Category Archives: Objective moral assessment

Is Funeral Home Use of Social Media Moral?

“[W]e are delivered over to [technology] in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral; for this conception of it, to which today we particularity like to do homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of technology.” — Martin Heidegger, Philosopher

“Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids working together and motivating them, the teacher is the most important.” Bill Gates, Technology Entrepreneur

As spiritual care providers it’s important for us to maintain awareness of the developments that are affecting lifecare and deathcare as we have been practicing it. There are a number of insidious developments in process on what the world has been brainwashed to refer to social media, when such media are anything but social. In this article I discuss one such development that has great potential to adversely influence the relationships between funeral directors and the families they serve, and, by extension, how those developments will indubitably affect our roles as spiritual care providers.

There are so-called entrepreneurs who are investing considerable time and treasure in an effort to brainwash funeral homes and funeral directors, and to recruit them into the ranks of the addicts who have idolized social media and who have forsaken any embodied human relationships in favor of digital algorithms.

In this article, I follow one such opportunist, a veritable false prophet, an inexperienced self-proclaimed visionary who like so many of his generation replaces wisdom with verbosity, humanity with technology, and service with avarice. In this article I follow Ryan Thogmartin’s Connecting Directors[1] and some examples taken from a discussion thread on the so-called professional networking site, LinkedIn.

I started following Ryan Thogmartin and his Connecting Directors (a production of Thogmartin’s DISRUPT Media) a couple of years ago, when I felt that I should start learning more about what funeral directors are thinking, since I work with so many, I need to know what’s going on in the deathcare professions. At about the same time I began independently studying mortuary science subjects and collected a small reference library to assist in my thanatology, psychospiritual support, chaplaincy, and general knowledge, as well as in my writing. All in the interest of professional continuing learning and interest in improving my services. I also joined a number of specialist alternative deathcare forums, professional groups, as well as continuing professional education providers. I take my vocation seriously and believe very strongly that current awareness and lifelong learning are keys to competent professional services.

Serve rather than Disrupt!

Over time I learned that there is an incredible myriad of scams and so-called promotions being offered practically everywhere online; they range from personal blogs to corporate funeral services marketing to certification programs to pundits like Thogmartin to new disposal technologies for dead human beings.

Thogmartin and his Connecting Directors is but one paradigm of the scenario. Curiously and stereotypically, Thogmartin has re-invented himself as a — in his self-description — a visionary, and claims, among other hyperboles, that he has positioned Connecting Directors to be “the leading online resource for funeral professionals.” Like most irresponsible and unverifiable online presences, similar to Facebook, his claims are a bit over-the-top. Furthermore, given the unfortunate and questionable moniker of “Disrupt Media” and Thogmartin’s questionable hygiene and perfected grunge look, I personally find it hard to imagine the otherwise ordered and conventional funeral professional attrobiting any seroius credibility to Thogmartin or his predominantly prirated content.

Ryan Thogmartin.

Thogmartin and his ilk may have something to say that is interesting to some, bizarre to others, and totally untenable to many others. I am one of the latter; I feel that Thogmartin is an opportunist and a source of very harmful misinformation. Regrettably, those types always have a following, most of them wayward waifs unable to conjure up a vision of their own, even one as distasteful as Thogmartin’s. Moreover, the Internet has become the den for many such false prophets.

Some of these scams, and I include Thogmartin’s Connecting Directors in this broadly defined group, are endemic and assume many guises, and affect national and international professional organizations, education institutions, religious organizations; none have remained unscathed nor have they been held accountable. In fact, many of our institutions, including our institutionalized religions, our education institutions, and our healthcare system have all succumbed to or have become some type of scam, be it internal and of their own invention, or external, one to which they willingly subscribe.

While I admit I continue to follow Thogmartin’s Connecting Directors, I do so because I believe I must be informed about all aspects of the field in which I serve, even those aspects, which I find deplorable, reprehensible, and even evil (I do consider Facebook to be evil, that is, not serving Good). We must be aware of the positive as well as the negative aspects of the environment, in which we work, in order to be fully competent. Call it a sort of professional intelligence operation: Know the enemy.

It seems that the industrialized, secularized West’s greatest denial has become the opportunist’s greatest windfall! Western society is so entrenched in denial of death, in consumerism, and materialism that it has created an entire industry focused on treating the newly invented pitiable “victims” of the inevitability of the Grim Reaper as if they were in fact “victims” in need of a rescuer. But those with the Messiah complex — like so many false Messiahs before them — are merely self-serving and immorally using their purported rescuees as means to an end.

I find such a message to be abhorrent, immoral, and generally disordered; it reveals a profound ignorance of the nature of relationship, community, and trust.

Some, like Thogmartin and his minions, offer everything from dictating to one of the oldest professions in human history, the deathcare profession, how they should operate, what they should do, and how to succeed, to informing this privileged and ancient profession that they are doing it all wrong (Thogmartin’s approach), and that they should be going the route of the brainless addict, that is, go Facebook! His message is that today’s funeral director and funeral homes should be building community, trust, transparency and relationship through their social media content (see below for details). I find such a message to be abhorrent, immoral, and generally disordered; it reveals a profound ignorance of the nature of relationship, community, and trust.

For most business purposes, Facebook and most other social media, including the so-called professional networking media, are practically useless. Sure, we get happy birthday and work anniversary wishes but do we get any new clients? Sure, we make colleagues aware that we are alive and still providing services, but anyone beyond a 25 or 50 mile radius from my office is highly unlikely to consider my services, that is, the services I offer to make a living. Sure, they read my blogs and my articles but they then appropriate what they can and dispose of the rest; after all, it doesn’t cost them anything. Do they promote psychospiritual support or chaplaincy to their customers or staff. Perhaps. But not if it’s going mean spending time on the project, o if it’s going to cost them bucks to bring a professional in to do the job. Lord knows (nothing witty intended) most funeral directors or planners don’t press the religious, spiritual, or psychospiritual benefits of the bereavement chaplain, and most families balk at the paltry $150-200 for the services of an experienced bereavement chaplain to officiate a funeral or memorial service. Yet they’ll spend multiples of that on an expensive casket or urn or some toy that is obsolete even before it leaves the shop; or they’ll spend untold hours online wasted with digital “friends” pouring out the contents of their grieving hearts to a cold electronic screen and a digital algorithm they inanely call a “friend.” All of these vaporize after the funeral or memorial but the effects of a competent bereavement chaplain and his presence last a lifetime. Go figure!

During the time I’ve spent on Connecting Directors I have been able to note that Ryan Thogmartin is republishing most of what he has from other sites and sources, acting like a sort of information clearing house, but one that clears only what supports his position. Fair enough. A lot of what you will find on Connecting Directors is old news, rehashed, or totally irrelevant to local deathcare operations and of curiosity interest only. After all, Thogmartin is interested only in the façade of being in the deathcare niche; his real interest is promoting his Facebook branding activities. Somehow the suffering of the bereaved gets lost in the online shuffle; it’s all about image, content, revenues.

My message to the funeral and deathcare professional: The real nitty-gritty of what’s shaping your world and what’s happening in your area in your niche can and should be gotten from your state/provincial, regional, and national deathcare association publications and professional journals. The real intelligence can be gleaned by observing your community, and by maintaining a relationship with your customers. Thogmartin’s obsession with converting deathcare professionals to the millenials’ addiction to social media is particularly disturbing to those of us who work directly with dying, death, the survivors, and the general population of mourners. Even more so since Thogmartin stymies our human efforts at making a dying public aware of and accepting of the inevitable; Thogmartin promotes a fiction, that of social media and digital solutions, similar to the new fad offered by some of our previously most trusted, now turned prostitute, spriritual care organizations, that is, online grief counseling!

The efforts of such opportunists like Thogmartin in the deathcare niche and others like him in the HR niche, who promote check-list recruiting and hiring are, in a word, DEHUMANIZING. If we accept what psychologists and philosophers have taught for centuries, that is, that human beings are the only species that are (or should be) self-aware and aware of their own mortality and finitude, shouldn’t we hold that distinction in reverence rather than commercialize and monetize it?

Thogmartin and his notions of relationship, community, trust through digital technology are perverse, immoral. While technology is amoral, or morally neutral in its native state, how we use it is what makes it good or evil.


Aside: Discerning Morality, Amorality, Moral Neutrality.

The burning question is whether social media such as Facebook and those who exploit it for marketing purposes are moral.[2]

“Just over half, 55 percent, of people with children ages 11-17, “strongly agreed” that social media hinders or undermines moral development.”  Jubilee Center for Character and Virtues at Birmingham University

In theory, only human beings can be  moral agents, i.e., have a moral consciousness. What this means is that everything else in creation, including all technology, is necessarily amoral. The actions of the moral agent, the container of these morals (good or evil) are always expressed in the applications of a technology; in other words, our applications of technologies divests them of any moral neutrality. It is this moral question that must be considered by any discerning user.

“[T]echnologies are morally neutral until we apply them. It’s only when we use them for good or for evil that they become good or evil.” William Gibson

When discussing the morality or neutrality of social media or even technology in general, we navigate perilous waters when we make overreaching assumptions, such as, for example, that all technology is morally neutral, and we and neglect to evaluate each technology or application, new or old, for it’s concealed or non-self-revealing curriculum or agenda.

Important questions that must be asked include: Do the creators of this technology have an agenda or a concealed purpose? What is this technology’s potential to shape my conscious or unconscious behavior for good or ill? Does this technology create or provide opportunities for immorality that I should avoid?

“If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner.” Omar Bradley, General of the Army

When considering the use of technologies and applications such as social media or the so-called opportunities that social media dangle in front of us like carrots on a string, we must seriously assess them rather than just passively accept the pre-packaged user-experience the creators intended for our eyes.

The underlying theory of today’s social media is not all that new. In fact, social media technology is based on what is known as the Six degrees of Separation theory. That theory embraces the idea that all living things and everything else in the world are six or fewer steps away from each other so that a chain of “a friend of a friend” statements can be made to connect any two people in a maximum of six steps. It was originally set out by Frigyes Karinthy in 1929 and popularized in an eponymous 1990 play written by John Guare.[3]

We must also bear in mind that when we use the term “morally neutral” we are not using it as a synonym for “amoral”. Facebook, for example, is amoral; Facebook is not morally neutral, however. Amoral means that concerned technology does not have a set of moral values of its own. Taken in isolation, Facebook has no morals on its own, but Facebook undeniably reflects and projects the morals of its creators and its administrators, as well as its users to the extent that Facebook users comply with Facebook’s so-called “community standards”. Quite clearly, then, Facebook is *not* morally neutral. As professionals, we must take extreme care not to confuse or conflate these two quite different concepts.

Equally erroneous it to assume that something that is in its own right morally neutral means that it is therefore evil; neither does it mean it is morally good. Like so many issues before us, this is not a question of black-and-white; in fact, there is the very reasonable possiblity that the technology under consideration has the potential of being a mix of both evil and good. This is the basis of many of our ethical test theories such as the dual effect theory; we have able to analyze the specific situation and to discern is evil and what is good.


I, for one, shall oppose at every turn such efforts to remove humanity from dying, death and surviving. I shall, at every turn, unveil the fallacies of the imorality proselytized by a grunge specialist! The self-appointed Facebook minions, gurus, and doulas who purport to be the social media experts to the dying and to the bereaved, as well as to the respected deathcare professionals, those with their boots on the ground, those who are present where the rubber meets the road, the local funeral home operators and staff, not the industrialized funeral factories and the digital pundits or their social media keepers.

Contrary to Thogmartin’s and his keepers’ promotions, Facebook has very little to offer locally and most shoppers don’t go to Facebook to find a funeral professional. The funeral professional and his/her facilities continue to be local, even if they are de facto corporative entities (e.g. SCI’s Dignity Memorial) hiding behind a former trusted family operation.

Thogmartin and his ilk are narcissists, infllated self-appointed gurus of BS. I used to be interested, then amused, now only annoyed by him! Think about what he has to say, recognize the pitch, and then get back to running your business compassionately — and successfully.

Revisit, if necessary rediscover the values upon which the deathcare professions from the embalmer to the cosmetician to the chaplain to the usher are founded. Rediscover the values that have made the deathcare professions so important to human beings. Rediscover the values that have, over the centuries, made the deathcare professionals a special and important part of all cultures and all societies. Those values are human values, not industrial or technological. These values are moral values not amoral or morally neutral.

“The Internet […] seems to be creating a new group of people engaged in compulsive sexual behavior, say psychologists and clinicians. The accessibility, anonymity and affordability — what one researcher calls the “triple A engine” — are reeling in people who would otherwise have never engaged in such behavior.” — Los Angeles Times

I recently engaged a discussion thread on a leading professional networking platform. One participant, let’s call him Alan, seemed to be missing my point. Alan works in funeral home marketing strategies and provides ideas to “help funeral homes generate higher quality ‘at need calls’ “. I’m not quite sure what exactly all that means but he does tend to agree with Thogmartin; so I guess his self description already puts us at odds to some degree.

Alan writes:

“Respectfully Harold, I don’t agree with your post. While it is true most shoppers don’t go to Facebook to find a funeral professional, I feel you are missing the point what Ryan does for his clients. The way I see it, a good part of a funeral homes [sic] targeted market use Facebook and I feel it is an excellent platform for a funeral home to brand themselves to the public in a tasteful way. Healthy families don’t want to think about death, they just want to live their lives. That is why funeral preplanning is a hard sell. It’s an uncomfortable topic for people. You heard the expression, “anytime is a good time to plan a funeral, except on the day of the funeral.” Yet that is what the majority of families do. Before Facebook and other social platforms became available, the marketing plan for most funeral homes was to simply wait for an “at need” call to come in. Social media platforms including Facebook now provide the modern funeral home a way to reach out to the living in creative, appropriate ways to build lasting relationships and to bring the topic of pre need to healthy families in a positive way.”

Right from the start, buzz words like “targeted market,” “brand themselves,” all carry the stench of industry, not profession or vocation. What most caught my attention was Alan’s presumption that “[h]ealthy families don’t want to think about death.” “Healthy families don’t want to think about death”?!?! So if a family is in avoidance or denial about death, that is a healthy family; the family that prepares and acknowledges death is by Alan’s reasoning, unhealthy? Alan’s point: Denial is good because we can come up with a slogan to sell it. In my experience, I have yet to see anyone on Facebook interested in, much less looking for a funeral home’s “creative, appropriate ways to build lasting relationships.” In fact, most people on Facebook are generally losers, sociopaths, or worse looking for relationships in all the wrong places, that is, on Facebook and social media!

Alan continues, “I am not a client of Ryan’s, however, I feel he cares for his clients and his strategies might make sense for your business as well.”

I differed substantially from the points that both Alan and Thogmartin were making. I advocated recognizing and exploiting in a compassionate way the opportunities available to every funeral director and funeral operation that has espoused and maintains human values in their operations. I wrote, “Deathcare is human care.” Deathcare is also an extension of lifecare. Once we depart from the embodied flesh and blood interpersonal engagement, and opt for the icy cold digital offerings such as Thogmarting’s “opportunities” and Facebook “friends,” we are violating a sacred trust inherent in those who allege to serve suffering human beings in some of their most difficult times. Once a human services profession takes the marketing and profit route, they have prostituted a noble profession for the profane and mercenary objectives of technology and industry, of materialism and consumerism. What comes next?

Death is death and deathcare doesn’t need to be “creative.” Death doesn’t make an appointment but knocks where he will. We don’t need to “reach out” but must wait. Death smiles at us and all we can do is smile back, not “friend” him on Facebook or other social media. The death care professions (FDs, funeral assistants, chaplains) are similar to spiritual-care professionals (pastors, rabbis, imams, priests, chaplains) and the health care professionals (physicians, nurses, chaplains); they are flesh and spirit professions; once they go full technology or digital, they are no longer truly humancare professions. As a chaplain, I have my feet in all of these niches, and I have the education and the training to recognize when they move from the sacred to the profane, and the courage to make my colleagues aware of their transitioning.

I’ll closed my remarks by responding to Alan’s suggestion that some of Thogmartin’s suggestions may be good for my “business.” My one closing point made to Alan was: Mine is a vocation, not a business.

Alan returned with some further observations, replying directly to me:

“Here is where the disconnect is. No one has said digital offerings is [sic] replacing the human care profession. You say we don’t need to reach out, but must wait. The way you see the world doesn’t mean it’s the only way. It’s simply your opinion. At any given time there are thousands of families facing an end of life situation, sometime quality information can come to these families that will help them make better or more educated choices during a very difficult time. Quality Digital offerings whether researched or provided to a suffering family can be of great help and relief to a family. No one is saying it should be a replacement to human care and authentic sincere personal compassion.”

Alan works in funeral home marketing strategies and provides ideas to help funeral homes generate higher quality “at need calls”. I’m not quite sure what exactly all that means but he does tend to agree with Thogmartin; so I guess that puts us at odds to some degree.

Another participant, Matt, who is business development manager at a popular funeral information site writes:

“Whilst I agree that Facebook is a great tool for awareness of your brand, I think too many funeral directors set up a business Facebook page, post a few things every now and then and assume they have the whole digital marketing thing covered. The reality is people don’t use Facebook to find funeral directors, or any business for that matter – so you really need a balanced approach with the ultimate aim to get them on your website – that’s when they will pick up the phone.”

Alan, you are missing my point. I differ substantially from the points both you and Thogmartin are making. I advocate recognizing and exploiting in a compassionate way the opportunities available to every funeral director and funeral operation that has espoused and maintains human values in their operations. Deathcare is human care.

Alan continues:

“Here is where the disconnect is. No one has said digital offerings is replacing the human care profession. You say we don’t need to reach out, but must wait. The way you see the world doesn’t mean it’s the only way. It’s simply your opinion. At any given time there are thousands of families facing an end of life situation, sometime quality information can come to these families that will help them make better or more educated choices during a very difficult time. Quality Digital offerings whether researched or provided to a suffering family can be of great help and relief to a family. No one is saying it should be a replacement to human care and authentic sincere personal compassion.”

My response to Alan was quite clear:

“I’m not saying that my view is the only view. I am saying that my view is a hell of a lot more circumspect than the view aimed at capturing a market, creating “brand” recognition, or exploiting an opportunity. A funeral home does not need social media to provide a top-shelf and profitable human service to their community and even beyond. A funeral home does need open eyes and ears to read and hear their community. And I would further emphasize that death, even death in a digital age, is still a community experience, a community engagement, a community interaction. While institutionalized religion has lost a great deal of credibility and ground in recent decades in the industrialized West, it is because they have neglected or fogotten the notion of koinoia or in the East, sobornost, a term meaning fellowship, community. The same applies to medicine and healthcare, and education, too.

“All have neglected or outright forgotten community, humanity in favor of branding, marketing, profit. How have so many of our colleagues missed that important point, that insidious development, and yet, continue on the slippery slope. I know of no family of the hundreds that I have served, who went to Facebook in the initial hours of their bereavement to find anything. While it is true, some less affected family members or friends, more remote from the immediate loss do “spread the word” about the event, but they certainly do not look for goods or services on Facebook. Granted they may search for services by googling but that’s quite a different kettle of fish. Perhaps, and only perhaps, they may look for “Quality Digital Offerings” during less demanding times but I question whether they look for a funeral home on such occasions, much less on social media like Facebook.

“The bottom line, Alan, and others of that way of thinking is that during an extended dying process, in the event of traumatic, sudden or unexpected death, even in the event of anticipated and planned death, most clients seek the inputs and insights of community leaders: the nursing staff, the social worker, the chaplain, relatives, friends, the phone book (if these still exist), or a local internet search. Or they simply drop in at the closest funeral home and seek help. That’s the way it’s done in communities.”

I returned to Matt, and I explained that that’s where Thogmartin’s niche is: to get funeral directors, by their very nature a local presence and local service, to buy into his Facebook business, either through his service offerings or through his consultancy services. Matt is quite correct when he writes that people don’t use Facebook to find a funeral home, certainly not at an at-need time, or even for pre-arrangements. Nevertheless, some funeral homes, even some of the more or less traditional pre-millenial directors, and, of course their millenial and post-millenial progeny, are naïvely enthralled by technology, and think that social media is the be-all-end-all. But it isn’t as Matt correctly observes two points: First, funeral directors don’t understand what Facebook (and other social media, including LinkedIn) can and cannot do for them, and secondly, that most people don’t use Facebook to find a product or service. That’s the reality despite the Zuckerbergs and the Thogmartins of the world. Let’s stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and let’s stop trying to fit round pegs into square holes. In the first instance it is simply unnecessary, and in the second instance it’s a fool’s game.

At one point in the discussion, Ryan Thogmarting himself, labeling himself as Owner/CEO at DISRUPT Media – Social Media Marketing, chimes in:

“My entire approach to social media for funeral homes focuses on the funeral home building trust, transparency and relationships through the content they share. The focus should absolutely be about building an engaged ‘community’. You are correct Rev, families aren’t necessarily going to Facebook for at-need. The point is to be able to engage the family through social media and establish a relationship prior to at-need.

I responded that “[m]ost people, with whom I work, do not go to social media to build trust, transparency, and relationships through content. That’s a load of rubbish, if you’ll permit me. Trust is a relationship that requires interpersonal engagement and sharing; it requires self-awareness, the ability to admit vulnerability, and knowledge of the other. Transparency is not built but is provided through authenticity and accountability. All of this is done by interpersonal physical engagement and interaction, especially at times of suffering, when the physical senses are paramount, the sense of touch being of essence. While I will grant you that you can build an engaged community on social, ideological or even moral issues, to do so online relies wholly on the ability of community members to communicate verbally; at times nonverbal communication is possible through images, but it is not the embodied community most suffering persons seek in their times of need.”

I continue, “I have to wonder where you have been and just how much you know about the role of the funeral director as a helping professional; apparently very little. I say this because almost every funeral director I have ever known has created and nurtured an embodied presence with their clients, a presence that is possible only by human presence, human relationship, shared vulnerability, compassionate engagement, authenticity, and, yes, trust.”

“That sort of content cannot be shared on Facebook, I’m terribly sorry to have to be the one to inform you of that fact. Anyone can share almost anything on Facebook; the platform provides no assurance of trustworthiness or even of reality. And I’m afraid that your choice of monikers like “Disrupt” does nothing to inspire trust or security. Grief is disruptive enough without involving Disrupt Media or Facebook content or Marketing Strategies.”

In conclusion, Mr. Thogmartin returned with a rather illogical, apparent attempt to save himself and writes:

“We have, just through this conversation, built a relationship – the very thing you are saying can’t be don’t through social media. So, you have contradicted your entire argument. Now, this relationship we’ve built also comes with implied thoughts and perceptions about each other. Based on this now established relationship I can fully say if I were ever in need of palliative care I would absolutely go to someone else. This is an easy example of how funeral professions can build OR destroy community relationships through their engagement on social media.”

Mr. Thogmartin’s response is emblematic of his poor understanding of relationship and the fact that he is a charlatan bellows. I made short work of him in my final response:

“Your pseudologic and feeble attempt to redeem your position is pitiable, at best childish. Your double-talk is really quite annoying. I’m not quite certain where you are going with the palliative care thing but that doesn’t surprise me in the least, given the incoherent and irrationality of your arguments and responses up to this point in the conversation. Moreover, you have quite the perverse notion of relationship, Mr Thogmartin, perhaps you lack the life experience and accordingly any nuance of wisdom that might come from life experience. Again, that is to your discredit and buttresses my position substantially. To be very honest, I find that if that is the best response you have to offer, I have no further expectations of this discussion.”

And so it is and there it remains. I necessarily have to conclude that there are several camps in the funeralization campaign. One espouses a digital, created content, social media presence that purports to create trust, transparency and relationship of some diaphanous sort. I call that the dehumanizing techolology camp. Then there are those who offer human outreach, engagement, awareness, acceptance of vulnerability and compassion in the community group. I call this the engaged empathetic camp, the only camp truly involved in lifecare/deathcare. Then there are those who are sitting on the fence, undecided, tentatively testing the waters in both camps, unable to take any decisive, committed steps. I call that the loser camp.

The question all of us in the lifecare/deathcare vocations and professions must ask ourselves is this: In which camp do we find ourselves and Why? It’s that Why? question that will ultimately identify us as human beings.

[This article was published by Rev. Ch. Harold W. Vadney in abridged form on LinkedIn on March 29, 2018 entitled “Let Us Recognize BS for What it Is.”]

[1] ConnectingDirectors.com is an online information platform, which describes itself in typical marketing hype as, “[t]he premier progressive online publication for funeral professionals. Connecting Directors is now a thriving global publication with a reader base of over 15,000 of the most elite and forward-thinking professionals in the industry. Founder and CEO Ryan Thogmartin has a vision for where the funeral profession is headed, and has used that vision to successfully position the site as the leading online resource for funeral professionals.”

[2] Spoiler Alert. According to a U.K. poll, the “majority of parents believe social media harms their children’s moral development.”

According to the survey, “Just over half, 55 percent, of people with children ages 11-17, “strongly agreed” that social media hinders or undermines moral development.” The survey, which came from the Jubilee Center for Character and Virtues at Birmingham University, revealed some surprising findings:

“Not least [of these is] the low level of agreement that social media can enhance or support a young person’s character or moral development […] While parents acknowledged that positive character strengths, including moral virtues such as love, courage and kindness, are promoted through social networking sites, they were reluctant to agree that these sites could have a positive impact on their child’s character.”

In fact, the observing parents had this to say about their child’s habits and attitudes on social media:

“60 percent said they had seen anger or hostility.”
“51 percent said they had seen arrogance.”
“41 percent said they saw bad judgment.”
“36 percent said they had seen hatred.”

The vast majority reported a huge absence of humility, self-control, forgiveness, honesty and fairness on social platforms.

[Source: Social media harms moral development, parents say, BBC News, http://www.bbc.com/news/education-36824176, last accessed on March 29, 2018.]

[3] Theories on optimal design of cities, city traffic flows, neighborhoods, and demographics were in vogue after World War I. These conjectures were expanded in 1929 by Hungarian author Frigyes Karinthy, who published a volume of short stories titled Everything is Different. One of these pieces was titled “Chains,” or “Chain-Links.” The story investigated – in abstract, conceptual, and fictional terms – many of the problems that would captivate future generations of mathematicians, sociologists, and physicists within the field of network theory. Due to technological advances in communications and travel, friendship networks could grow larger and span greater distances. Karinthy believed that the modern world was ‘shrinking’ due to this ever-increasing connectedness of human beings. He posited that despite great physical distances between the globe’s individuals, the growing density of human networks made the actual social distance far smaller. [Source: Wikipedia, Six Degrees of Separation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation last accessed on March 29, 2018.]

The first social media site that was actually “social media” was a website called Six Degrees. It was named after the ‘six degrees of separation’ theory and lasted from 1997 to 2001.

Advertisements

Dissolve and Flush: An Analysis of a New Body Disposal Method, Alkaline Hydrolysis.

Dissolve and Flush: Funeralized Alkaline Hydrolysis.

The Newest Technology for Disposing of Dead Human Beings.

Rev. Ch. Harold W. Vadney, BA, [MA], MDiv
Interfaith Bereavement Chaplain/Thanatologist


“All humankind is dust and ashes.” Sirach 12:32

In the West, interment, inhumation, entombment have been the traditional methods of disposing of dead human bodies, that is, prior to the late 19th century with the revival of cremation as an alternative. Until about 1880, cremation was anathema, unless, occasionally, at times of extraordinarily large numbers or dead, such as during war time, during epidemics, or following natural disasters, mass graves or incineration of the corpses was preferred to avoid further catastrophe in terms of public health. Fire cremation was revived in the West as a quasi-pagan option attributed to non-Christian freethinkers and masons or simply to anti-social elements but then took a different tack by appealing to the public health and environmentally conscious elements in conventional society. Today, economic concerns both consumer and industrial take precedence. The dominant market economies in the industrialized West, particularly in the USA, UK, and some Western European countries, as well as the insatiable appetite of post-modern, post-Christian cultures for novelty and individualism, have left the door ajar for the entry into the funeralization professions of an industrialized process called alkaline hydrolysis (AH), an industrial process invented in the late 19th century as a way of dissolving in strong chemicals farm animal waste for use as fertilizer.


“Omnes homines terra et cinis” Sirach 12:32

In a particularly beautiful description of how the pre-Vatican II Church thought of the human being, and in poetry that was possible only in a more sensitive epoch of human history, one reads:

“The old Church holds on to her dead with eternal affection. The dead body is the body of her child. It is sacred flesh. It has been the temple of a regenerated soul. She blessed it in baptism, poured the saving waters on its head, anointed it with holy oil on breast and back, put the blessed salt on its lips, and touched its nose and ears in benediction when it was only the flesh of a babe; and then, in growing youth, reconsecrated it by confirmation; and, before its dissolution in death, she again blessed and sanctified its organs, its hands and its feet, as well as its more important members. Even after death she blesses it with holy water, and incenses it before her altar, amid the solemnity of the great sacrifice of the New Law, and surrounded by mourners who rejoice even in their tears, for they believe in the communion of saints, and are united in prayer with the dead happy in heaven, as well as with those who are temporarily suffering in purgatory. The old Church, the kind old mother of regenerated humanity, follows the dead body of her child into the very grave. She will not throw it into the common ditch, or into unhallowed ground; no, it is the flesh of her son. She sanctifies and jealously guards from desecration the spot where it is to rest until the final resurrection; and day by day, until the end of the world, she thinks of her dead, and prays for them at every Mass that is celebrated; for, even amid the joys of Easter and of Christmas, the memento for the dead is never omitted from the Canon. She even holds annually a solemn feast of the dead, the day after “All Saints,” in November, when the melancholy days are on the wane, the saddest of the year, and the fallen leaves and chilly blasts presage the season of nature’s death.”

The Church of bygone days frequently used prose poetically and quoted liberally from the Church Fathers and even from the ancient philosophers and historiographers like Plato, Seneca, Socrates, Cicero many of whom, though pre-Christian, did not eschew the notion of the immortal soul. St Augustine writes, “We should not despise nor reject the bodies of the dead; especially we should respect the corpses of the just and the faithful, which the Spirit hath piously used as instruments and vessels in the doing of good works…for those bodies are not mere ornaments but pertain to the very nature of humankind.”

Cremation made an occasional appearance in isolated periods of Western history or in outlier regions where Christianity had not yet attained dominance; cremation was largely associated with non-Christian, pagan cultures.

In the East, in places where Hinduism and Buddhism had a firm foothold, cremation was and continues to be the norm. In some geographical areas such as in parts of Tibet, where the ground is unfavorable to interment and wood is a scarce and valuable resource, exposure of the corpse or dismemberment of the corpse and consumption by carrion-eating birds, so-called sky-burial or, in its form where the dismembered corpse is cast into a fiver for consumption by fishes, water burial, is practiced.

A similar practice of exposure is found in Zoroastrian communities in Iran, in the so-called towers of silence or dakhma, where the dead are brought, exposed, and consumed by vultures; the skeletal remains are then later collected for disposal.

While isolated instances of cremation are reported both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, burial or entombment was conspicuously the norm. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, burning of a corpse was a final act of abomination, reserved for only the worst elements of society.

One of the common misapprehensions of the Church’s aversion to or discouragement of incineration of the human body as a routinely available option for final disposal is that it was associated with pagan or freethinker practice, or with attempts to dissuade believers from faith in a bodily resurrection. While this might have some historical substance and may be represented by some early writers, it is but a minor hypothesis.

Ancient Flame Cremation.

As Eusebius describes early Christian aversion to flame cremation in a statement that still holds plausible, “” they (the Pagans) did this (cremated) to show that they could conquer God and destroy the resurrection of the bodies, saying, now let us see if they will arise.” In other words, cremation was a challenge to the belief in bodily resurrection as taught and believed in the early Church.

Furthermore, no less a figure than Cicero advances the notion that incineration was of ancient practice in Rome, and suggests that inhumation was a practice that predated the Roman practice of cremation. In fact, some noble Roman families never permitted their bodies to be burned, and Sulla is said to have been the first Roman who ordered his body to be cremated after death, lest his bones should be scattered by his enemies. The pontiffs of pagan Rome would not acknowledge a funeral to be complete unless at least a single bone cut off from the corpse, or rescued from the flames, had been de posited in the earth.

Ancient Greece and Rome did practice cremation at various points in their histories but the ultimate disposal of the remains continued to be burial; either a part not consumed by the flames or the “bones” of the cremated corpse were ultimately buried in the earth. Cremation was by no means consistently the norm or the preferred method of disposal in Greece or in Rome.

Pope Boniface VIII forbade all violent modes of disposing of the dead as savoring of barbarism. “The respect due to the human body requires that it should be allowed to decay naturally, without having recourse to any violent system;” so says Grandclaude. A forcible argument against cremation is also found in the Catholic custom of preserving and honoring the relics of the Saints and putting their bodies or portions of them in the altar. It would be no longer possible to have the most important relics of future Saints if their flesh were to be consumed by fire.

That brief sampling of ancient teachings and beliefs regarding the question of incineration of human remains, arguably a “violent system” of disposing of human remains, should suffice to provide a background for the remainder of this discussion. For a more detailed discussion, I refer the reader to the Reverend Bann’s article cited above.

It was only in the late 19th century that a cremation movement came into being, and then only owing to the deplorable conditions in the cities which were rapidly outgrowing their boundaries due to immigration from rural areas, and the resulting encroachments on the previously outlying churchyards and, with population growth and densification, poor sanitation, and high mortality rates, consequent overfilling of existing cemeteries literally to the point of overflowing.

London Slum – Age of Instustiralization

Such were the conditions that gave rise to the public health concerns of reformers who claimed that the dead in the cemeteries were evil, that their miasmas leached out into the water and the spaces of the living, causing disease, suffering, and death. It was the evil dead rotting in the earth and their juices that were public health enemy No. 1. The open sewers and living conditions of the larger cities, and the putrid waters of the rivers flowing through them, of course, were not to blame.

And so, an alternative method of disposal of the dangerous and filthy dead had to be found, one that did not threaten to gobble up valuable real estate, and one that could be justified in the face of Church and religious objections. Cremation was the most obvious answer for purifying the unclean corpses. After all, since time immemorial fire was the great purifier.

In the beginning, therefore, the initial impetus was the miasma theory of pestilence, and corpses were to blame. Then, around 1880, the germ theory of disease was born. It debunked the established miasma theory of disease, and stated that disease was caused by specific organisms, germs. No problem for the cremationists, who were quite agile in dropping the miasma theory and accepting the germ theory but corpses were not yet off the hook, so to speak.

If germs were the cause of many of the diseases afflicting the population, wouldn’t the putrid rotting corpse be germ heaven? And if you have all those corpses lying about doing nothing but what corpses do, that is, rotting and defiling the air with the aromas of putrecine and cadaverine. Those same rotting corpses were breeding grounds for pestilence and a simple hole in the ground was not very likely to contain the little vermin. Cremation, the great sterilizer, would be the cremationists’ next slogan. But it didn’t last long.

The interests of the economic-minded would carry the day both in terms of the environment and the economy, and that campaign agenda is with us to this day. Basically, the dirge goes: “Why allocate so much valuable land to the dead when the living can profit by it?” Land for the living! After all, as corporations like StoneMor can confirm, cemetery real estate and the real estate occupied by the cemeteries represents a vast fortune. Someone has to tap into it.

The countries of Europe afflicted with the spirit of rationalism had no problem dealing with cemeteries; they just overruled the Church and legislated that the state had ultimate control of the citizen in life and in death. The Church could fall back on canon law but ultimately had to acquiesce to the state’s overwhelming power, and so the cemeteries were secularized. Once secularized they were emptied and their occupants relegated to ossuaries or catacombs en masse, and anonymous in their tens, even hundreds of thousands. In many instances, their eviction from the cemeteries and relocation to the quarries was done under cover of night, in order not to offend the living or present an obstacle to commerce.

In countries where the Church, Roman Catholic or mainstream Protestant dominated, the faithful were expected under established sanctions, to obey the doctrines of their faith. For most mainstream Christians, and for all Orthodox Jews and Muslims, cremation was an abomination, and burial in the earth or entombment were the only acceptable methods of sepulture. And so it remained until 1963, when the Roman Catholic Church relieved it’s ban on cremation and, while not encouraging cremation, did not censure those who opted for incineration as their preferred method of disposal. Upto then, those choosing cremation were pro forma classified as apostates, atheists, pagans, free-thinkers, or Masons.

The 1960’s was a decade of revolutionary reform in practically every aspect of life: politics, religion, morals, education, all of which ultimately found expression in attitudes towards life, death, dying and after-death.

Alkaline hydrolysis (AH) , aquamation , resomation , biocremation , call it whatever you like it all literally boils down [no pun intended] to taking a dead human body, placing it into a pressure cooker, adding water and chemicals, heating, cooking, draining, rinsing. The dissolved flesh and organic matter is then flushing into the sewer system. What is left is bones and any metallic or synthetic material in the body (artificial joints, pacemakers, sutures, etc.). The metal such as artificial joints etc. will be recycled or “repurposed.” The bones will be dried and ground up into a sandlike powder and returned to the family or otherwise disposed of.

The actual patented process, alkaline hydrolysis (AH) is a process developed for waste disposal. “Waste disposal” is the actual term used in the patents. AH was developed for disposal of infectious or hazardous waste by dissolving it into a “safe and sanitary” end-product. In fact, the actual wording of one of the patents is: “it is an object of this invention to provide a system and method for safely treating and disposing of waste matter containing undesirable elements, such as infectious, biohazardous, hazardous, or radioactive elements or agents.”

AH was developed for dissolving, liquefying organic matter into a disposable liquid that can be recycled as a fertilizer or simply flushed down the drain. It’s actually a technology that was developed in the late 19th century for disposing of animal waste, and which was developed in the mid-20th century for disposal of farm slaughter waste and for elimination of medical school cadavers, is now being promoted as the new eco-friendly take on cremation. Alkaline hydrolysis a.k.a. water cremation a.k.a. biocremation — in reality just using a Draino®-like chemical to dissolve the dead human body and flush the remaining human sludge down the drain into the public sewer system — is the new rage in technology. Some funeral homes in about 14 states, where the process is now legal in the United States are now offering it as an alternative to cremation. It’s disgusting and will be a hard sell, since it will be acceptable only to the really bizarre element out there. I hope to clarify some of the issues in this article.

Download the Complete Article
Dissolve and Flush_article draft