At 08:41 AM 02/12/2001 +0000, Rob Durk wrote:
>[snip]
>
>One thing on which I think most authorities would be
>agreed is that bloodshed in a church constitutes
>'pollutio'. In which case a good place to look for
>reconsecration information would be in the times
>following the murder of Thomas a Becket. I suspect the
>reconsecration of Canterbury Cathedral cannot have
>passed off without note.
>
>
As some of the list members know, the subject of churches
desecrated by bloodshed is one area I've researched in the
past. In fact, the murder of Becket ended up becoming the
topic of a debated question in late 12th century canon law
precisely because bloodshed in a church was not universally
regarded as polluting.
To make a long argument short: canonists prior to the late
12th century generally regarded blood as a polluting
substance, and hence regarded any act that shed blood as
requiring a rededication/reconciliation. Violent acts that
did not actually shed blood, however, did not pollute a
church. Canonists after Huguccio (whose _Summa_ can be
dated to c. 1190) concentrated more on the intent of the
violent acts, and in effect reversed the consensus of
previous generations: for them, any violent act polluted a
church, but blood shed "innocently" (by a natural
nosebleed, for example) did not.
Becket's murder presented an additional problem. Becket
was recognized as a saint. Saint's blood was holy -- a
relic -- and could even be used to dedicate a church in the
first place. So the question arose: did Becket's blood
pollute Canterbury Cathedral, and was a reconciliation
necessary? Canonists before Huguccio said no: Becket's
blood was not a polluting substance. Canonists from
Huguccio onward said yes: it was not the blood but the act
of violence that polluted the church. Incidentally, Pope
Alexander III did order his legates to reconcile the
cathedral.
One additional point: "rededication/reconsecration" vs.
"reconciliation." The former is a repetition of the entire
dedication ceremony; the latter refers essentially to a
blessing with holy water. The former implies that a church
has completely lost its sacred character; the latter
implies that the church is defiled, but still sacred.
Canonists began to make a distinction between the two in
the middle of the 12th century. Rededication was used only
in extreme cases, generally when the actual fabric of the
church was damaged. Reconciliation was used for other
varieties of pollution, such as bloodshed and sexual
pollution, which is whole other problem in itself.
Stephen A. Allen
[log in to unmask]
|