 |
 |
With regard to the pollution of sacred space with blood, I ran accross an article some time ago that is available on the web. It provides a cultural context for cannonical rulings such as just commented upon, for instance, without resolving specific historical questions as to why apparently there was a change in practice/attitude on blood defilement of churches in the midst of the 12th century. Nevertheless it is useful on underlying attitudes toward pollution and cleansing of sacred spaces. "Blood and Purity in Leviticus and Revelation , " by K. C. Hanson in Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture 28 (1993):215-30. The website, unnecessarily in my opinion, presents the text against a blood red ground. http://www.stolaf.edu/people/kchanson/blood.html Cheers, Leah Rutchick At 09:27 AM 2/12/01 -0500, you wrote: >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 [snip] REPLY >[snip]: 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. [snip] >Stephen A. Allen >[log in to unmask]