Incorruptibles

Instead of dealing with the Crown of Thorns today (we’ll take a rain check) we’ll talk about “living relics”, that is, the body itself.

Right now, the faithful are lining up in Italy to take a peek at Capuchin Friar, Padre Pio, a reportedly stigmatist, that is, bearing in life the wounds Jesus sustained on the cross. The first reported stigmatist was St. Francis of Assisi. It is said to be a sign of great faith indeed to bear the pain and discomfort of bleeding hands and feet. (Though, it must be pointed out here, that through archaeological investigation of bones of crucified individuals, the victims were pierced through the wrists and not the hands. The weight of the body would have torn through the hands and so a nail through the wrist bones was a better deal. The Romans were thorough if nothing else. What does it mean, then, that stigmatists bore their wounds in their palms?).

Padre Pio, as with most saints of the past, ran afoul of the Church. He was accused—among other unpleasant things—of falsifying his wounds. He was forbidden after a time of celebrating masses in public places or hearing confessions. After a two year investigation by doctors and others, the Church finally lifted its ban on the grounds of: 1) "the undoubted presence" of the stigmata; 2) Padre Pio’s holy way of life from childhood; 3) proof that "miracles have happened in the presence of Padre Pio." He also was seen as prophetic, and when a young Polish priest (who was later to become John Paul II) gave his confession to Padre Pio, the friar told him that he would reach the highest office in the Church. When he later became a cardinal, Karol Józef Wojtyła believed the prophecy had been fulfilled. Once pope, he was the strongest voice in moving Padre Pio toward canonization, which was finally realized on June 16, 2002.

When Padre Pio died in 1968, it was with a little vindication. His body was exhumed and “very little” change had occurred. Well, not as little as with some incorruptibles (we’ll get to this in a moment). If you watch the video link here, you will see pictures of the entombed Padre Pio, but please note that he is wearing a silicon mask. His face is in reality a great deal more decomposed than the mask would seem to indicate.

There are other incorruptibles who, when recovered from their graves, were indeed, incorrupt. Incorruptibility is very different from good preservation of a body, or even mummification. Incorruptible bodies are often said to have the “Odor of Sanctity,” that is, exuding a sweet aroma. To be an incorruptible, the body must not be embalmed or preserved by any means and it must not stiffen or apprectiavely decay.

There is a heady list of incorruptibles but one of the more famous is St. Bernadette. She was exhumed three times. The third time in 1919, a mold was made of her face and hands and a wax mask was prepared. Though her body and skin were not decayed, her face did show unpleasant signs of death—sunken eyes and skin discoloration. The mask was used for the public, since she is now displayed in a glass coffin.

Some other incorruptibles of note: St. Bernadine of Siena, St. Catherine of Siena, Saint Cecelia, St. Francis de Sales, St. Frances of Rome, St. Edward the Confessor, St. John of the Cross, St. Philip Neri, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. Vincent de Paul.

Blood Relics

Blood relics are prized relics indeed. When Catholics celebrate the mass and partake of the Eucharist, they are sharing in the promises of Jesus, that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53) The Communion bread, the Host becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus through Transubstantiation, with the priest as middle man. But there are places that are said to have the preserved blood of Jesus—and others—in their reliquaries.

Joseph of Aramathea plays an important role in most Christ blood relics, either capturing the blood in a cup while Jesus hung on the cross (and here is where the complicated grail history begins) or later keeping some as he cleaned the body before burial.

I must first explain the unlikelihood of such an event from the Jewish Pharisee that Joseph was. Surely he was aware of the blood prohibitions, of touching blood and bodies that would make him unclean to enter the temple. This would be a horrific situation for a priest of the temple, his being unable to enter it until he underwent many weeks of ritual bathing before he was declared clean again. The thought of even saving blood must have been completely foreign. But let us, for the sake of argument, assume that Joseph—for whatever reason—had the idea to preserve some of Jesus’ blood. What did he do with it from there?

If we were to follow the grail legend, then we would end up at Glastonbury in the southwest region of England, which gave rise to its co-mingling with the Arthurian legends. But if we were to follow other legends, we might end up in Constantinople. During the fourth crusade it is said that the Holy Blood of Christ made its way from Constantinople to the Basilius chapel in Bruges on April 7, 1150. The relic consists of coagulated blood kept in a 12th century style rock-crystal flask. Since 1303, the relic was carried around the city walls in procession, called the Holy Blood Procession which is still celebrated today.

Westminster Abbey was presented with Christ’s blood by King Henry III of England on October 3, 1247, that the king had received from the Masters of the Knights Templars and Hospitallers and the patriarch of Jerusalem. It was encased in a crystal vase. The Bishop of Norwich preached a sermon, promising an indulgence of six years and one hundred and sixteen days to anyone who venerated the relic (that is, six years and one hundred and sixteen days less in Purgatory). It never made Westminster the pilgrim stop that Henry had desired. In fact, it was not lost on the populace that Henry was desperately trying to compete with the French king who a year later, dedicated his Sainte Chapelle with relics from the holy land, among them the Crown of Thorns (which we’ll talk about in another post), the Holy Lance, a portion of the sponge soaked with vinegar, purple vestments with which Jesus was mocked, and a sepulchral stone. In Hailes Abbey, not too far from Westminster, larger crowds came to see their vial of Christ’s blood. But when Hailes’ blood was scrutinized in the 16th century by Henry VIII’s examiners, it was reported that the vial consisted of not Christ’s blood but of honey mixed with saffron coloring. Yet another account says it contained oft replaced goose blood. Whatever was in it, this vial, along with the one at Westminster, was disposed of by the Reformation’s agents.

One of the more famous blood relics belongs to Saint Januarius or as he is known in Italy, San Gennaro. Born in Naples in 300 AD, he was a Bishop of Beneveto around the time of Emperor Diocletian who was particularly nasty to Christians. While offering spiritual support to imprisoned fellow Christians, Januarius was himself arrested. The prelate, Timoteo, put Januarius through several gruesome tortures—thrown into a furnace, tried to tear his limbs apart on the wheel—but he seemed to come out of them unscathed. Finally, Januarius and his fellow prisoners were condemned to be torn apart by wild beasts. When this also proved useless, Timoteo ordered Januarius to be beheaded.

Januarius’ old wet-nurse Eusebia, gathered his blood into vials and his body and head were wrapped and hidden until the time that Christianity was no longer persecuted. It was on this occasion that Eusebia was free to display the glass vials of the martyr’s dried blood, and for the first time, they became liquid. Januarius was one of the many honored saints in Italy for many centuries, but there is no mention of his blood or it’s “liquefaction” until 1389. By then his skull and blood had come to rest at the Real Cappella del Tesoro di San Gennaro, located near Pozzuoli. And to this day, on September 19, the feast day of Saint Januarius, his blood relics are displayed with much praying, novenas, and other celebrations. If the blood liquefies, it is signaled by the firing off of canons.

The Catholic Church encourages the celebration of the saint but falls short of declaring the liquefaction event a miracle, opening it up to scientific study. We won’t debate it here, but as we constantly remind readers, that the relevancy of a relic is in its ability to inspire rather than its ability to run the gauntlet of scientific scrutiny.

Next time: The Crown of Thorns

Becket's Bones

St. Thomas à Becket, 12th century Archbishop of Canterbury, friend to King Henry II of England, defender of the Church, martyr, saint. His story has all the excitement of any modern day drama: intrigue, chases, murder. Many martyrs were made when they opposed kings, but like Thomas More who opposed Henry VIII some 400 years later, Thomas Becket was chancellor of England as well as a close friend and confident to the man who caused his death. And like Thomas More—who opposed Henry VIII’s break with the Catholic Church and who spoke on the scaffold that he was “the King's good servant, but God's First"—felt the same and drew the king’s enmity.

King Henry II wanted control over the church in England and thought to gain that control by appointing his good friend Thomas as Archbishop of Canterbury, the See of England. But Thomas took his charge seriously and did not do as Henry wished, particularly when it came to justice for priests. Henry wanted them tried in civil courts while Archbishop Becket insisted they be tried in ecclesiastical courts. “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?” Henry was heard to say in front of his barons. Four took him up on it: Reginald FitzUrse, Hugh de Moreville, William de Tracy, and Richard le Breton. They entered the cathedral in Canterbury when Thomas was finishing Vespers and slew him in St. Benedict’s chapel.

Did King Henry mean for his knights to murder Becket? Likely. But there was such uproar from the people that the following year Henry did penance by arriving barefoot to the chapel and allowed the monks of Canterbury to scourge him, whereupon he continued in a vigil at Thomas’ tomb. Thomas was declared a saint of the Church three years later and Canterbury became a celebrated spot for pilgrimages in England for many centuries, made even more famous by 14th century English author Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.

But that’s not the end of Thomas Becket’s bones. As I said, the tomb was a place of many pilgrimages and much commerce. The monks of St. Augustine’s monastery at Christ Church Cathedral—Canterbury Cathedral—asked pilgrims for donations before they viewed the tomb and got a tour of the beautiful stained glass windows depicting the life and deeds of the saint in the Trinity Chapel in which his tomb lay. Indeed, paying a small fee was the thing to do when viewing medieval relics when one made pilgrimages to all the important sites all over Christendom. It helped maintain the tombs and reliquaries which in turn allowed more pilgrims to view them.

Thomas’ tomb—like so many other tombs of saints and important persons—had holes pierced in its sides so that pilgrims could not only look at the bones but touch them as well. This was not, perhaps, the best practice, as pilgrims were constantly making off with their own souvenirs. Poor Richard II of England lost his jaw bone that way.

But Thomas Becket’s bones faired fairly well over the centuries until Henry VIII came along. Interesting that the lives of two Thomases and two Henrys should parallel one another so closely. Henry VIII also wanted control over the Church and eventually autonomy. When he broke with Rome he wanted that break permanent. The monasteries had to go. And no more relics (even though Henry himself owned a few of his own.) Especially the bones of a martyr famous for opposing a king. Though the Cathedral itself was spared, Thomas’ bones were taken from the tomb and destroyed.

Or were they?

Speculation abounded. Did the monks remove the bones and replace them with others before the king’s inspectors arrived? Were they kept safe somewhere? Rumors. We’ll never know. If they were removed and hidden, they were hidden well. No one has ever found them. There is a plaque in the chapel where Thomas met his death and a single candle at the spot where his tomb used to stand, but that and the windows are all we have of Thomas Becket, saint of the Church.

Joan of Arc

Joan’s is such an interesting story and her relics have an even more interesting tale. But more of that in a moment.

Joan of Arc was born about 1412 in Domrémy, France. There had been vague prophesies concerning the “Maid of Lorraine”, some even propagated by St. Bede the Venerable about the time Joan was born, seeming to indicate that a young girl would rise from France and—with God’s intervention—help France regain its king and self-respect.

Joan was thirteen when she began hearing the voices and seeing visions of St. Michael, St. Margaret, and St. Catherine—three very popular saints throughout the middle ages—and she claimed that these voices from God urged her to take up arms and lead the armies of France at a time when women certainly did no such thing. It is a testament to her hubris and her certainty, because at seventeen she did indeed lead France’s chivalry.

But after many victories, it all began to go wrong. She supported the future King Charles VII of France who, when it was politically expedient, essentially disavowed her, especially once she was captured by England, France’s enemy.

She had one of the best documented medieval trials on record. At first, after much persecution and imprisonment, she confessed that she never heard voices from God. But then she recanted her confession. In 1431, she was found guilty of witchcraft and heresy and sentenced to burn at the stake to purge her soul.

It took some 500 years for her case to be reviewed by the Vatican. In the early 20th century, the world was plunged into its first world war and a French saint could only help invigorate a war torn people. By 1920, she was beatified, that is, recognized by the Church as a person worthy of veneration. Her bones from the pyre had been preserved. Or had they?

In 1867, her remains were found in a jar in the attic of a Parisian apothecary, labeled “Remains found under the stake of Joan of Arc, virgin of Orleans.”

Forensics being fairly nonexistent at the time, the Church accepted these remains and they were kept in a museum in Chinon, France under the Archdiocese of Tours. But in 2006, a forensic scientist obtained permission to look at the remains and made an astonishing discovery: the remains were that of a mummy!

The relics included a charred-looking human rib, chunks of what seem to be burnt wood, a fragment of linen, and a cat femur (in the middle ages, in was not uncommon for black cats to be tossed onto the pyre of condemned witches). Through a battery of tests—including sniffing it out from leading perfumers—the human bone fragment was not found to be consistent with a cremated individual. Its vanilla smell was more consistent with that of a mummy, which were in plentiful supply in the 1800’s where Egypt was an archaeological Mecca for scientists as well as profit-seeking amateurs. Besides microscopic evidence, Carbon-14 dating definitely puts the remains between the 5th and 6th centuries B.C. In the late 19th century, Joan of Arc was rediscovered by historians and the remains were likely cobbled together to reinforce her myth while she was on the road to beatification.

What does this mean to the faithful? Though Joan’s remains turned out to be false her story is well documented, and, relics or not, she is universally hailed as a person well deserving of admiration for her astonishing achievements, and veneration for her steadfast faith.

There are many other “bone-a-fide” saints’ relics to be had. We’ll be exploring some of those next time.

THE TRUE CROSS

What greater relic could there be? And what relic seems to generate more controversy?

Let's go into a bit of history first. Of course we are talking about the Cross on which Jesus was crucified, but did you know that it's history—at least, according to medieval scholars—has a more ancient lineage?

Jacobus de Voragine, a 13th century bishop, wrote what is the medieval equivalent of a bestseller: The Golden Legend, a book comprising stories of the saints and their deeds that served as the definitive telling for centuries (in it is the famous story of St. George slaying the dragon, for instance). In the Golden Legend, Voragine tells us that as Adam lay dying, he asked that his son Seth plead to the Archangel Michael for a seed from Eden's Tree of Life. His request was granted and he was buried with the seed in his mouth. It sprouted into a fine tree and after many generations passed, the tree was cut down and used to build a bridge over which passed the Queen of Sheba while on her journey to visit King Solomon. The wood itself seemed to speak to her and she dropped to her knees to worship it. When she came to Solomon, she told him that the wood itself would bring about the recovery of God's covenant with the Jews. Solomon feared her tale and had the bridge disassembled and buried. Centuries later, the wood was recovered and made into the crucifixion cross.

Can we believe this part of the tale? More likely, this was the medieval mind's need to somehow make more important the provenance of the wood of the cross itself. Voragine did admit to "adding many things", whatever that means.

At any rate, we pick up the story again by going backwards in time with a 4th century scholar and bishop named Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote his Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History of the Church and who is sometimes referred to as the "Father of Church History" for his penchant for writing things down. In his Life of Constantine, he explains that the site of Jesus' tomb—the Holy Sepulchre—had been buried by the Romans after they destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. The first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I (272-337 AD), ordered the site uncovered and told the bishop of Jerusalem to construct a church on the same site, which we know as the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre. No cross was ever mentioned in his History.

It was only later, with the Ecclesiastical History written by Socrates Scolasticus (not the one you're thinking of, another Socrates) in the 5th century, did the legend of St. Helena come about. In it, he recounts that there was a temple to Venus erected on the spot and St. Helena, Constantine's mother, ordered it torn down and a church built. But while they were excavating, they uncovered three crosses. St. Helena was certain that these were the crosses of the crucifixion, and one of them was the one True Cross on which Jesus died. To find which one it was, each cross was laid upon a dying woman (or a dead woman or a woman of the court with an incurable disease. We have several versions by several different Histories.) The instant the third cross touched her, she was instantly healed and the cross was proclaimed the "True Cross." The Title (the piece of board on which the INRI—translated as "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews"—was written) and the Holy Nails were also discovered. The nails were later sent to the emperor and fitted to Constantine's helmet and horse bridle.

We'll have to pause here to consider a few points. There have naturally been many archaeological digs in the Middle East, particularly focusing on the time of Christ. A cross—that is, a vertical beam attached to a horizontal beam—was generally not used for crucifixion in a place like Jerusalem. Historians suggest that at the time of Jesus, a crossbeam was most likely tied to the prisoner and was attached to scaffolding or upright posts where criminals were habitually executed outside the city walls. There would be little point in erecting a single cross each time. So likely, Jesus and the thieves were crucified on such a construction. Hence, only a crossbeam—if such a thing were buried beside a tomb—would have been found.

Now, by Jewish law, a Jew must avoid corpses, blood, and anything associated with death as unclean. An unclean offender was unfit to worship in the temple and they must undergo a long period of ritual bathing and separation from family and associates until they are deemed fit to return to temple life. It would be a rare thing to not only be able to acquire such objects under the Roman's noses, but to have thought of doing so at all.

On the other hand, Jesus also had Gentile followers who were used to such burial keepsakes and might have had no compunctions over handling these objects. Perhaps they even saw fit to bury these items near his tomb. We can only speculate about that.

Naturally, St. Helena's find was something to be celebrated all over the growing Christian population of the East and West. By the late 4th century, once the Basilica was built and the Cross was publicly venerated, the written eyewitness accounts seem to suggest that either the Cross was already cut into smaller "chunks" or this was all that was found in the first place. Ever after, invaders either removed part of the Cross or it was divided—as important relics often were—amongst the crowned heads of the East and the West. Small, golden and elaborately decorated reliquaries survive from that time, reliquaries in which a piece of the cross resided and which were worn by the very wealthy and very well-connected.

But by the middle ages—a period known for trafficking in faked relics—you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a church that professed to own a piece of the "True Cross." This became one of the contentious points during the Reformation, that relics were not only idolatrous but were faked, and duped well-meaning and pious individuals. Though it was said that there are enough pieces of the True Cross to construct an entire church, in 1870, a scholar named Rohault de Fleury, catalogued all the known pieces of the Cross and calculated that if it were to be reconstructed, the pieces would not amount to even one-third the size of a cross that was supposed to have been about 13 feet high, with a crossbeam of about 6.5 feet wide.

Where is it today? Pieces are still in many locales. A large piece is situated in a monastery in northern Greece, called Mount Athos; there is another in Santa Croce in Rome; Notre Dame in Paris; Pisa and Florence; Brussels; Venice; Spain; Ghent; and a monastery of Gishen Mariam in Ethiopia.

The Feast of the Exultation of the Cross or Holy Cross Day on September 14, is still celebrated. Good Friday is also an important day in the Liturgical calendar for venerating the cross. We all in our own way, venerate the cross, whether we are in the presence of what one might consider the "True Cross" or merely a representation of same.

Are these relics pieces of the True Cross? It is impossible to say. We must be reminded again of the true meaning of a relic: a remembrance of God's accomplishments. Even if it turned out that none of these relics were the true Cross, the remembrance, the message, is still the same.

About this blog

In the life of the Church, there are many avenues in which to open ourselves to the divine. First and foremost is the Eucharistic celebration where we come together as a community to "taste and see." We also have sacramentals, objects like rosaries, candles, and bells—to name but a few—that help us express a deeper association with the greatest of mysteries.

But there are also relics, artifacts associated with Jesus and holy people. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (#1674) "Besides sacramental liturgy and sacramentals, catechesis must take into account the forms of piety and popular devotions among the faithful. The religious sense of the Christian people has always found expression in various forms of piety surrounding the Church's sacramental life, such as veneration of relics, visits to sanctuaries, pilgrimages, processions, the stations of the cross, religious dances, the rosary, medals, etc. (# 1675) These expressions of piety extend the liturgical life of the Church, but do not replace it. They 'should be so drawn up that they harmonize with the liturgical seasons, accord with the sacred liturgy, are in some way derived from it and lead the people to it, since in fact the liturgy by its very nature is far superior to any of them.'"
There is a hierarchy amongst relics and a unique history to them that we will explore in the coming weeks in this blog. Can we derive fact from fiction when looking at these various relics? We'll look at that, too.

First, let's establish what we mean when we speak of relics.

As I said, a relic is an object with ties to Jesus and the saints. A First Class relic is one that is an actual body part of a saint, like hair or bone. A Second Class relic could be an article of clothing or other object the saintly person used, like a cup or a tool. A Third Class relic is an object touched to a first class relic, such as a piece of cloth that was touched to the bone of a saint.

The idea of relic veneration sometimes gives rise to derision from those both within and outside the Catholic faith when the relic seems to "replace" expressions of piety rather than "extend liturgical life." But is it an exclusively Catholic practice?

In the Old Testament, we see the bones of a venerated prophet enacting a miracle. According to 2 Kings 13:20-21: "Elisha died and was buried. At that time, bands of Moabites used to raid the land each year. Once, some people were burying a man, when suddenly they spied such a raiding band. So they cast the dead man into the grave of Elisha, and everyone went off. But when the man came in contact with the bones of Elisha, he came back to life and rose to his feet."

And in Acts 19:11-12, "So extraordinary were the mighty deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul that when face cloths or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them."

Elisha's bones (First Class relics) and cloths that touched Paul's skin (Third Class relics), performed mighty deeds and became sacred objects, objects worthy of veneration, not of themselves, but of what they represent: God's accomplishments.

Let's explore some of these relics.