Is Nothing Sacred? Apparently Not. Reflecting on Another Absurdity in the News

We live in a culture where, increasingly, any sense of the sacred is being lost. The thought that something could be sacred, special, holy, or somehow “off-limits” is bewildering to many. Indeed many secularists consider those who do see some things as sacred, to be stuffy and somehow arrogant. There are many in our culture who defend the rights of others to burn the flag, ridicule religious symbols (e.g. the cross submerged in urine some years back in a noted “art” museum), and even applaud when, a couple years back, homosexual activists desecrated the Body of Christ by stomping on hosts.

These of course are extreme examples. But there is also the more general loss of reverence in our culture which causes many to say “What’s so wrong with that?” when presented with some pretty questionable and shocking things. Consider the following example:

LONDON — Dead bodies will be burned to heat a swimming pool in the U.K. — and the British government is considering adopting the idea across the country.

Redditch Borough Council is set to become the first local government body in England to use heat from a crematorium to warm a pool this spring, the newspaper reported.

Senior lawmaker Sir George Young, the leader of the House of Commons, told The Telegraph newspaper that he would “die a happier man” if he could arrange for his cremation to provide heat for swimmers.

The Telegraph said the incinerators used to burn bodies reach temperatures of 1,472 degrees Fahrenheit and cited estimates that using the waste heat from the Redditch crematorium could save more than $22,000 per year.

Carole Gandy, the leader of Redditch Borough Council…”I do recognise some people might not like it, but if they don’t, they don’t have to use our crematorium.”

Durham Crematorium, in northern England, was thinking about fitting turbines to its burners in order to create electricity that could potentially power 1,500 televisions. [1]

Many in our increasingly secular culture will applaud such a move. Materialists and secularists tend to be utilitarian, pragmatists. “Why waste the heat…..Isn’t using the dead a way to honor them?……This will help reduce the carbon footprint……It will reduce greenhouse gases…..etc.” Yes, all very coldly practical from a materialist, pragmatist point of view.

But it also demonstrates a almost complete loss of any notion that some things, in this case the human body, are sacred and should not simply be used for any mundane purpose. Just because something is considered useful does not mean it should be done. There are other matters to be considered. In this case, what needs to be considered is that the human body is sacred, and not to be considered as fuel for a power plant.

Let’s consider what is meant by using the term “sacred.” “Sacred” refers to something or someone who has been set apart from ordinary use or understanding. Consider the chalice used in holy Mass. It is a sacred vessel, it is set apart for one purpose, to hold the Precious Blood of Christ. It would be wholly inappropriate for a priest to take this sacred vessel over to the rectory and use it in an ordinary meal, to serve wine or champagne or beer from it, or to use it as an ornament on the rectory dinner table. No, the chalice is set apart for something far more special than ordinary use.  It is set apart, it is “sacred,” it is distinctively special, and has a dignity above any other ordinary glass or vessel.

The human body is also sacred. It is not to be equated with the bodies of animals, and surely it should not be equated with coal or any fuel for fire in a power plant. Human remains are to be treated with honor, given proper disposition and burial. The human body is set apart from ordinary things, for in it and through it, an immortal human person, known by God from all eternity has existed. The human body is not a log, it is not a lump of coal, it is not to be equated with anything ordinary, it is sacred. And even in those cases where human bodies are “donated to science” for the holy purpose of advancing medicine and understanding the of the body, the body is to be treated with respect and the final remains interred.

I realize that many today will sniff at such a notion. I expect to hear from some of them here. But in making their comments, they will make my point, which is that very little, indeed next to nothing, is considered sacred anymore. This is one of the unholy fruits of secularization: next to nothing is sacred. Almost nothing and no one has special dignity. Young people, especially those under thirty, have lived in a world almost wholly devoid of any notion of the sacred.

And to those egalitarians who want to say no one and nothing should have special dignity, the fact is when everything is called sacred, nothing is sacred, when everything is special, nothing is special. The fact is, distinctions are necessary in life, and it has been a human instinct to appreciate that some things are special, some things are sacred, some things are set apart for special honor, reverence and respect.

And thus, having abandoned this notion, we have the absurd result depicted above that human bodies, sacred icons and vessels of human dignity, are being burned for fuel to heat a pool and run televisions. It is a sad and dreary world we are passing on. Long gone are the days when, even in the tragic and un-sacred horror of war, troops would see that the dead, even the bodies of their enemies, were reverently buried. Honor is departing our world.

Is nothing sacred? Apparently not.

Cardinal Wuerl also ponders the loss in the sense of the sacred at his blog. Read his reflections here: Cardinal’s Blog on American Values

60 Replies to “Is Nothing Sacred? Apparently Not. Reflecting on Another Absurdity in the News”

  1. Gives fresh meaning to “Once you were no people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” [1 Peter 2:10, RSV Holy Bible]

    Is the loss of the sense of sacredness a sign of a people becoming “no people” again?

    I think that we will be safe and “God’s people” inside the Catholic Church. Let us cling tightly within Her who is held tightly by Her Lord.

  2. I’m not really under the impression that the human body is intrinsically sacred. It is intelligently designed, the pinnacle of the physical world and can be willingly consecrated to the Father then put to holy use making it sacred, but I’m not under the impression that it is sacred on its own. The biggest reason why I believe this is because of the perversion of sin. It’s difficult for me to call something holy when I see so many people on a regular basis using their natural abilities for destructive means. Also, since the condemned will be handed immortal bodies at the final resurrection, but only to be thrown into the abyss, I don’t believe the body is intrinsically sacred unless the individual chooses to follow Jesus. Certainly the Sacraments, Sacred Scripture and the prayers of the Church are intrinsically sacred.

    1. I wonder if you are aware that speak almost as a pure gnostic dualist? That the body can be used for sin does not make it any less sacred than if I were to bludgeon you using a chalice would make it less sacred.

      1. How is a chalice intrinsically sacred? Blessed or not blessed it’s a piece of constructed metal. Jesus’ blood shed for the forgiveness of sins is undoubtedly intrinsically sacred. A “sacred” chalice is not going to transform me. If the fallen body is used for sin because the soul inhabiting it is wicked or ignorant of God then it (the fallen body) is not intrinsically sacred. A person can set his or her body aside for the Father to make it sacred (daily Mass, Divine Office, daily Rosary, conformity to the Gospel) but I fail to see how the fallen body is intrinsically sacred. Undoubtedly the resurrected body of the righteous is intrinsically sacred, and righteous soul that inhibits it is holy. If someone can explain to me how the fallen body is intrinsically sacred then I’ll believe that it’s sacred. Until then I’ll believe what I currently believe.

        1. Your response makes my point exactly, you speak as a perfect modern and the thinking you manifest is direct variance with 5000 years of the Judeo Christian heritage. In effect you argue that nothing is sacred, your use of the word “intrinsic” notwithstanding

          1. This is what I believe is sacred: the seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church, the Divine Office, the holy Rosary and Sacred Scripture approved for use from the Catholic Church. When I think of something being sacred I think of it as literally coming from the hand of the Father or from Heaven, impossible to lead into sin and having the power to transform and make holy. Everything that has been given to us through Holy Mother Church is undoubtedly sacred (particularly the Sacraments, Sacred Scripture, prayers from the Church). Everything else has yet to be made holy (particularly our immortal souls) through what has been given to us through Holy Mother Church then put to holy use (our bodies, language, objects). I don’t see how something that doesn’t start off from the beginning being sacred and impossible to corrupt can be considered sacred.

          2. I think I should say that I believe that our immortal souls and the human body have a special integrity greater than everything else in the physical world, but I fail to see how they are always sacred no matter what.

        2. Who made the human body, Ikedi? Who made the body of even one who sins?

          Can that maker of the body make anything that is not sacred? Can that maker make anything that is less than good, that has a measure of evil in it?

          1. I don’t interpret something that doesn’t make others holy as being sacred; therefore I perceive only the seven Sacraments, Sacred Scripture, the Divine Office and the Holy Rosary as being sacred.

          2. Desecration of human remains is a terrible crime in most if not all cultures. Cultures that practiced human sacrifice or cannibalism, or that desecrated the bodies of slain enemies, did/do so precisely because most people find it horrific to desecrate human remains. That is why “Body Worlds” exhibits are abominations. There is something extremely morbid about the bizarre fixation our culture has with “de-sacrilizing” everything. I am glad you wrote this piece, thank you.

          3. The problem with this line of argument is that it could be used to assert that all of nature is sacred. That may indeed be true, to a limited extent, but it can lead to misunderstandings, particularly in a culture that is flirting with (a particularly silly kind of) paganism.

            The “sacredness of all nature” is of a very low order. Moses was told to take off his shoes in the presence of the Burning Bush, but not in other places. Likewise, holy water is “holy” in comparison to common water.

        3. Ikedi, I’d like to offer another example. Consider baptismal water. We regard it is intrinsically sacred due to its intended holy purpose. This holy water that has been blessed for baptism remains sacred whether it is ever actually used to baptize, or not. The same may be said of the chalice designated to hold the blood of Christ. The chalice is intrinsically sacred because it has been specially designated in union with a holy purpose.

          Importantly, please consider this: if you chose to casually wash dirt off your hands in a baptismal font, does your action invalidate the sacredness of the water? No. It would be a profane act to do this, but, you as an individual are not capable of destroying the sacredness of the water through your actions. The water doesn’t get its sacredness from you, it has its sacredness intrinsically in union with its holy purpose.

          As a person who has free will, you are capable of choosing to act counter to the holy purposes for which your body is intended. But, it is not you who has the power to designate your body as holy or to destroy this designation through your actions. God alone has the power to make this designation. And, He designated our bodies to be in union with His holy purpose, so they are sacred and are rightly treated as intrinsically sacred.

          1. If our body was intrinsically sacred it be sanctifying us as we speak. Only the Sacraments, the Gospel and the prayers of the Church have that power. We have the power to designate our body as holy or as an abomination. Those who chose to conform themselves to the Gospel and receive the transformative power provided for us through the Sacraments and prayers of the Church will be made holy. Those who reject the Gospel and the Sacraments and prayers of the Church will fall into an abyss of wickedness. The Word has been spoken and the gifts have been laid before us. Those who embrace it throughout their life will have that decision permanently ratified in Judgement. Those who definitively reject it will have that decision permanently ratified in Judgement.

          2. To be sure, the human body is not the *source* of grace. Grace is a spiritual gift from God that is freely given. But, I wish to point out that God chooses to impart grace for the ultimate salvation of the whole person, not just the salvation of our souls. We as Catholics affirm the resurrection of the body, not just the salvation of souls as separate from the body.

            Through Divine Revelation, God teaches us that at the heart of humanity is a mysterious, permanent fusion between spiritual and material. God has sanctified everyday things such as bread and wine as part of His good plan, elevating them from their status as “common” to a purpose that is sacred. The Eucharist IS God, the Son of Man, physically and spiritually revealed as One unified being, and we are called to physically and spiritually receive Him. Our whole person is called to receive His whole person. There is to be no division, but instead, total communion: flesh and spirit, man and God, all of God’s children, united in this single act.

            I agree with you that God did create the whole material world in a kind of intelligent “grand design,” to use a term popular among scientists. But, God fused the soul permanently with the human body as part of His “good” plan. What God has put together, we must not tear apart as we try to define a person. To consider the body as though it is mere material, that is no different from any other material, is to disrespect the purpose of the human body that God created and chose to specially sanctify. Our bodies may have been raised from the dust, but they were fused with an eternal soul and given access to eternal life by Christ’s resurrection. They are properly considered sacred, consistent with their designation for a holy purpose: namely, intimate participation of the whole human person in God’s goodness. Why would God choose to save the whole person, body and soul, if the body itself is not worthy of some special consideration?

            I think the root of this dispute is whether you think of the human person as dualistic, or as one unified being. That’s a very old argument. You can research the Church’s formal responses to gnosticism or dualism if you’re interested in thinking through this in more rigorous philosophical detail. I’m just a lay person who happens to be scientifically trained and aware of the modern science of origins. This dualism argument comes up all the time among religiously-inclined scientists. It’s got subtle untruths embedded in it that seem rational but are actually inconsistent with core aspects of Divine Revelation.

        4. The body is sacred in that it is an intrinsic part of a person (a) who was created in the image of God, (b) who is a blood relative (however distant) of God the Son, (c) for whom God the Son suffered, died, and rose again, and (d) whom God has called to be in fellowship with him.

          So the body may be said to be sacred based on what God has done, not on what the individual person has done.

          1. The soul, being immaterial, was created in the image of God. The body is a product of His intelligent design meant to be put to holy use. Blood relation to Jesus is utterly irrelevant. Those who do the Father’s will are related to Him. The body isn’t sacred since it does not sanctify the soul. I don’t see how something that doesn’t sanctify can be considered sacred.

          2. I believe the body is to be made holy then put to holy use, but no one knows how to do this unless they turn to the Sacraments, Sacred Scripture and the prayers of the Church.

          3. The Incarnation is irrelevant? Interesting. This has never been the Teaching of the Church. “That which was not assumed is not healed.” — St. Gregory of Nazianzus

            The HUMAN PERSON is created in the image of God, not just the soul. If you go back to the Genesis account, Adam is created in the image of God — not just the Breath of Life that was put into Adam. The body is an intrinsic part of a human being. We will have our own bodies back in the end, either in the New Jerusalem or in the Lake of Fire.

    2. I would like to preemptively state that in my first post after Msgr. I said the body isn’t sacred, it can be made sacred and that the resurrected body is sacred, but I begin to deviate from referring to them as sacred and begin using the word holy instead. As I continue typing the Father continues to make me see that the only things that are sacred are those that come from Heaven and sanctify. Because of this I retract my statement and say that anything other than Sacred Scripture, the Sacraments, the Divine Office, the Holy Rosary and other things that come from Holy Mother Church are certainly not sacred. The body and everything else is to be put to holy use while the soul is to be made holy through what is sacred.

  3. This time, your question “is nothing to be sacred” can be answered by the following.

    It is one of the pillars of “Humanism” (Humanism is Modern Satanism) that “nothing is to be holy.”
    It was one of their principles in their decleration “Humanist Manifesto 1” from 1933, and was also re-stated in “Humanist Manifesto 2” from 1973.

    And in all my studies of the ungodly, their “Humanist Manifesto 1 & 2” is the smoothest piece of Satanism I have ever seen.

    Layers upon layers of seductive words and lies, promoting ungodliness and rebellion against God, but all coated in a seemingly loving and kind way.

    As though leading the greater part of mankind straight to the eternities of Hell was an act of love.

    The strategy is ofcourse to get people to break the covenant, and in particular the 1. commandment.
    Since that is the most important one and all others are derived from it.

    Satan cannot stand people worshipping God, and he is good at his job of leading people into Hell.
    But I shall not bother you with the details of the great battle now. As you said “you know how it ends.”

    The answer to your question is anyway this:

    The Satanist / Humanists have decleared their intention to desecrate all they can desecrate in their “Humanist Manifesto 1” Article 7. Article 7 concludes with the following sentence:

    “The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.”

    So there.

    You may read the entire manifesto for yourself if you please.
    I hereby enclose the link to it for your conveniance, allthough I would advice against reading it while eating.

    It is perverse and sickening to it`s core, but it is nonetheless what they aim for 24/7.

    Here:

    http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I

  4. this article has touched me deeply. I recently worked with a group of young people and I found my self talking a lot about sacramental objects and sacramental ‘space’. I can remember as I child that certain places in the Church building were off limits to the lay faithful. Not so today. Free access comes at a price. Children imitate what they see, not what you say. Places like the santuary, the sacristy, the alter, and yes even the naive have lost there sacredness. Let us then now pray that our Lord Jesus will give us a new mind and respect for those thing that are holy and sacred. Yes to be sure the human body but also those places and things that we deem sacred. Amen.

  5. Durham Crematorium, in northern England, was thinking about fitting turbines to its burners in order to create electricity that could potentially power 1,500 televisions

    The human body sacred?

    Ha. Not in the Matrix. Here in the Matrix, we are little more than human batteries, good only for producing electricity and heat. Soon, no doubt, the Soylent Company will come and find a few other uses for us.

  6. I suppose it’s an “improvement” on being loaded into shotgun shells or made into jewelry. 😕

  7. This cuts to the heart of human dignity: that humans are made in the image and likeness of God; that God the Son took on human nature; and that He paid such a price to redeem them. This means that human beings are to be treated with a certain respect even when they are the antithesis of holiness in what they do; they retain some of the image of God in what they ARE, even if they do not retain His likeness in what they DO. That’s why even when it is necessary to execute someone for what he has done, it should be a solemn ritual, neither an obscene festival of blood (as it was too often in the past) nor a clinical procedure adapted from the euthanasia of sick animals (as it is likely to be today).

  8. At the risk of re-stating the obvious, the human body and human life stopped being sacred to most people when we started tearing children apart or burning them to death for the crime of existing. Now secular humanists in Scanadavia are stating that killing an unwanted newborn after birth is simply a “very late abortion” and that “it” has no moral or legal standing.

    Nothing IS sacred to these people, except their own certainty in their moral high ground in not being “repressed” by superstition. God have mercy on their souls…

    1. Any murder of a human is an abortion.
      That is because abortion is murder, and murder is abortion.

      There is no such thing as “simply” an abortion.
      A murder is a murder. Whenever and whereever it takes place.

      The lie of abortion is that it is better to kill someone while they are young.
      It is not.

      The average human life expectancy is 67.2 years.
      If you kill someone when they are 0,2 years old, as is common with abortion, you have on average stolen 67 years of their life.

      If you kill someone at the age of 67, you have on average stolen 0,2 years of their life.
      If you kill someone at the age of 150 you may have stolen a day or two.

      But the younger they are, the worse the crime.
      And an abortion is the worst crime you can commit as you would have stolen the persons entire life.

      This is why men aboard the Titanic offered their lives and said “women and children first”
      Because children had their whole life ahead of them, and women were needed to take care of them.

      So any murder is a very late abortion. And any abortion is a murder.
      There is just no such thing as “simply” an abortion as you try to imply.

  9. What hope is there for the dead when the living unborn are killed to be used to develop medicines? The elderly and severely handicapped logically will be next to be denied life, as their “quality of life” won’t warrant the expense of healthcare. Utilitarianism is a god that demands human sacrifice.

  10. I’m not totally clear about the issue here. The headline makes it seem like they are burning bodies “in order to” heat a swimming pool, but the article doesn’t suggest that bodies are being treated disrespectfully–these are people who wanted to be cremated and the heat produced by that process is being saved and reused. Is there any indication that this is causing peoples actual remains to be treated disrespectfully?

    1. If people were being burned for that purpose it would surely be wrong, but if they are being cremated and interred with respect, does it matter what happens to the residual heat from the fire (as long as it is clearly a secondary or tertiary consideration)? Cremation takes a great deal of energy–is it always “cold and pragmatic” to think about caring for the environment which God has given us to live in? Is it that a swimming pool seems too mundane a purpose, or would it be wrong to use the heat for any purpose?
      If I were to kill a person to harvest their organs it would be clearly wrong (cold and pragmatic)but if they die naturally may I “use” their organs to help others (if the person had consented to be an organ donor)?

      1. The death of a human is an time of sorrow.
        The cremation is a time of mourning.

        It is a time of rememberance for the ones left behind.
        It is not a time of celebration, and the body of the dead are not to be played around with.

        The use of the dead are sickening.
        Wether they are used for fuel, ashtrays or lampshades.

        It is a way of demonstrating disrespect for the dead, it is a way to make a mockery of the funeral and it is spitting at the dignity of death.

        The use of the dead is Taboo. It is Forbidden.
        You shall not profit from the death of your brethren.

        Nor shall you become accustomed to the thought of it.
        It is a path that is to be shunned.

        The human body is a vessel for the soul. And wether that soul is going to Heaven or Hell it is not for mankind to make light of his death.

        The skin of your fellow man are not to be used for clothing.
        Nor his flesh for food.
        Nor his body for fuel.

        A line has been crossed in England.
        A line has been crossed in England.

        1. Gabriel,
          None of the things you are dramatically condemning are mentioned in the article. A lot of hyperbole there, but it doesn’t really get to the issue. All of the comments I have read fail address the article itself and seem to leap off into issues of abortion, euthanasia, or how people show disrespect by talking in Church. If the issue in the article is comparable to late term abortion and euthanasia then I am missing something, because it never mentions doing anything to a body which is not allowed in Catholic practice (cremation)– it rather talks about using the residual heat for the purpose of good stewardship of the earth; How is it different than using the excess dirt from digging a grave to create a flowerbed? Would that be disrespectful? What am I missing?

          1. What you are missing is this:

            There are no limits to the perversions of mankind.
            Given the right cultural circumstances they will eat each other, sacrifice each other or use human body parts for jewelry and clothing.

            For an indepth study of what mankind naturally heads towards, without the concept of Taboo,
            read up on the Aztec culture.

            When you think about something, try to think a 1000 years down the line and picture what consequences this will have over the millenium.

            And never fall for the notion that mankind “is now so modern and evolved that such and such could not happen again.”

            Without the ever watchful eye of Holy Mother Church, mankind will always seek to the maximun level of perversion and evil.

            All dors are floodgates.

            Open up the notion that the use of human remains is acceptable and you`ll have Hugo Boss jackets made of human skin within 10 -15 years.

            Australian aboriginals were hunted for sport during the 60`s.
            Rumor has it that aborted featuses are already eaten as health food in China.

            That is what you are missing.
            A line has been crossed in England.

            And all roads that do not lead to The Lord, leads to Hell.
            Simple as that.

          2. You seem to spend a lot of time focusing on vivid depictions of evil. Rather than jumping right to jackets made of human skin, I prefer to see how people who are going to die may also consider that they are part of a redeemed world and wish to be good stewards. This does not need to detract from a sense of the sacredness of the human person.

  11. We wouldn’t have to worry about this if everyone would obediently walk into “the Carousel.” (for you “kiddies” who are too young to remember it, rent “Logan’s Run.”)

    I agree with jj. And what is additionally concerning is that cradle Catholics under 50 weren’t taught any better and they are the ones who are, in turn, teaching the Protestants who are flooding into the Church. When I say something to people about “gabbing” in the Nave I’m looked at as if I’m speaking some alien language.

  12. Msgr., could you offer your thoughts on those who donate their bodies to research? Does the church offer a position on that? One could argue (and I don’t, by the way) that there is little conceptual difference between this practice and the one you outline above.

    1. Well, I’d just largely repeat what I said in the article, which is that making such a donation can be well understood as an act of charity. There must of course be safeguards in place so that medical students and researchers do not ridicule or mistreat the bodies they are examining. There are sad stories that are told of students and other stressing up the corpses in funny hats, given them nick names and generally treating medical corpses in undignified ways. Another norm is that, at the end of the process, whatever remains of the body should be collected and be cremated and interred, or directly interred.

  13. Well, we are getting ever closer to “Soylent Green is people” after all.

    Countless men, including Churchill and Gandhi, have quipped that one can judge a civilization as to how it treats its dead. I can only shudder at what posterity will say about our civilization …

  14. Cardinal Wuerl also ponders the loss in the sense of the sacred at his blog. It was this statement that caught my attention the most at the end of the article, especially given the other attempted desecration that occurred and the official response to the priest’s actions. I’m not trying to change the topic. But how can we expect people to realize how we should respect our dead if we don’t respect our God and savior.

  15. What God has created is sacred to God when used for its intended purpose: to love and serve Him and to love and serve each other with that love which is from Him. I believe that to profane creation is to profane the Creator. Equally, to profane the body is to profane the Mother of God from whose body came Jesus Christ – True God and True Man – and to profane the Savior from whose Sacred Flesh comes Eternal Life.

  16. Who made the human body, Ikedi? Who made the body of even one who sins?

    OK, no one answered, so I will.

    God made us. He made our soul, He made our body. And it is the unified body and soul that make up the human person. The entirety of man — body and soul, male and female — are made in the image and likeness of the Triune God. Indeed, God reveals a great deal about our human nature, and our divine image and likeness, by and through the body, male and female.

    God made our bodies. And God don’t make junk. When He made our bodies, He saw that it was “good.” Whatever God makes is good because God is all-good and cannot make something that is not good.

    And God is more powerful than we are. We are not more powerful than Him. We do not have the power over Him to make unsacred what He has made sacred. That He might at times ask us for a little humility (remove your sandals in His presence, Moses) does not make our bodies any less sacred.

    True, we can dirty it up a bit, we can cover it up with lots of things that are not good, but we cannot destroy the good. If something exists, having been created by God, there is a measure of good in it. If there were no good in it at all, it would cease to have existence at all. As Augustine noted, even Satan has some measure of good in him because, in order to exist at all, he must have some residual spark of God within him.

    To say that the human body is not sacred is to say that God is the maker of the unsacred, that He is the cause of evil.

  17. ”I do recognise some people might not like it, but if they don’t, they don’t have to use our crematorium.”

    I guess when you don’t advance in wisdom, you revert to childishness.

Comments are closed.