Friday, June 29th, 2012


As the Fortnight for Freedom, continues, let’s keep with our examination of worthy women, many of whom were hassled, persecuted, or even martyred by their own Church. The legend of the 15th century peasant girl, Jeanne, is well-known to practically every western Christian. For today’s installment, I’d like to recount the details of her betrayal, and note that just twenty-five years after she died, the pope declared her a martyr.

Here is where Catholics failed to follow the proper procedures following her capture as a prisoner of war:

  • French royalty declined to pay a ransom, as was customary for the family of a prisoner.
  • Instead, the English bought her from the Duke of Burgundy.
  • Bishop Pierre Cauchon did not have the proper jurisdiction to conduct an ecclesiastical prosecution.
  • No evidence could be found, let alone collected for a heresy trial. Nonetheless, the proceedings advanced.
  • No legal adviser was provided for the defendant, and Jeanne’s request for these was ignored.
  • Jeanne infuriated those attempting to entrap her, unable to penetrate her intelligence. Portions of the transcripts were altered.
  • Jeanne was held in a secular prison, instead of being confined to an ecclesiastical location under the guard of cloistered nuns.
  • The English made threats, subtle and some not so subtle (death threats) to compel clergy, and even the inquisitor, Jean LeMaitre to satisfy their wishes for a conviction.
  • The articles of accusation do not match up with even the changed recordings of the proceedings.
  • Jeanne’s proper appeals to a Church council (what we now know as Florence had begun in Basel, Switzerland) and to the pope were ignored.
  • Heresy was only a capital crime if it were a repeated offense.

This is perhaps the most notable time when a prelate used ecclesiastical authority to further a political or personal vendetta against a lay person. It was certainly not the first or the last. A generation later, after the end of the Hundred Years’ War, Pope Callixtus III authorized a “re-trial” at the request of Jeanne’s family and some members of the hierarchy.

Needless to say, Jeanne was vindicated for future veneration as a saint. Bishop Cauchon himself was cited as a possible heretic for his role in using ecclesiastical procedures to further a political situation.

And what was the heresy thing, anyway? Jeanne dressed in men’s clothing. Some Catholics today retain that fixation on confusing clothing with the matter of God’s grace.

It seems little different today, except that the Church lacks the arm of physical enforcement of its wishes. Otherwise, bishops are still influenced by political agendas inside and outside of the Church, rules are ignored when inconvenient, evidence is hard to come by, and the written record is not always aligned with what actually happened or was said.

Have human beings changed much in six centuries? Perhaps you can find an optimist to suggest that we’re a kinder gentler species. But perhaps more conservative Catholics would contend that the hope to make progress, as a culture, from barbarism and sin is useless. In which case, draw what conclusions you will from present-day persecutions within the Body. Sainte Jeanne, pray for us.

Let’s take a quick look at the physical material of an altar:

9. In accordance with received custom in the Church and the biblical symbolism connected with an altar, the table of a fixed altar should be of stone, indeed of natural stone. But, at the discretion of the conference of bishops, any becoming, solid, and finely wrought material may be used in erecting an altar.

The pedestal or base of the table may be of any sort of material, provided it is becoming and solid.

Natural stone would preclude anything processed or smelted. My parish has a very fine wood altar–it’s not like anything I’ve seen elsewhere.

Some words on relics and images of saints:

10. The altar is of its very nature dedicated to the one God, for the eucharistic sacrifice is offered to the one God. This is the sense in which the Church’s practice of dedicating altars to God in honour of the saints must be understood. St. Augustine expresses it well: ‘It is not to any of the martyrs, but to the God of the martyrs, though in memory of the martyrs, that we raise our altars.’(Augustine, Contra Faustum 20, 21: PL 42, 384)

This should be made clear to the people. In new churches statues and pictures of saints may not be placed above the altar.

Likewise, when relics of saints are exposed for veneration, they should not be placed on the table of the altar.

11. It is fitting to continue the tradition in the Roman liturgy of placing relics of martyrs or other saints beneath the altar. But the following should be noted.

  • a) Such relics should be of a size sufficient for them to be recognizable as parts of human bodies. Hence excessively small relics of one or more saints must not be placed beneath an altar.
  • b) The greatest care must be taken to determine whether the relics in question are authentic. It is better for an altar to be dedicated without relics than to have relics of doubtful authenticity placed beneath it.
  • c) A reliquary must not be placed on the altar or set into the table of the altar, but placed beneath the table of the altar, as the design of the altar permits.

When the rite of depositing relics takes place, it is highly recommended to keep a vigil at the relics of the martyr or saint, in accordance with the provisions of chapter two, no. 10.

My own parish has relics of our patron, but they would not pass the muster of 11a. In some instances, 11b is a difficult standard to apply. I once saw a small chest mounted under an altar, presumably with 11c in mind. The rite seems to presume that relics are permanently placed, and not in a way that they can be removed for occasional veneration. Given today’s emphasis on seeing (is believing?) is this as good as having relics available for occasional veneration? What do you think?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 97 other followers