Present
Ecclesial Status of Devotion to Saint Philomena
Dr. Mark I. Miravalle
Precisely
how the Church views the history and nature of devotion attributed to an early
Roman martyr named “Filumena” (or more popularly, “Filomena”[Ital.]
or “Philomena” [
The
status of devotion to Saint Philomena has recently received renewed attention in
light of the recent release of the revised Roman
Martyrology by the Congregation for Divine Worship,[1]
whereby the omission of Saint Philomena was perceived by some as an official rejection of her status as a saint, somewhat
inconsistent with the fact that she continues to be the object of popular
Church devotion throughout the world.[2]
What then is the present ecclesial status of this early
Church female martyr, the veneration of whom in the past has been the object of
several papal documents and numerous hagiographical testimonies? In seeking to examine this question, we will
briefly examine the historical origins of devotion; papal and ecclesiastical
decrees regarding the devotion; hagiographical testimonies; the
archeological controversy; and recent Church documents relative to the
devotion.
Historical
Origins of the Devotion
On
The painted inscription on the three
funeral tiles appeared as follows: tile one - LUMENA; tile two - PAXTE; tile
three -
The name of “Filumena” is officially granted to the
sacred remains examined on
8
Iunii 1805
Dono dedi Ven. Ecclesiae Archipresbyterali terrae Mugnano Dioecesis Nolanae corpus Sanctae Christi Martyris
FILUMENAE
Nominis proprii sic picti in tribus Tabulis laterariis cinabro
LUMENA PAXTE
in pulverem et in fragmina redactum per me infrascriptum Custodem extractum cum vasculo vitreo fracto ex Coemeterio Priscillae Via Salaria Nova die
25 maii 1802, quod collocavi in capsula lignea charta colorata
cooperta et consignavi Illmo Dominico Caesari pro Illmo et Rmo D. Bartholomaeo de Caesare Epo Potentino.
HYACINTHUS
PONZETTI, Custos.[9]
Fr. Francesco de Lucia, priest from the
Church of Our Lady of Grace at Mugnano del Cardinale in the Diocese of Nola,
received the assistance of Msgr. Bartolomeo de Caesare, Bishop-elect of Nola in obtaining permission from
the Holy See to transfer the sacred remains of the Christian martyr, Filumena
to his Mugnano parish for the purpose of fostering spiritual renewal amidst his
faithful. The remains of Filumena
departed from
The exceptional quantity of miracles which resulted from
the petitioning of the martyr invoked as “Philomena,” initially by the southern
Italian faithful, and then shortly thereafter by peoples of various countries,
has been officially documented in various ecclesiastical recordings. Both the
extensive documentation from the Saint Philomena
Shrine at Our Lady of
Grace Church in Mugnano,[11]
and the documentation for the beatification and canonization processes of John
Vianney at Ars, record the remarkable quantity of miracles attributed to the
intercession of Saint Philomena, which included the miraculous cure of Vianney
himself.[12]
In 1833, Bishop Anselmo Basilici of the Diocese of Nepi
and Sutri requested a feast and office in honor of
Saint Philomena from the Holy See, with the local ordinary from Nola having
prepared a lesson for the breviary in her honor.[13]
The Basilici petition received the support of a
significant number of Italian bishops, in spite of its unusual status due to the
absence of reference to Saint Philomena in any martyrology
or in any other historical account. The loculus
name, Filumena, and the ubiquitous miracles acquired through her intercession
as testified by numerous Church authorities sufficed for many of the Italian
hierarchy in substantiating the legitimacy of the petition.[14]
On
On
The
documented cure of Ven. Pauline Jaricot, foundress of
the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, which occurred at the Mugnano
tomb of Philomena, took place with proximate involvement and knowledge of Pope
Gregory XVI.[18] The
pontiff met with Jaricot in Rome while she was gravely ill with heart disease
and heard directly from Jaricot of her intention to travel to Mugnano, for the
specific purpose of petitioning the martyr Philomena for a cure so as to serve
as a supernatural manifestation of God’s desire to have the martyr raised to
the liturgical veneration of the altar.
The documented cure took place on
On
DIE XI
AUGUSTI
IN FESTO S. PHILUMENAE
Virginis et Martyris
In II
NOCTURNO - LECTIO IV
Inter
cetera martyrum sepulcra, quae in coemeterio Priscillae ad viam Salariam reperiri solent, illud
exstitit quo repositum fuerat sanctae Philumenae corpus, uti ex tumuli inscriptione, tribus laterculis apposita, perlegebatur. Licet vero inventa
fuerit phiala sanguinis, et alia
descripta conspicerentur martyrii insignia, dolendum tamen est res
ab eadem gestas actaque ac genus martyrii quod ipsa
fecit obscura perstitisse. Ceterum ubi primum sacrum hoc corpus, ex beneficentia Pii septimi initio pontificatus ejus acceptum, cultui fidelis populi propositum fuit Mugnani in Nolana dioecesi, ingens illico famae celebritas
ac religio erga sanctam martyrem percrebuit, praesertim ob signa quae ejusdem
praesidio accessisse undique ferebatur. Hinc factum est
ut complurium antistitum cultorumque martyris postulationibus permotus Gregorius decimus sextus pontifex maximus,
universa rei
ratione mature perpensa, festum ejusdem cum Officio et Missa in memorata Nolana dioecesi et alibi agendum benigne permiserit.
C.M Episcop. Praenest. Card. PEDICINIUS;
S. R. E. Vice- C. S.R.C. Praef.;
V. PESCETELLI S. Fidei Promotor.[23]
In sum,
Pope Gregory XVI in a papal decree, granted official approbation of the
liturgical cultus and, thereby, official ecclesiastical recognition of the
sanctity of Saint Philomena, virgin and martyr. The Pontiff, fully aware of the
absence of any historical account of the martyr saint “Filumena,” granted to
her the privileges of public liturgical veneration based upon the foundation of
the great quantity of miracles ecclesiastically documented and recognized as
having occurred through her direct intercession.
The official positive decree of Gregory XVI in papal
recognition of Saint Philomena’s status as deserving of liturgical cult
reinforces the deeper truth that far more important than the historical account
of Philomena’s earthly life is the historical and documented account of her
powerful intercession for the Church as sanctioned by God himself. Whoever this
early Christian martyr is and whatever constitutes the particular circumstances
of her life and death, God is pleased with prayers of petition offered in the
name of “Saint Philomena,” to which He has responded generously to the Christian faithful
in granting an abundance of heavenly favors.
The historical abundance of miracles attests
to God’s desire to encourage devotion to the person behind the name of
Filumena, regardless of the absence of a recorded history of her earthly life. This primacy of importance of her actual
intercession for the People of God in our own times, over the details of her
earthly life in ancient times, is what the Pope and the Church confirmed in the
raising of Saint Philomena to the level of public liturgical veneration, the
beginning of the process of her public recognition as saint and martyr.
Magisterial
Decrees pertaining to Devotion to Saint Philomena
From the liturgical approval of Gregory XVI to the papal
decrees of St. Pius X, Nineteen acts of the Holy See in the course of five
successive pontificates were issued in positive promotion of popular devotion
to Saint Philomena expressed in the form of elevations in rank of liturgical
cultus, the erection of confraternities and archconfraternities, and the granting
of plenary and partial indulgences.[24]
Several
acts of the Holy See particularly display the Magisterium’s approval and
encouragement of ecclesial devotion to this Christian saint and martyr. Beyond the elevation of the rank of the mass
and office previously granted by Gregory XVI,[25]
Bl. Pius IX approved a proper mass and office dedicated to Saint Philomena with
the papal confirmation of the previously submitted decree, Etsi decimo on
Pope Leo XIII granted papal approbation to the Cord of
Saint Philomena with several plenary indulgences in association with its wearing,[29]
and accorded the title and privilege of “archconfraternity” for the respective
Philomenian devotion and work in
Far more than one solitary papal act by Gregory XVI, the
papal Magisterium has repeatedly encouraged the nature and growth of ecclesial
devotion to Saint Philomena, in official recognition of her status as a saint, in
public liturgical and devotional sanctions which extended to the universal faith and life of the Church,
and thereby manifesting official and essential liturgical and devotional
characteristics of her status as a saint as defined by the Church.
Hagiographical Testimony
St. John Vianney, beyond any other saint or blessed,
manifested an expansive testimony of faith and documented witness toward the
reality of Saint Philomena and her
profound
intercessory efficacy.[32]
The Curé, as recorded in the canonization process, attributed all the miracles
documented at Ars to have been effected through Saint Philomena’s intercession;[33]
repeatedly spoke of having received apparitions of Saint Philomena;[34]
and directly attributed his own personal miraculous cure from grave illness to
her intercession.[35]
The testimony and cure of Ven. Pauline Jaricot through
the intercession of the young martyr saint has been noted.[36]
St. Peter Julian Eymard was cured from serious illness after having been
instructed by Vianney to pray a novena to Saint Philomena.[37]
St. Peter Channel, the first Oceanian martyr, preached of Saint Philomena and
referred to her as his “auxiliary” in his missionary apostolate.[38] Bl.
Damien de Veuster dedicated his first chapel in
Bl. Anna
Maria Taigi, as related in her beatification proceedings, applied oil burned
before the tomb of Saint Philomena to the eye of her grandchild who had been
medically diagnosed with an incurable pupil tear of the eye, and the eye was immediately
healed.[41]
Other saints and blesseds who manifested veneration
to Saint Philomena include St. Magdalene of Canossa,
Bl. Bartolo Longo, Bl. Annibale Da
Messina, and Bl. Pius IX, who, shortly before his death, sent to Mugnano the
chalice presented to him by the Belgian Federation of Catholic Circles on his
golden Episcopal anniversary as one of several papal votive gifts sent in honor
of and gratitude to Saint Philomena.[42]
The
wisdom inherent in sanctity as personified in the lives of the aforementioned saints
and blesseds provides a substantial confirmation of the decrees of the ordinary
Magisterium which granted public ecclesiastical devotion to the martyr
saint. Worthy of particular mention is
the significant number of saints and blesseds who immediately participated in
veneration of Philomena within the same half century of the discovery of her
sacred remains, some before any certain statement concerning her public
veneration was issued by Rome.[43]
Note also the predominant importance of the supernatural intervention of miracles in the Church process of canonization. Without the documented miracles, an individual cause does not typically advance past the status of “Servant of God,” even with extensive historical evidence of an earthly life of heroic virtue. The Church places its greatest emphasis for canonization, along with an essential historical basis, upon God’s witness to the sanctity of the candidate through the manifestation of miraculous intercession by the person. It was therefore most appropriate for Gregory XVI to give far greater importance to the miracles documented to the intercession of Philomena, rather than to the history of her earthly existence beyond the Church approved criteria of historically establishing her martyrdom. The present inquiry into the case of Saint Philomena should follow the same criteria as those followed by Popes Gregory XVI, Bl. Pius IX, Leo XIII and St. Pius X.
Archeological Controversy
Archeologist Oracio Marucchi introduced controversy into the status of devotion
to Saint Philomena with a 1906 publication, “Osservazioni archeologiche sulla Iscrizione di S.
Filomena”[44] in
which Marucchi put forth the following theory:
1.
Concerning the unusual word order on the three
tiles, “LUMENA PAXTE CUMFI” the three tiles were purposely re-arranged on the loculus to indicate that this was a case
of a re-using of the original tiles for the remains of a different person.
2.
The tiles were originally used to close in the
remains of one called “Filumena,” from the middle to the end of the second
century, and later used again for the loculus
of another young maiden during the fourth century, which was a time of peace
for Christianity.
3.
The person designated by the inscription was likely,
but not certainly, a martyr.[45]
The
theory of Marucchi was immediately responded to by a professor of the
Gregoriana, Guiseppe Bonavenia, S.J., (along with
Catacomb scientist J. B. De Rossi, a renowned expert in early Christian
archeology) [46] in his Controversia sul celeberrimo epitaffio di Santa
Filomena, V. e M.[47] Fr. Bonavenia and others offered the
following refutation of Marucchi’s theory:
1.
It was frequently the custom in the catacombs to
start the epitaph on the second tile, and hence the inscription is properly
read (as it was by Msgr. Ponzetti, Custodian of the Sacred Relics), “
2.
The tomb digger, not able to write the entire name
on the first tile and to conserve the proportions of his writing, proceeded to
write the “FI” on the last tile and the “LUMENA” on the first.
3.
At least 12 catacombs located in the Priscilla
catacombs begin with “
4.
The tiles are at least of the third century, and not
from the first or second centuries (which would include the persecution of
Diocletian) and thus not from a time of peace.
5.
There is only one known case posed by Marucchi as
similar to Filumena’s, where two tiles were placed in the wrong order due to
the re-using of marble (not brick) tiles from different original graves, but
the circumstances were substantially different.
In the case of “Noeti,” the two tablets are from two different original
slabs of marble; the handwriting is not the same on the two slabs but clearly
written by two different persons; and the red inscribing is of different hue on
each slab. In Filumena’s case, the three
tiles all possess the same handwriting, the same color, and the same brick
material, all of which give no indications of being re-used and thereby not a
valid comparison with the re-use evident in the Noeti loculus.
6.
In response to the claim of tile re-use from another
grave, it would have been just as easy for the mason to use the other side of
the tile, as there was nothing written on it, or to erase the “FI” or to simply
turn it upside or to leave it in an incoherent form rather than re-use two
other tiles. But, in fact, the meaning of the inscription remained essentially
clear even with the tile order changed, as it was instantly and correctly
understood by the custodians of the Holy Relics to signify “
7.
The conclusions of Prof. Marucchi regarding the
dating and re-use of the tiles were made without Marucchi making a single
on-site scientific or archeological examination of either tiles or catacomb
site. Examination of the archeological
site and the tiles would have revealed the claim of tile dating and re-use in
the case of Filumena to be erroneous and without any empirical foundation.[49]
Another
theory for the tile order was put forth by Trochu, and described in the
following scenario:
A young martyr is being buried. The loculus has been carved in the usual
manner, a little higher at the head side than at the feet. The mason chooses
two tiles he thinks will be sufficient to seal the tomb. He breaks the larger
one into two smaller pieces. Now he has three tiles. He lays them down and
writes the inscription. This having been completed, he starts the work of
putting the tiles in place. At this point he realizes that because of the
difference in height from one side of the tomb to the other, the last tile on
which he had written “LUMENA” is not tall enough to seal the grave. To close a
3 centimeter gap along a length of 57 centimeters would be very difficult.
Certainly it would be an unappealing idea to rewrite the whole inscription. His
solution, therefore, is to change the order of the tiles so that the largest
tile, with “
The plausibility of this scenario
is manifest, according to Bonavenia, when the tiles, now at Mugnano, are
examined. The two tiles that are supposed to have been split fit each other
perfectly. There is no doubt they originally formed one large tile. None of the
tiles on Filumena’s grave show any of the usual damage or mismatching (as in
the Noeti case) that is normal for tiles that have been reused, signs that
Marruchi himself said are always present in cases of tile reuse. Moreover,
Bonavenia further concludes that the idea posited by Marruchi, that “FILUMENA”
was cut in two and the tile “
A moral argument in favor of the
authenticity of the tomb of Saint Philomena, was offered
in an earlier work by H. Leclercq.[52]
He argued that the catacombs under
More
recent archeological study has provided additional clarity regarding the
shortcomings of the Marucchi theory. Jesuit
archeologist Fr. Antonio Ferrua, Secretary of the
Pontifical Commission of Sacred Archeology and Professor of Archeology at the
The
hypothesis of Marucchi, that three tiles with their
inscription came from another tomb and were sealed into the second with the
inscription out of order is not sustainable to illustrate that the epitaph does
not apply to her:
1.
Because in that case one would be able to observe on
them some traces of the second application of lime (examiners up to this point
have all concluded to only one sealing).
2.
During the process of going from first to second
usage, chips would have been very likely made to the edges of the brick
tile. Two, in particular, come from one
complete bipedal[54] which
has been split in two. They continue to have sound and undamaged matching edges
along the side of the fracture.
3.
Marble slabs are often re-used (being valuable
material), but not pieces of brick, particularly if already written upon. In any case, where it was desired to avoid
the danger of error, the precaution would have been taken of turning the
written face inwards (as usually happens when re-using wooden planks). In this way, the inconvenience of having to
put new over old would also be eliminated.
4.
Finally, it would be rather unusual and surprising
that all three re-used bricks came from one and the same (previous) grave.
In
conclusion, the hypothesis put forth by Marucchi is of an abstract orientation,
improbable, and contrary to the ordinary method of procedure of the grave
diggers of ancient times. From this
examination, solidly founded on facts, the [Marucchi] hypothesis cannot be
accepted as true.[55]
During
the time when the “Philomena controversy” arose at the beginning of the
twentieth century, Fr. Louis Petit, Director of the “Work of Saint Philomena” in
I am very
saddened by all that is being written about her. How can such things be possible?…How can they not see that the great argument in favor of
devotion to Saint Philomena is the Curé of Ars?
Through her, in her name, by means of her intercession, he obtained
countless graces, continual wonders. His
devotion to her was well known by everyone; he recommended her constantly…
We read the name, Filumena, on her
tomb. Whether it be
her own name or whether she has another, what does it matter? It remains, it is certain,
that the soul which animated those sacred remains was a pure and holy soul that
the Church has declared to be the soul of a virgin and martyr. That soul was so
beloved by God, so pleasing to the Holy Spirit, that she has obtained the most
wonderful graces for those who have had recourse to her intercession.[56]
Apart from archeological differences of opinion, the
classic ecclesial criterion for identifying Christian martyrdom, the vial of
blood and the palm branch inscription, are historically documented to be found
at the loculus of Filumena.[57]
The future Benedict XIV quotes Pope Clement IX in a decree of
Therefore, the identification of Filumena by
the Holy See’s Custodian of Relics as a Christian martyr is, by explicit Church
criteria, true and accurate. The further theological rationale contained in the
reported comments of St. Pius X are worthy of summation: 1. the witness of St.
John Vianney makes clear the modern historical reality of Saint Philomena and the
exceptional spiritual efficacy of devotion to her; 2. whether Filumena is her
accurate name or not is secondary to the fact that the person of these sacred
remains was a person declared by the Church as a virgin and martyr; 3. this
person was so beloved by God that she has been granted the ability to intercede
for extraordinary graces for those who invoke her intercession.
Properly
understood, these theological and historical facts should place the
questionable and secondary archeological objections in a properly subordinate
position.
In a surprising act which ran contrary to the historical
succession of papal magisterial encouragement of public liturgical veneration
for the martyr saint, the Congregation of Rites issued a 1961 instruction
removing Saint Philomena from liturgical calendars.[60]
The instruction was issued without rationale for the liturgical action, but
common theological opinion concluded to the lack of historicity concerning Saint Philomena’s origins, coupled with doubts prompted by the archeological
controversy initiated by Marucchi.[61]
It is important to note that the 1961instruction was a
liturgical directive and not an ecclesial declaration that Saint Philomena was no
longer a saint; nor did it prohibit popular devotion to Saint Philomena, which
has received repeated approbation by the papal Magisterium. The liturgical
directive was not accompanied with any suspension or prohibition of the
universal status of the Archconfraternity of Saint Philomena granted by St. Pius
X. Public devotion to Saint Philomena continued with the full approval of the
Holy See and of the Ordinary of the Diocese of Nola where the Mugnano Sanctuary
is located and continues to function, as well as other devotional centers
throughout the world.
Popular
devotion to Saint Philomena continued in the Church after the 1961
instruction, resting
upon the solid precedence and foundation of numerous papal approbations.[62]
Revised Roman
Martyrology
More
recently, the revised publication of the Roman
Martyrology by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of
the Sacraments in 2001 became the occasion for renewed discussion of the
ecclesial status of Saint Philomena. The
omission of Saint Philomena in the revised Roman
Martyrology was once again interpreted by various media sources as implying
that Saint Philomena was no longer a saint recognized by the Church.
Several points must be kept in mind regarding Saint Philomena and her omission from the revised Roman
Martyrology:
1. Saint Philomena, as previously stated, was
never included into the former
Roman martyrologies, even while the papal Magisterium granted the public liturgical veneration, plenary
indulgences, and universal approbation to the archconfraternity
ecclesiastically erected in her honor.[63]
2.
The Roman
Martyrology does not constitute a comprehensive compilation of every saint
and martyr recognized by the Church, and was never introduced by the
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments as
such.
3.
The continuation of popular devotion at the Mugnano
Shrine with the direct approval of the bishop ordinary of the Diocese of Nola,
juxtaposed with the still flourishing worldwide devotion in honor of Saint Philomena as manifested in the universal archconfraternity
continues with complete ecclesiastical approval, and has
moreover
experienced significant worldwide renewal in the past decade.[64]
Any
conclusion, therefore, which seeks to negate popular devotion to Saint Philomena
on the basis of her omission in the revised Roman
Martyrology would be theologically erroneous and contrary to existing
ecclesiastically sanctioned devotional practice to the martyr saint.
Present Ecclesial Status
An
authentic evaluation of the present ecclesial status of devotion to Saint Philomena would be founded upon the following conclusions as previously
discussed:
1.
The remains of Filumena were designated as belonging
to a Christian virgin and martyr by Msgr. Ponzetti, Custodian of the Sacred
Relics for the Holy See on
2.
The public cultus of Saint Philomena, virgin and
martyr, was approved in a pontifical decree of Pope Gregory XVI on
3.
Nineteen acts of the Holy See during the
pontificates of five popes were issued in positive promotion of popular
devotion to Saint Philomena, in the forms of liturgical cultus,
archconfraternities, plenary and partial indulgences.[67]
4.
Numerous saints, blesseds, and venerables
have testified to the reality and exceptional intercessory power of Saint Philomena, including Ven. Pauline Jaricot, Bl. Anna Maria Taigi, St. Peter
Julian Eymard, St. Peter Chanel, St. Madeline Sophie Barat, St. Magdalene of Canossa,
Bl. Bartolo Longo, Bl. Pope Pius IX, St. Pius X, and especially St. John
Vianney.[68]
5.
The archeological conclusions of Marucchi which
placed in doubt the authenticity of the remains of Saint Philomena have received
significant refutation by Bonavenia, De Rossi, and others at the time of the
controversy, and more recently by Fr. Antonio Ferrua,
S.J., Secretary of the Pontifical Commission of Sacred
Archeology.[69]
6. Neither the 1961 directive of the
Congregation of Rites to remove St.
Philomena from the calendar, nor her
omission in the revised Roman
Martyrology negatively affect the papally
established and
ecclesiastically approved popular devotion to Saint Philomena
that
continues with
Church sanction in our own day.[70]
Moreover,
if we examine the present Church process of beatification and canonization, we
find the following stages: 1. the heroic virtue or martyrdom of the Servant of
God must be historically established; when that is accomplished the Servant of
God is referred to as “Venerable”; 2.
for beatification a miracle must be attributed to the direct
intercession of the Servant of God; beatification then permits, by papal
decree, restricted public veneration in a particular, limited sphere of the
Church such as in particular dioceses, countries or religious communities
(usually in the form of a mass and office issued in honor of the blessed); 3. another post-beatification miracle must be attributed to the
blessed, which occurred after the process of beatification, whereby public
veneration is, by precept, extended to the universal Church by the pontiff.[71]
Besides the process of formal canonization, there is also “equivalent
canonization,” whereby the formal canonical process has not been introduced,
but the Servant of God has received more than one hundred years of public
veneration and whose sanctity is recognized by the pope.[72]
If we
apply these contemporary criteria for beatification and canonization to the
case of Saint Philomena in a more speculative manner, we find: 1. the discovery
of the blood vial and the palm branch symbol at her loculus, indicating Christian martyrdom, one of the two criteria
for the first stage of canonization (which actually constitutes the highest
form of heroic virtue); 2. great numbers of documented miracles which took
place at the Mugnano Shrine from 1805 to 1837, inclusive of the papally witnessed miraculous cure of Pauline Jaricot, which
led to Gregory XVI’s decree granting public
liturgical cultus to the particular region of Nola
(comparable to the liturgical cultus granted to a
“blessed”); and 3. a second great quantity of miracles
which were recorded in Church proceedings, both in Mugnano and in Ars, miracles
which occurred in a time period following the granting of particular public
veneration, and which included the miraculous cure of St. John Vianney.
The papal elevation and extension of the
public liturgical cultus of Saint Philomena from Nola
to other parts of the world, which included the extension of her mass and
office to Rome and other dioceses under Bl. Pius IX (Jan. 15, 1857), the
erection of the
archconfraternity and
granting of plenary indulgences in France by Leo XIII (Sept. 24, 1889), and the
extending of the archconfraternity of Saint Philomena
to the universal Church (Pias Fidelium,
The norms
for beatification and canonization and their implementation during the
pontificate of John Paul II also bear relevance to the question of the
ecclesial status of Saint Philomena. In the 1983 Apostolic Constitution, Divinus Perfectionis Magister, John Paul reiterates through his
implementation of norms that either
martyrdom or heroic virtue has to be historically established for the process
of beatification of the candidate, but not
both. Therefore a miracle is no longer required for the beatification of a
martyr, but is still required for a non-martyred confessor of faith.[74]
Once martyrdom has been historically verified, the candidate can be immediately
beatified without further evidence of a miracle or extended historical
documentation of an earthly life of heroic virtue. These revised norms would,
in themselves, establish Philomena as a blessed solely in virtue of her
historically documented martyrdom, with the subsequent requirement of a
documented miracle necessary for formal canonization being easily fulfilled in
light of her numerous miracles.
Of the
four hundred sixty four saints canonized by John Paul II,[75]
approximately eighty percent have been martyrs,[76]
which shows the pontiff’s concern to offer our contemporary age human witnesses
to the primacy of eternity over this life, the transcendence of vision towards
Heaven over the immanentism which seems to infect
much of our present society of materialism, secularism, and even atheism.
Certainly, the witness of a young female martyr, icon of virginal purity and
fidelity, would likewise speak to the contemporary need for exemplars of young
sanctity and purity, especially for the youth of today.
The
origins of the public veneration of the saints in general must also be kept in
mind in the assessment of Saint Philomena. In the primitive Church, martyrs were
immediately recognized as witnessing to the perfection of Christian life on
earth, having shown the ultimate proof of their love for Christ by the offering
of their lives. By the sacrifice of their
lives for Christ, they attained Heaven in eternal glory and were indissolubly
united to the Lord, the Head of the Mystical Body. The faithful still under
persecution invoked their intercession to obtain the grace to imitate their
saintly example. The veneration of the
martyrs had, from its historical outset, all essential characteristics
of public
veneration, including the placing of the date and place of martyrdom upon a
public calendar which was observed and celebrated by the entire Christian
community. This was certainly
distinguished from the sad memorials upon the death of other Christians, as the
martyrs were publicly venerated with joy upon the day of their deaths.[77]
It was
only near the end of the Roman persecutions that the public veneration offered
to martyrs was then extended to confessores fidei who, while not dying for the faith, had
nonetheless defended and suffered for the faith in heroic ways. Still later was
public veneration extended to Christians who had exhibited exceptional holiness
in charity, penance, evangelical works, or in the elucidation of doctrine.[78]
This pre-eminence of public veneration for the holiness of martyrdom as expressed in the primitive Church must be acknowledged in assessing the public veneration due today to a young female martyr, whose martyrdom is, once again, historically assured by the official criteria of the Holy See, and whose subsequent plethora of miracles offer the supernatural indication and confirmation from God that the Church strictly requires for modern formal canonization. While a comprehensive historical account of a candidate for canonization is legitimate in seeking to establish the heroic virtue required for a confessor, it should not, by primitive as well as contemporary standards, be required for the declaration of the sanctity of a Christian martyr. When historical requirements beyond the establishment of martyrdom are posed as impediments to the public veneration of a martyr as a “saint,” these stray from the ecclesiastical principles for sanctity, both ancient and current. Martyrdom and miracles, not extended personal history, comprise the essence of canonization for those who have shed blood for Christ.
In conclusion, popular devotion to Saint Philomena, virgin and martyr, is presently alive and well amidst the People of God, enjoying positive ecclesial status and generously increasing veneration. The wisdom of past popes and saints recognized that the “history” of Philomena’s powerful supernatural intercession for the Church was more important than the “history” of her earthly life. Such is the manifestation of the mysterious ways of God’s salvific design.
The Church today has received from Pope John Paul II the missio for the new evangelization in this third millennium of Christianity.[79] With the recent canonization of St. Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, thaumaturgus of the twentieth century, how efficacious it would be for the People of God and the successful implementation of the new evangelization to have recourse, through a renewed public liturgical veneration, to Saint Philomena, whom Pope Gregory XVI rightly designated as the “Thaumaturga of the nineteenth century.”[80]
May the young virgin martyr, powerful with God, become, once again, a favored patroness of sanctity and purity, particularly for the youth of today.
Mark
Miravalle, S.T.D.
Professor
of Theology and Mariology
Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary
© Copyright Mark I. Miravalle, 2002