Holy Forskins!

It has become a bit of a custom now for a small group of us to go to the pub after lectures on a Friday (Usually one Swedish student – who works for Vatican Radio, one marinite seminarian, a monk from Australia, S a Canadian seminarian and myself). The conversation can get pretty bizarre and this was no exception!

“Have you heard that there used to be a relic that was believed to be Jesus’ foreskin in Charruox (France)? It was eventually moved to Rome Italy but mysteriously went missing in 1983. Yeah, they used to have a feast day ‘La Festa della Circumcisione’ (The Feast of the circumcision – in the masculine tense in Italian of course). They used to parade it around Rome in a glass case encrusted with jewels. But it was stolen in 1983 and has never been seen again” (One presumes they were after the case and not the contents).

Well I nearly spat my beer out!

There are some articles of faith that just defy comprehension. I have never been one for relics – I mean if we collected all of the pieces or wood which are supposedly part of the true cross it would be over one hundred feet tall.

Relics are one thing and some are held in higher esteem and more authentic than others. Besides, the Vatican never did encourage reverence to the Holy Foreskin and saw it s a bit of an embarrassment. Ultimately this seems unimportant and nothing more than an amusing story with a relatively small group of individuals choosing to ‘expose’ the sacred item once a year. This is not the way it is with all belief and I am beginning to realise why the Catholic Church is loosing touch with society.

Catholic tradition says that when something is declared dogmatic by the Pope and Bishops then it is unshakable and cannot be disputed i.e. is no longer open for discussion and must be believed. Take the Assumption of Our Lady for example. This is the Catholic and Orthodox belief that Mary, after completing her earthly life was taken up to heaven body and soul in a glorified state – the state that it is believed everyone will achieve on the final judgement and the end of creation. How the hell do they know this stuff – how can they be so sure that this is absolute truth and fact.

In ‘Munificentissimus deus’ written in 1950 (the Papal encyclical in order to end dispute about this event), Pope Pius XI bases the belief on the following:

· A series of tenuous links to scripture which never directly speak of the event but instead could be interpreted in several ways.
· The popularity of Mary in Catholic tradition – just because an idea is popular does not make it true.
· The fact that allot of prominent theologians over the years wanted it to be true and wrote some arguments for the Assumption (again because of the popular piety towards Mary).
· Other encyclicals written by other popes over the centuries.
· Oh and he also quotes himself once in order to prove the point.

I am not saying this is definitely not true but merely raising the issue that it is open to a reasonable doubt and surely should fall into the category of subjective truth rather than objective and unconditional. This is not how Pope Pius XI saw it. The closing part of the encyclical says that…
“It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” (Munficentissimus Deus para.47 )
It is one thing to say you can’t really call yourself a Catholic if you don’t believe in a given dogma or doctrine but to say you will ‘incur the wrath of God’ upon yourself, that is an amazingly bold and arrogant statement.

All things considered the majority of people would see this particular belief as relatively inconsequential for society or the individual , however, I must add that wars have been fought over issues like this one. It is when you start making pronouncements and statements of belief which have a direct impact upon people’s lives which are no longer open to discussion or debate (take Humanae Vitea, the encyclical which says many good things about the dignity of the human person but also bans the use of artificial methods of contraception) then you have a problem. Does any one person or relatively small body of people have the right to dictate what people should believe and more importantly how people should behave and live in the most intimate and private parts of their lives, especially when their intentions are good and loving.

As I have said before does any one body of people have the monopoly on God and the divine? Can anyone be so sure that they have the fullness of truth and that alternative views are wrong? Does anyone ideology or religion for that matter have the complete truth or are they all just fumbling around in the dark and whilst having excellent elements, also carrying with them unnecessary, irrelevant and even ridiculous baggage like the diamond encrusted forskin?!