Reusing Graves of Ancestors
Date: February 1, 2026
Author: Fr. Edward McNamara, LC
Question: My husband and I have desire to be eventually buried together, and the best option from various perspectives would be to reuse the grave of our great-grandparents who passed away over 100 years ago. Our state government permits “lift and reposition” of bodily remains in a grave, which appears to involve opening the place of interment, lifting the bodily remains, deepening or enlarging the place of interment if necessary and repositioning the existing bodily remains to provide space for further interments in that place of interment. The ethical dilemma we are facing is this: Is it acceptable to the Catholic Church to disturb the bodies of those who have died through a process of "lift and reposition" as described above? Is it lacking charity or respect for the dead to treat their bodily remains in this fashion? — A.P., Melbourne, Australia
Answer: As we wrote on May 1, 2022: "Canon law, as far as I have been able to ascertain, has no fundamental objections to reusing graves, provided that respect to the deceased is shown.
"One way to discover a Catholic position is to see how the laws are framed in traditionally Catholic countries. Although the Church would not necessarily have been consulted about these laws, they would usually respect Catholic sensibilities. If the Church does not formally object to a particular civil law, then it can be said that it does not contradict Catholic doctrine or practice.
“An example from Ireland, where burial in the ground is more common, we find the following by law in one county:
“‘No grave shall be re-opened within 14 years after the burial of a person over 12 years of age, or within 8 years after a person under 12 years of age, unless to bury a member of the same family, in which case a layer of earth not less than 300mm shall be left undisturbed above the previous coffin. If, on re-opening any grave, the soil is offensive, such soil shall not be disturbed. In no case shall human remains be disturbed.’
"In Italy it is more common to bury in niches or crypts. Cemeteries are usually publicly owned and in designated areas at a certain minimum distance from inhabited dwellings. Italian cemeteries are usually very well cared for by municipalities. Although they are public, provision is frequently made for different religions, especially in the larger cities. Since Catholicism is the majority religion, cemeteries usually have a chapel for funeral rites and Catholic graves are blessed before use.
"With respect to the reuse of tombs, the common practice is that after 40 years for a niche or 10 years after burial in the ground, bodies are exhumed and placed in smaller ossuaries. The family may extend the period of burial for a further 20 years.
"After this period there is a second burial in a new place according to the wishes of the family. If there is no family, or if the family so disposes, the cemetery has a common ossuary where remains are conserved perpetually. These, although not open to the public, are conserved and duly registered in such a way as to allow for individual burial at any moment.
"This is the overall practice in Italy, especially in larger cities. There are many varieties as there is also the possibility for family tombs and crypts. Even in this latter case, it is possible to relocate graves in smaller loculi so as to make space for other family members.
"Rome’s monumental Verano cemetery, although run by the city, is the final resting place for many members of religious congregations. Even the Vatican has a large crypt in which some curial cardinals and bishops are interred, especially those with no surviving family members.
"In the five-story Jesuit crypt the remains are placed in niches for the 40-year period and then are transferred to smaller niches with several ossuaries. Therefore, since the members of the venerable Society of Jesus do not seem to object to reusing graves, I think it is a permissible practice for Catholics, provided that there is respect toward the remains of all the deceased."
There are many other historical examples of the reuse of crypts and tombs as well as the reaccommodation of mortal remains in cathedrals, churches, monasteries and convents, which have been approved by Church authorities over the centuries. Even some Popes have had their burial places transferred to make room for new construction and other tombs.
In the light of all this, we can say that from a Catholic standpoint, there does not appear to be any major ethical objections to reusing graves provided that sufficient time has passed and the remains of those previously buried are treated with due respect and, insofar as possible, either conserved in the same place or transferred to a worthy location.
From the standpoint of civil law in Australia: Most jurisdictions will have an equivalent to South Australia's 2013 Burial and Cremations Act which, among other issues, regulates the reuse of graves when interment rights expire.
In the context of several new laws on this topic the Catholic Church in Australia sustained the general rule of perpetuity for grave sites and opposed the idea of temporal leasing for a fixed number of years, especially if this temporality is mandatory and non-consensual. The Church has strongly emphasized the importance of treating the deceased with dignity and respect and that it should be devoid of all merely commercial concerns.
In the state of Victoria, of which Melbourne is the capital, most grave sites are still in perpetuity, but there is pressure to introduce reuse due to limited space, even in specifically Catholic cemeteries, and, as our readers mention, in several places, some form of "lift and reposition" is foreseen.
Although, as we have seen above, the reuse of gravesites can be morally acceptable from a Catholic standpoint, the Australian Church has generally taken a strong position against it in the concrete pastoral and historical context that it faces.
In the case of our correspondent's dilemma, I think she and her husband would be justified in seeking this solution and it would not be disrespectful of their ancestors. The fact that the earlier burial site is occupied by members of their family would be a point in their favor. It would also ensure that the grave would be preserved intact and basically undisturbed for many more years.
If necessary, they may need to consult with other relatives who descend from their great-grandparents to avoid objections.
* * *
Readers may send questions to zenit.liturgy@gmail.com. Please put the word "Liturgy" in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the great number of questions that arrive.