in Tiny Rock, Iowa, (this story is national news everywhere) looks at his wife Edith after reading about Burr Oaks. With a wave of his hand, he simply says these chilling words, “Hell with it. Edith, they are not going to steal my body and resell my grave over and over again, ya just can trust people anymore. Honey, just cremate me, scatter my ashes over the Tiny Rock River, say a prayer and be done with it.  Do you understand me?”

And Edith responds, “Yes honey, I understand, anything you want.”

Of course as usual I am probably just overreacting, Burr Oaks will pass and the imaginary conversation in between Edith and Archie in Tiny Rock, Iowa, is pure fantasy and speculation.  I do this sort of thing all the time, and remember, my friends, Todd Van Beck is usually wrong. 

Anyway that is one old undertaker’s opinion.

A lot of characters have been killed off in seasons 1-4, and no doubt more will die in seasons 5 and 6. As always when I watch a TV show or a movie, I notice cemetery/funeral scenes. Of course there aren't any funeral homes or official cemeteries on the island, at least none that we've seen. But there have been plenty of scenes showing people dealing with the aftermath of death.

STOP if you haven't watched all four seasons: MANY SPOILERS AHEAD! I'm going by memory here, so this may not be a complete list--feel free to add to it:

* After they've been on the beach a couple of days and wild boars have entered the fusilage foraging for food, Jack decides the decomposing bodies must be burned. Sayid, who is Iraqi and later confirmed as being Muslim, objects to imposing cremation on people who might not have wished to be cremated. (The writers assume viewers will know why he objects--or will look it up.) Dr. Jack says they can't bury all those people deep enough to keep the boars from digging up the bodies, so cremation it is. Claire gathers their belongings and uses the information she gleans to lead a service, where the remaining passengers do their best to say something to eulogize each of the deceased.

* Boone is buried with a service, at which Sayid speaks. Boone's stepsister, Shannon, has a hard time dealing with her grief. When they take refuge in the caves, she insists on dragging Boone's luggage with her and breaks down crying. Sayid understands and helps her with the luggage rather than telling her to leave it behind. Later Sun tries to comfort Shannon, telling her that Boone died bravely.

* When Shannon is killed, Sayid digs the grave himself, placing her by her brother. Another service is held; Sayid again speaks.

* Paralyzed by spider venom into a state mimicking death, Nikki & Paulo are buried alive. The less said about the infamous Nikki & Paulo story arc, the better!

* Libby and Ana Lucia are buried, with a service, after being murdered. Hurley, who was sweet on Libby, is later seen by her grave, talking to her.

* Jack was on Oceanic 815 because his mother asked him to go to Australia to bring his father's body back to the US. There's a scene where an Aussie at the ticket counter is telling him he doesn't have the necessary paperwork from a funeral home to have the casket put on the plane, and he manages to talk her into accepting him and the casket. Hmmm, that seems unlikely in these post-9/11 days! Wonder what went through that ticket agent's mind when the plane was lost?!

* One of the red herrings the writers throw in to keep Jeremy Bentham's identity a mystery until the last possible minute is the funeral home where his body is being held. The fact that the funeral director is black and the funeral home seems to be in a black section of the city are obviously designed to feed the fan theory that Bentham is Michael.

* After the Oceanic 6 return home, the service for Jack's father is finally held, though the casketed body he talked onto the plane is of course not on hand. Jack eulogies his father, with whom he had a difficult relationship, in a touching way, and says he loved him.

* Hurley visits Sun in Korea to see her baby. They then go to the cemetery together and visit Jin's grave, where Sun talks to Jin and "shows" him his daughter.

* We see Sayid with others carrying a coffin as part of a funeral procession in the Middle East. It turns out Nadia has been killed and he has returned to Tikrit to bury her.

* There's a lot of debate about whether Ben/The Others are in fact "the good guys," as Ben claims. The fact that Ben killed his father and then left his body in the van, not even bothering to bury him (his body falls apart when the survivors find the van and try to get it running), makes him seem pretty bad to me.

Will there be any time for scenes showing reverent treatment of the dead and/or dealing with grief in Seasons 5 & 6? The previews make the action in Season 5 look more frantic than ever, and we learned at the end of Season 4 that "everyone" died because Jack and the others left the island. During Season 4, there was no service for much-loved Claire, who appears to have died while everyone was on the move somewhere. Ditto Charlie, at the end of Season 3. (Of course there were no bodies in those cases.) Stay tuned ...