Case XLII: May a Relic Be Venerated If There Is Any Doubt Regarding its Authenticity?

Bertha has a great veneration for the relics of saints, and possesses a number of them, having inherited some and having received others as gifts. She has papers of authentication for all except one, but she venerates that one as well as the rest. A friend pointed out that if the relic were not genuine she was guilty of superstition. Alarmed at this suggestion, she went to a priest and asked if she had really committed a sin, or if she might venerate this relic.

The questions are: (1) Has Bertha committed a sin? (2) May she continue to venerate this relic?

Answer to (1).—Before we can say whether she has sinned or not, we must consider the state of her conscience. If she has acted bona fide, believing it to be undoubtedly right and proper to venerate the relic, she has not sinned; she has acted according to her conscience, which must direct our behavior, even when it is in unconscious error. If, however, she felt any doubt as to whether she ought to venerate this relic, and whether it was sinful to do so, she has committed a sin, because it is not permissible to act in a state of doubt. If the further question be asked, whether the sin committed ratione dubii is mortal or venial, we answer with St. Alphonsus that it is venial if the person is otherwise conscientious and has not perceived the danger of sinning grievously, nor the obligation of examining the matter carefully. St. Alphonsus writes as follows (Theol. mor., I. 23): "What if someone knows that something is evil but doubts whether it is mortal or venial and acts with such a doubt? Some judge that he sins gravely or lightly according as the object of the sin in its kind is grave or light. Finally, others hold with sufficient probability that he sins only venially if the man gives no attention at all, even confusedly, to the danger of sinning gravely or to the obligation of examining the matter, provided also that he is a man of timorous conscience." Under other circumstances, the sin would be grievous. Tantum malum, quantum crediderit—says St. Bernard.

Answer to (2).—We have to distinguish public and private veneration of relics. As a general rule, when there is not moral certainty regarding the identity and authenticity of relics, they cannot be publicly venerated, nor carried processionaliter. This is plain from a decree of the S. Congreg. Rit. 2j September, 1817. Moral certainty regarding the genuineness of relics is present when the ecclesiastical authorities have approved them as relics of saints.

How do matters stand when in some isolated case, in spite of the care displayed by the Church in safeguarding the relics of the saints, some serious error as to their authenticity has crept in? Even in such a case the veneration would not be vain, as a relic is not honored absolutely, but relatively, for the sake of the person to whom it belonged. Relative veneration of the saints extends to their relics, pictures, and statues, which are objects of religious honor, not for their own sake, but on account of their connection with certain saints.

From what has been said, it appears that, in spite of the doubt as to the authenticity of this relic, Bertha may venerate it, especially as the veneration to be given it is private.—Dr. Franz Janis.