Case 2. Doubt Cast on an Ancient Relic

Titius, a priest and moderately learned, was scandalized and perplexed when he read in the newspapers that several Catholic historical writers now hold that the House of Loreto is not the very house of Nazareth in which the Holy Family dwelt. But since the Roman Breviary (December 10) declares: “That it is the selfsame one in which the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us is proved both by pontifical documents and by the most celebrated veneration of the whole world, and by the continual power of miracles and the grace of heavenly benefits,” and the Church still appears to approve the worship of that house, Titius did not know how these things are to be reconciled. Hence he asks:

1. What kind of worship is shown by the Church to sacred relics?

2. In order that religious worship may be shown to relics, is certainty concerning the genuineness of the relics required?

3. Does the approval of the Church, or even miracles, bring it about that complete certainty concerning the genuineness of relics is had?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What sort of worship is paid by the Church to sacred relics?

The worship which the Church pays to sacred relics is relative, not absolute; that is, relics are honored not on account of any intrinsic holiness of their own, but because of their connection with a person who is worthy of honor. Special honor is paid to portions of the true Cross because Our Lord died on it for our salvation; relative honor, called dulia, is paid to relics of the saints.

2. Is certainty about the authenticity of relics required in order that worship may be paid them?

Yes, moral certainty is required; for religious worship may not be paid to an object which is probably not worthy of such honor. Private certainty of the authenticity of a relic and of the sanctity of the person with whom it is connected is sufficient to justify private worship; for public worship the approbation of the Church is required. A bishop may approve relics of those saints who are canonized or beatified ; the Pope alone can approve relics of those who are not canonized nor beatified. The honor which has hitherto been shown to ancient relics from time immemorial should continue to be paid to them even though there be no authentication, unless it becomes certain that they are false.

3. Does the Church’s approbation or even miracles make the authenticity of a relic absolutely and irrefragably certain?

No. The Church’s approbation is a sufficient guarantee that the authenticity of a relic is morally certain indeed, but it is a question of fact, and new reasons may be discovered which show that what was believed to be true is false. God, too, may work miracles in reward of the dispositions of those who honor a relic which they suppose to be a true one, although it is in reality false. The miracle is a reward of good dispositions, not a divine guarantee of the authenticity of a relic.

4. The case. By what has been said we can soothe the perplexity of Titius without entering on the question whether the Holy House at Loreto is really that in which Our Lord lived. Possession is in its favor, and it has not yet been shown not to be the Holy House. The Breviary and the Papal briefs rest on what was deemed satisfactory evidence of the truth of their assertions at the time when they were written. They may stand until they are shown to be mistaken. If that ever comes about, the Church will doubtless recall her sanction, and meanwhile we may go on as before. For the principles involved in this solution see Benedict XIV, De Canon. Sanctorum, lib. iv, pt. ii, c. 13 and c. 24.