BURIAL
n
BURIAL
For the public ecclesiastical history of Burgundy
see articles Besancon, DlJON, Lyons. Macon. Also
Antoine Millc. " Abregej chronologique de 1'histoire
ecclesiastique civile et litteraire de Bourgogne, depuis
I'eTablissemenl des Bourguignons dans les Gaules
jusqu'a I'annee 1772" (Dijon, 1771-73); and the his-
torie ol various religious orders established in Bur-
gundy, e. g. J. 1 ■'nilere, "Narration historique et
topographique des couvents de l'ordre de St-Francois
el de Ste-Claire eriges en la province anciennement
appelee de Bourgogne", etc. (Lyons, 1619); Lavi-
rotte, "Memoire statistique sur les eTablissements des
Templiers et des Hospitallers de St-Jean de Jerusalem
en Bourgogne" (Paris, 1S.53); "Peferinages en Bour-
gogne" in "Congres scient. France" (Autun, L876
78), II. 90; Quantin, "Memoire sur ['influence des
monasteres des ordresde St-Benotl el de Ctteaux en
Bourgogne", in same collection (Auxerre L858-59),
II, 39(1; .1. Simonnet, "Le clerg4 en Bourgogne"
(XIV, XV siecles) in "Mem de I V.d. de Dijon"
(1866), XIII. 21-143; ('. Seignobos, "Le regime
feodal en Bourgogne jusqu'en 1360, etude sur la
soci6t£ et les institutions d'une province franchise
au moyen-age", etc. (Paris, 1881).
ECERTTN Di 1.1 [TENBiOVE, I ' ' >8 a Ih ::■:! <ir,
de Belgique sous la domis de Bourgogne (Brussels,
■ ' re. i; I'm t'hmnique, ■■■I Kervyn de I.ettkn-
hove (Brussels, 1863-66); de la Mai M&moires, ed.
Beaune im' d'Arbaumont (Paris, L883-88); Molinet,
I'uns 1SJ7 _'s : l'liii.n.pEDE Comixes
Memoires, •■ I dj Mandrot ' l\ans, 1901-03); De Barante,
Bourgognedt la <is (Paris, 1824-
26), republished several nines in Belgium; Fiikiikkicij, Essai
Syr Ir r,',lr /'nlitnfw ,t . HourgOgru 'Inns It
Bas- (Ghent, Isr.v. Piriknnk. Hint.,!, ll,l„>, r „- HiOTi. Ill: VON l.Miii h. Jal.nlin'i r,<r: H,ii/rm nnd i/u, Ztit (lMitll; Kirk. H,st.,r : . Bold, llul., V •!..: lis ;
Tovtev, (Shail, ■ I ,'./ Ugue '/<■ Constance I 1902).
1 "'i>ii itiiin Krimi.
Burial, CHRISTIAN, the interment of a deceased
person with ecclesiastical rites in consecrated ground.
Tin' Jews and most of the nations of antiquity buried their dead. Amongst the ('.reeks ami Romans both cremation and interment were practised indifferently. That the early Christians from the beginning used only burial seeiiis certain. This conclusion may be inferred not only From negative arguments but from tin direct testimony of Tertullian, "De Corona" (P, I... II. :i_>, 795; ci. Minuciua Felix, "Octavius", xi in P. I... Ill, 266), and from the stress laid upon the analogy between the resurrection of the body and the Resurrection of Christ (I Cor . \v. -12; ef. Ter- tullian. "De Anima". lv; Augustine, "De civitate Dei", I, xiii). In the light of this same dogma of the resurrection of the body as well as of Jewish tradition (ef, To!>.. i. 21 ; xii. 12; Ecclus., xxxviii. Hi; II Made, xii. 39), it w easy to understand how the interment of the mortal remains of the Christian dead has always been regarded as an act of religious import and has been surrounded at all times w ith some measure of re- ligious ceremonial. The motives of Christian burial will be more fully treated in the article CREMATION.
\- i" the latter practice, it will be sufficient to say
herc> that, while involving no necessary contradiction article of faith, it is opposed alike to the law ot the Church and to the usages of antiquity. In de- fense of the Church's recent prohibitions, it may be urged that the revival of cremation in modern times prai tice been prompted less by considerations of improved hygiene or psychological sentiment than by avowed materialism and opposition to Catholic teaching. The Law oi mi Church Regarding Burial. —
\i < i irding to the canon law every man is free to eii
lor himself the burial ground in which he wishe interred. It is not necessary that this choice should be formally registered in his will. Any reasonable
legal proof is sufficient as evidence of his wishes in the matter, and it has been decided th it the testimony of one witness, for example his confessor, may In- ac-
cepted, if there be no suspicion of interested motives.
(S. C. Cmieilii, 21 March, 1871, Lex, 189.) Where no
wish has been expressed it will be assumed that the
interment is to take place in any vault or burial place
winch may have belonged to the deceased or his
family, and failing this the remains should be buried
in the cemetery of the parish in which the deceased
had his domicile or quasi-domicile. Certain excep-
tions, however, are recognized in the case of cardinals,
bishops, canons, etc. Formerly monastic and other
churches claimed and enjoyed under certain condi-
tions the privilege of interring notable benefactors
within their precincts. It may be said that no such
privilege is now recognized as a matter of right to the
detriment of the claim of the parish. If a man die in
a parish which is not, his own, the canon law pre-
scribes that the body should be conveyed to his own
parish for interment if this is reasonably possible, but
the parish priest of the place where he died may claim
the right of attending the corpse to the place of burial.
In fine, the principle is recognized that it belongs to
tin parish priest to bury his own parishioners. The
canon law recognizes for regular orders the right to be
buried in the cemetery of their own monastery (Sag-
muller, 453; L. Wagner in "Archiv f. kath. Kirchcn-
recht ". 1873, XXXIX, 385; Kohn, ibid., XL, 329).
Originally, as burial was a spiritual function, it was laid down that no fee could be exacted for this with- out simony (Decretum Gratiani, xiii, q. ii; e. viii, ix; Extrav, de sim., V, 3). But the custom of making gifts to the Church, partly as an acknowledgment of the trouble taken by the clergy, partly for the bene- fit of the soul of the departed, gradually became gen- eral, and such offerings were recognized in time as jiirn stolee which went to the personal support of the parish priest or his curates. It was, however, dis- tinctly insisted upon that the carrying out of the riles of the Church should not be made conditional upon the payment of the tee being made beforehand, though the parish priest could recover such fee after- wards by process of law in case it were withheld. Moreover in the case of the very poor he is bound to bury them gratuitously. If a parishioner elected to be buried outside his own parish, a certain proportion, generally a fourth part, of the fee paid or the gifts that might be made in behalf of the deceased on oc- casion of the burial was to go to the priest of his own parish. Where an old custom existed, the contin- uance of (lie payment of this fourth part under cer- tain conditions was recognized by the Council of Trent (Soss. XXV, De ret , c. xiii). Nowadays the princi- ple is still maintained, but generally the payment to the proprivs parochus takes the form of the fourth part of a definite burial-ice which is determined ac- cording to some fixed tariff (S. C. Ep. et Reg., 19 Jan- uary. 1866; S. C. Cone, Hi February, 1889),and which may be exacted by the parish priest for every burial which takes place in his district. He has, however, no right to any compensation if a non-parishioner dies and is taken back to his own parish for burial, nor again when one of his own parishioners dies away from home and has to be buried in the place of his denii.se.
Only baptized persons have a claim to Christian burial and the riles of the Church cannot lawfully be performed over those who are not. baptized. More- Over no strict claim can be allowed in the case of those persons who have not lived in communion with the
Church, according to the maxim which comes down from the time of Pope Leo the (beat (448) "quibus viventibus nun communicavimus mortuis communi-
e ire eii possum us" (i. e. we cannot hold communion in death with those who in life were not in communion with us). It has further been recognized asa principle
that the last rites of the ( 'liurch constitute a mark of respect which is not to be show n to those who in their
lives have proved themselves unworthy of it. In this
