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]
