In Re Lambeth Cemetery [2025] ECC Swk 2, Petchey Ch. addressed the scattering of crenation ashes, [26] to [31], and whether it was unlawful for an Anglican minister to scatter cremated remains as opposed to strewing [1]. He noted that cremation is addressed in canon law by Canon 38 of which subsection 4 (b) states:
“The ashes of a cremated body should be reverently disposed of by a minister in a churchyard or other burial ground…or on an area of land designated by the bishop for the purpose of this sub-paragraph or at sea”.
The practice of cremation began in England at the end of the nineteenth century and although the subject of legislation in 1902, it was not formally considered by the Church of England until 1943. In that year the Convocation of Canterbury decided that there was no objection to the practice and that there was much to commend it, provided that due safeguards for decency and reverence are exercised. In 1951 the Convocation of York took the same view as to the acceptability of cremation, stating:
“… the ashes of a cremated body should be disposed of in consecrated or dedicated ground. This may be done: (a) by burial; (b) by strewing them reverently on the surface of the ground and covering them lightly with earth;
(c) by enclosing them, after obtaining the necessary faculty, in a part of the church or other consecrated building set apart for the purpose.
To scatter ashes broadcast on either consecrated or unconsecrated ground without covering them is a method which may be unseemly or irreverent and cannot be recommended”.
In the light of the Canon and the two resolutions of the Convocations, Petchey Ch. stated [28] that the advice of the Legal Advisory Commission is that:
“It is unlawful for an Anglican minister to scatter (as opposed to strewing) cremated remains as ) to do so is irreverent (emphasis supplied [2]).
He continued:
“[29]. It is apparent that the correctness of the Commission’s view is entirely dependent upon whether scattering is or is not reverent. With respect to the Commission, I do not think that this is demonstrated by reference to resolution of Convocation of York11. Moreover the language of that resolution is that of recommendation not prescription; and the use of the word may indicate that its view was that scattering is not always irreverent.
[30]. I do not think that the scattering of ashes is intrinsically irreverent…
[31]. Canon 38 (4) (b) does raise another matter, namely the location of any disposal of ashes. It does not envisage the disposal of ashes in any location other than consecrated ground or land set aside for the disposal of ashes. However it is not an Act of Parliament. What it seems to me it is addressing is what a Minister needs to do, the ashes having been committed into his hands; and quite obviously it is directed to a first disposal. I think that it would be too narrow a reading to interpret the canon so as to forbid the disposal of ashes other than in consecrated ground or similar after their exhumation has been found to be in principle permissible on the basis that those connected to them do not want them to be in consecrated ground.
What of course the family are saying is that, in the circumstances, the ashes should not be subject to the effects of consecration nor, also, to the application of canon law. In principle I think that this argument is correct and that canon law should not re-impose a restriction that consecration, properly considered, does not. Not without some hesitation, I have decided that neither does it do so in practice”.
[1] “Strewing” is pouring of the ashes directly into the ground, or directly onto the ground before immediately covering them over with earth.
[2] Whereas this emboldening is within the judgment, elsewhere in this post, italicization is editorial.