A skeptical look at Incorruptibility
June 30th, 2010
|
| Share |
The Catholic church has a number of… interesting… traditions. One of them is the veneration of the mortal remains of those considered to be saints by the Church. In many cases, the bodies of saints have been dug up years or centuries after their death to be reburied in places of honor or to be chopped up into holy relics. Sometimes, they’re never even buried in the first place, if they’re believed to be holy enough to begin with.
When this happens, the bodies are sometimes found to be in a state of relative preservation. Having not been reduced to bones or dust in a matter of decades, as bodies often are, this is traditionally seen as a miraculous action and proof of their holiness and the special treatment that god has given their bodies even after death. It is believed that their spiritual purity transcends the physical, and apparently makes them unpalatable to bacteria (although the role of microbes in decay was not known in centuries past.)
The term incorruptibility is used to describe these alleged supernaturally preserved bodies. Many are also claimed to produce the Odour of Sanctity – a pleasant floral smell, rather than the smell of decay. However, this remains unverified and, even if true, could just be an example of unusual smelling mold.
Despite the increasing understanding of how material decays, today many in the catholic church continue to venerate the bodies of saints, which can be viewed in gilded glass coffins around the world. Many see this is proof of the work of god and the holiness of the saints themselves.
Yet a closer look at some o the best known examples shows that things are not really so miraculous and most of the bodies are far from perfectly preserved.
To this day, the allegedly preserved bodies of saints
Things that can prevent decay:
- Drying – By far the most common form of natural preservation, if a body is placed in a dry area or has air circulation, such as might be the case if it is not buried, the tissues may dry out. This stunts microbial activity and keeps the body from decaying.
- Adipocere – Also known as “grave wax” or “mortuary wax”, the process occurs when bacterial hydrolysis converts body fats into a stable organic substance composed of fatty acids. The material is described as being similar to wax or soap. The process occurs in cold damp environments and may be exacerbated by mineral activity.
- Intentional Embalming - Embalming of one type or another has been around for centuries. Modern embalming is done primarily to prevent decay of a body while it is transported to burial or during a time that it lays in state. It includes the infusion of the body with chemicals such as formaldehyde, which can fix tissue and inhibit decay. This type of embalming has been around for more than a century.
- Other environmental conditions – Numerous compounds and conditions are known to occur which may result in decay being inhibited. Toxic heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury may have been used in years past in caskets or burial preparations and can inhibit microbial activity. Acidic conditions, such as those found in peat bogs are well known for their ability to preserve organic material. Other local minerals or conditions may play a role.
Some famous examples and the reality of what likely caused the bodies from decaying:
Jean-Baptiste-Marie Vianney – The body was declared to be incorupt shortly after his death in 1859. However, the body also received specialized treatment which may have lead to reduced decay. It is likely that internal organs were removed and the body was treated with embalming chemicals, although this cannot be known for sure as it has never been examined scientifically. What is known is that the perfectly preserved face is not really the face of the body at all, but a wax mask made shortly after his death.
Pio of Pietrelcina - The body was declared to be in corrupt when it was exhumed from its tomb in 2008, after having been buried for 40 years. This despite the fact that the body showed clear signs of major decay and was more or less in the kind of condition one would expect a 40 year old body to be in. Importantly, the body was not buried in the ground, but in a sealed crypt, which would have provided the cool temperatures and dry conditions that would be expected to stunt decay.
Archbishop Domenico D’Ambrosio described the exhumation saying, “As soon as we got inside the tomb we could clearly make out the beard. The top part of the skull is partly skeletal but the chin is perfect and the rest of the body is well preserved.” Certainly not free of decay and not exactly unusual for a body which was isolated from moisture, soil and environment. Despite claims of good preservation, morticians found the face was far too deteriorated to be recognizable and thus the body was fitted with a silicone mask. Thus, if the face looks amazingly well preserved, it’s simply because it’s a silicone mask.
Bernadette Soubirous - The body was exhumed in 1909, thirty years after it had been buried. Reports vary on the condition, but generally agree that the body was in a fair state of preservation. The Church declared the body was incorrupt. Two doctors who examined the body indicated that it was in a fair state of preservation, but far from perfect. In 1919, the body was again disinterred. A doctor who observed the body stated “The body is practically mummified, covered with patches of mildew and quite a notable layer of salts, which appear to be calcium salts. … The skin has disappeared in some places, but it is still present on most parts of the body.”
Based on this report it is clear that the body was far from being free of decay. The presence of calcium salts likely indicates that a natural process of mummification had occurred, with local minerals acting to draw much of the moisture out of the tissues and inhibit microbial growth – although they clearly did not stop it all together. The face was reported to have a black tinge, and this lead to the church fitting the body with a wax mask and wax hand coverings, to give the appearance of non-decayed flesh. This appears to be a common practice with these corpses.
Saint Zita - The body of Saint Zita was exhumed in 1580, more than three hundred years after her death in 1272. The body was found to have retained much of the flesh and was thus declared incorrupt. Even a cursory examination of the body shows that it is a very obvious case of drying and natural mummification. It is likely that the original burial was in a very dry environment.
The body of Saint Zita is displayed in new, clean clothing but otherwise is as it is, with no wax or silicone masks or coverings. Seeing the state of the body makes it pretty obvious why masks and coverings are so common, because it looks exactly like you’d expect a medieval dried out corpse to look – not very saintly, really.
Saint Rose of Lima - Saint Rose of Lima died in 1617 in Peru and is considered the first Catholic saint of the Americas. Exactly what happened to her body after her death is not very well documented, although it seems to have been declared to be incorrupt despite obvious signs of decay. At some point shortly after her death, the head was separated from the rest of the body and likely was carried around Latin America for veneration.
The cranium was no exactly left alone. It was ornamented, embellished and adorned repeatedly. It finally ended up in a box in a church in Peru. Despite claims of being incorruptible, it appears to be little more than a skull at this point.
Catherine of Siena - After her death in 1380, Saint Catherin seems to have received the same treatment as Rose of Lima, having her head lopped off to go on tour and meet the various faithful. It was eventually returned to the St. Dominic Basilica, where it can still be seen today. Unfortunately, it was not covered by any kind of veil or mask, which means that visitors have to actually look at an old skull with dried-out crinkled skin on it. Like most bodies on display, it is mounted in an embellished and ornamented display case.
Catherine of Ricci – A very obvious case of natural mummification, primarily by drying. The body does not exactly look well preserved and is quite goolish. It’s discolored, crumbling flesh over old, dried out bones.
Conclusion:
Despite many claims of miraculous preservation, none of the bodies seem to be in anywhere near perfect condition. Those which are best preserved and appear to be the least decayed are usually the newest and have often been purposely treated to inhibit decay.
When the body of Pope John XXIII was exhumed and found to be in fairly good shape, the Catholic Church stated that they did not believe it was a miracle, citing the fact that the body had been subjected to thorough chemical embalming before it laid in state in 1963 and the conditions of the tomb it was stored in. In this circumstance, they were right.
All available evidence indicates that this phenomena, despite claims of being supernatural, is really just bodies that don’t decay immediately due to conditions or human intervention. Many, despite the claims of incorruptibility, have in fact, decayed severely.
If the pictures look too good to be true, take a closer look at the facts. Chances are that you’re just looking at a wax or silicone replica of a long-decayed face.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 30th, 2010 at 1:50 am and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, History, Paranormal, religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
June 30th, 2010 at 3:55 am
In the past I have found myself in the unenviable position to discuss this topic with a devout catholic and was forced to do some research myself with basically the same results as yours: It’s all dry mummies topped off with wax faces.
I might add to what you wrote on the “odour of sancticity”, though.
“Many are also claimed to produce the Odour of Sanctity – a pleasant floral smell, rather than the smell of decay. However, this remains unverified and, even if true, could just be an example of unusual smelling mold.”
Long before the advent of chemical embalming, people knew how to preserve corpses. The Egyptians were the true masters at this, but the knowledge was never entirely lost. Many of the medieval ‘incorruptibles’ have had some kind of embalming done on them, and it usually included a mixture of herbs and resin. No wonder they smell like flowers and pine trees…
Satan_Klaus
Quote Comment
June 30th, 2010 at 9:18 am
The practice of veneration of relics in the Catholic Church has been riddled with fraud from it’s inception. It was recognized as far back as the 1400’s when Erasmus, the famous theologian of Rotterdam, remarked that there were enough pieces of the True Cross sitting in reliquaries “to crucify the population of a small town.”
Even the Jesuits that taught me would only say that the validity of relics shouldn’t be questioned because they gave comfort to the faithful. In Jesuit-speak, this was as close to telling us they were all a crock, as you could get.
Quote Comment
June 30th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
I myself come from a family that is half Latin American and half Italian. As you’d probably expect, there’s a lot of traditional Catholicism there, especially in the older generations. I always found this whole thing a bit disturbing and strange. There are a lot of wonderful things you can look at in the world and if you’re so inclined say that it is the work of god, but kneeling around a big slab of half rancid dried out human meat always seemed pretty unpleasant and just plain disturbing to me. I don’t mind bodies if there’s some kind of value like to science or whatever, but a musty dead corpse is not something that I’d want to carry around a picture of or go to visit much. It’s made all the stranger by the setup where a lot of these are crinkly dead people who are clothed in fine silk and crowned with jewels and sit on stain pillows in crystal boxes. Just weird really.
My great aunt has a picture of one of these saint’s bodies in her room and has for as long as I can remember. I’m not 100% certain, but I think it’s Bernadette Soubirous. It’s a picture of a woman in a nun’s habit clutching rosary beads. She says it is a miracle and proof you are looking at a saint because she looks totally peaceful, like she is sleeping waiting for the return of Jesus, eventhough she has been dead for over a century her purity and beauty are not tainted etc etc.
My aunt and probably most of those who venerate this body are apparently not aware that that’s not actually her face. I guess the body might have been in good shape for its age, but was sure not perfect or much to look at. The face is made of wax on top of the real face. If you look closely at the picture you can somewhat tell, because the mouth and eyes look like they’re sealed and not actually an opening.
I’m sure if you asked my aunt she’d say that was not the truth, eventhough I think even the church admits as much.
It makes me wonder what these people would think if you could go back in time and tell them what would happen after their death. I guess it doesn’t matter what happens to my body when I die, because I won’t be around to worry, but if I had to choose now, I am sure I would prefer not to have it on display and definitely not to have my head chopped off and sent on a world tour. I’d rather be remembered in a more dignified way and I’d rather my image come from when I was in better condition and not rotting apart.
If these people were anything like their reputation is I bet they would be all the more horrified. It’s not just that this makes them into a freak show, but if they were truly humble and saintly they would probably have said that they were not the ones to be revered but that their god was and that their bodies should not be considered holy or sacred because they were just humble servants of the faith. I’m sure that of those who were truly charitable and giving would not be very enthusiastic about the display. I can imagine someone like Mother Teresa objecting to her body being used like that, if it ever is, which the way it goes, it might be someday. If I believed in ghosts, I’d think of her looking at her body and saying “You spent ten thousand dollars for a gold crown for my decaying corpse while there are hungry children in the streets of Calcutta? What is wrong with you people????”
Quote Comment
June 30th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Engineering Edgar said:
“Mother” Teresa, would not care one wit about the hungry children in the streets of Calcutta, because she never did. This woman’s philosophy was about embracing poverty and suffering in the belief it brought one closer to Christ.
Her hospices were places where people went to die. The quality of care offered in those places has been criticised in the medical press, which reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an approach to illness and suffering that precluded the use of many elements of modern medical care, such as systematic diagnosis.
Dr. Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, described the medical care by volunteers without medical knowledge who to take decisions about patient care, since there were no doctors on staff. He observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who would otherwise survive died from infections and lack of treatment. In fact this deluded old woman discouraging her nuns from seeking medical training to deal with the illnesses they encountered, with the justification that God empowers the weak and ignorant, and she felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus.
Her order collected millions of dollars in charity, yet there is no accounting of how this money was spent, (if it was spent) yet the facilities her order built were austere and poorly equipped, even my Indian standards. Any close examination of her actions shows in fact she did nothing to alleviate the condition of the poor but just took care of the sick and dying, using them to further a flawed theological cause. A report in The Guardian detailed conditions in her orphanages that included charges of gross neglect and physical and emotional abuse.
The woman and her order are the single worst example of Christian religious sisters in existence today
Quote Comment
June 30th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
DV82XL said:
Okay, maybe a bad example. Insert the name of some pious catholic who actually did attempt to do good works of charity. I’m sure there are some who do/did exist. As I come from a catholic family and have plenty of experience with the church, I can attest to the fact that yes there are catholics, even religious ones, who do have real concern for the welfare of others and would not want to be enshrined in something that would cost money that could relieve poverty and suffering.
Quote Comment
June 30th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
I was raised RC too, and there were/are a few that truly live ’saintly’ lives of sacrifice and service, and contribute their skills and time to making the secular world a better place to live. And no, I suppose that they would not want their corps to rot on public display, decorated in expensive finery. Although there is an element of hypocrisy in that none of these exemplars of the Catholic faith speak out, condemning these practices.
Quote Comment
June 30th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
DV82XL said:
Perhaps they would say that they were not entitled to such veneration but that the great saints of the past are. I don’t usually picture a “saintly” person walking around thinking they’re amazing and worth worshiping.
I would not want my body like that, because as “Engineering Edgar” says it is not a very dignified way to be remembered.
Quote Comment
June 30th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
DV82XL said:
Can you recommend any good reading on this subject, or post a few links to those examples you cited? (I am not doubting you at all, I am just very curious about this topic, and would like to read more on it).
If posting too many links activates the spam filter here, I am sure that The Good Doctor could pass my email onto you to forward me some info (I’d rather not post it publicly, lest the trolls and loonies who rock up here frequently begin to spam it).
Thanks.
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2010 at 12:53 am
Curtains said:
There is Mother Teresa The Final Verdict By Aroup Chatterjee (link is to intro, and first three chapters on line) Meteor Books 2002
And, The squalid truth behind the legacy of Mother Teresa Donal MacIntyre, New Statesman, 22 August 2005
Also, Mommie Dearest The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud. Christopher Hitchens Slate, Oct. 20, 2003
That should get you started, some judicious Googling can supply you with many more.
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2010 at 2:20 am
I would definitely want my embalmed, dessicated, preserved corpse going on display after I’m dead!
But not dressed up in finery and stuck in a glass box in a church – I’d go for becoming part of a house of horrors. I can imagine no finer way to honour my memory than to use my crumbling remains to scare the crap out of little kids.
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2010 at 9:34 am
Given that my first post rather clearly indicates that I’ll do anything for a cheap laugh, I thought I should attempt to post something of substance.
However, it’s hard to summon any clear opinions on the matter of incorruptibility. It quiet clearly comes down to clever preserving techniques and good fortune (the Vatican being unlikely to renounce the sainthood of someone who’s body does decompose) and in many cases the Vatican practically admits to this.
To be honest, incorruptibility isn’t exactly the most significant thing to poke at when looking at the issue of Roman Catholic Christian belief. I much prefer to simply take a poke at the general timeline of God’s activities – assume for a moment (as many Christians do) that the book of Genesis is just a nice creation myth and that the Old Testament is over-simplified but has many grains of truth.
Up to 0 A.D.
God pokes his nose into everything, speaking to followers, working miracles, parting seas and dishing out the hate on those who seem to deserve it with plagues of everything and the occasional flood. These large scale events affect many people and seemingly leave the populace in little doubt that someone is definitely in upstairs.
0 to 33 A.D.
God creates a child to act as His mouthpiece, preaching the word of God, simplifying a rather rigid set of commandments into just two which can then be interpreted in a number of ways (and unlike Asimov, He forgets to clarify the priority order). This “son” is the single direct focus of God’s omnipotent power for the following 33 years, healing the sick, feeding the 5000 and finally managing to cheat death, at least temporarily. At no point do God or Jesus consider furthering humanity’s knowledge in areas beyond the theological. God sends His only child to the heartland of His own worshippers rather than to bring enlightenment and The Good Word to, say, China.
From 33 A.D.
After thousands of years of interventionalist tactics, God rested. Suddenly the bringer of floods, locusts and healing starts moving in mysterious ways, answering prayers by subtly moving the pieces of His spherical chess board – seemingly not responding to schisms within His own church, holy wars killing thousands in His name and the rise of a handful of other religions.
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Decay of bodies or the lack of decay as spawned numerous other myths and superstitions. In years past, people just didn’t understand what microbial decay was and all they really knew was that most bodies did decay fairly quickly. Today if a body does not completely decompose in a short period of time, we can explain it by saying it was due to the environmental conditions or burial method or something like that.
Lacking any way to explain why occasionally a dead body looked reasonably intact months or years later, magical thinking prevailed. In this case, it showed the body was holy, but in others it showed it was evil or corrupt. That’s where some vampire legends come from. People would blame illness or something else on the dead and start digging up graves. Many mundane forces of decay we now know were believed proof of the undead, like when a body gets bloated with gas from decay, this could be seen as it becoming fat from feeding off the blood of the living, or if the gases of decay forced blood out of the mouth, this could be seen as the blood of the vampire’s last meal dripping from its mouth.
Maybe it just goes to show how important an explanation of events is to humans. We needed to explain what we say somehow to make it all make sense.
It really seems frighting to think of what people did at one time. It’s not just that the handling of dead bodies and putting them on display is a morbid and grizzly spectacle, but many of these people likely died of infectious disease and it just makes me wonder how many illnesses may have resulted from the unsanitary handling of a dead body by those who had no idea where disease really came from. Today any human biological material, even just blood samples or used needles are marked bio-hazard and sent to medical waste incinerators when we’re done with them. We have come far, but considering many still worship and revere these bodies, it looks like we still have far to go.
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2010 at 6:27 pm
An Actual Scientist said:
I share your disgust, however I suspect the added risk was minor given the general state of hygiene in all of Christendom during that period.
Quote Comment
July 3rd, 2010 at 1:00 am
Do not say such terrible things about saints and godly people! God hears you and cries for your lack of faith. You will see the shame you have now brought. It is so sad to see you say these terrible things that hurt only yourself
Incorruptible bodies of saints are not preserved by some artificial or accidental means. They are perfectly free of decay and retain their beauty as the Lord gave to his most holy servants. Scientists cant explain why they are so perfect and why they will not decay or turn to dust. Science is at a loss to explain the grace of god.
Look at this site http://overcomeproblems.com/incorruptables.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7uPLx8PM8c
Quote Comment
July 3rd, 2010 at 1:03 am
Something for you to think about. Watch this ad see if you can be inspired to some grace and understanding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuMtw6k48AY&feature=related
You will realize the error of your ways and when you do you will cry for the sorrow of what you have said. You will ask for forgiveness for the things you say here. If you are true about your faith, you will have forgiveness. You must learn.
Quote Comment
July 3rd, 2010 at 2:33 am
For those who quite justifiably can’t be bothered following any of Courtney’s links, they lead to a set of unimpressive and unsupported assertions concerning incorruptible dead saints, and sometimes just a long list of such individuals which prove nothing.
Quote Comment
July 15th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Courtney: I am true to my faith. In my faith, we do not worship relics. We worship God. Think about that for a moment. (Also, I’ve seen an “incorruptible” body. Anyone who says he had retained his beauty clearly has a different standard of beauty than most folks. He looked like the Master in Doctor Who’s “The Deadly Assassin”. Not bad for nearly 2,000 years old, really, but Rameses II looks a heck of a lot better. Heck, Gunther von Hagens “plastinated” bodies look better.)
Quote Comment
September 10th, 2010 at 8:08 am
Gentlewo/men, I have found much misrepresentation in the initial link and its subsequent comments. The declaration by the Catholic Church that a person is a “saint” means the person exhibited great charity, great selfless love and service, in her or his life, and thus can serve as a Christian “heroine” or “hero,” a witness to Christ’ teaching which can inspire others. Phenomena such as decay or non-decay are, in the proper proportion of matters, incidental. Veneration of the bodies or relics of saints is an example, in Catholic teaching, of what is called “Incarnational theology.” That is, the material world is GOOD (whereas the Calvinist traditions tend to eschew the physical), and the material world can be a “ladder” to God when understood to come from God. Thus devout Catholics use many material things instrumentally… rosaries, icons, statues, etc. Catholics love to remember their saints and retain memories of them, even their bodies. (The analogy should be to someone keeping the photograph of a deceased loved one, and according it respect.) No doubt unofficial Catholicism has, in the past, played up “incorruptibility,” but this can be seen mainly as heuristic, a way of getting attention for religion in a world where secular concerns predominate. In short, “Incorruptibility” was deployed propagandistically. What I find “ghoulish” is NOT the mummified bodies of saints, BUT the necrophobia whereby some people from a post-Protestant background cannot face the reality of sickness, death, decay. Just as these same people often shrank back from John Paul II persevering in his ministry despite his Parkinson’s disease. The post-Protestants and seculars wanted the old Pope to be hidden somewhere, or euthanized. How un-human and un-Christian (and un-Buddhist too!–and i speak as someone who lived in Asian Buddhist cultures for many years). Pace e Bene (Peace and the Good), Dr. Robert Magliola
Quote Comment
September 10th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Dr. Robert Magliola said:
We are still talking about an organization, which has as a central dogma, the belief that some man can be granted the power to turn bread and wine into flesh and blood, by mumbling over it. The point here being that once transubstantiation is accepted by anyone as an act of faith, they have crossed the line into a place where incorruptibility is just as possible, along with other miracles that defy reason, and science.
Your arguments, to the ears of skeptics, is therefor fundamentally hollow as the internal rationalizations of the Church, and its adherents in this matter are immaterial. The fact is that some believe in incorruptibility, and some clergy encourage that belief, and teach it outright as miraculous, and hold it up as physical evidence of divine influences.
That’s enough to make it a subject for ridicule for us.
Quote Comment
September 10th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Decay or non-decay is a judgement within the scope of empirical science. In the Eucharist, Catholics affirm the presence of the Christ in the post-Resurrection or transcendental state; “flesh and blood” to the Hebrews signified the presence of a whole being. Of course a skeptic can and should refuse to subscribe to such a notion. But the case is NOT similar to the assertion that incorruptibles are in fact corruptible. The Eucharistic Presence does not purport to be within the scope of empirical science, whereas physical corruptibility is.
Quote Comment
September 10th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
RM again said:
Well I’m not sure if this fine distinction is made in the minds of the faithful, nor has the Church itself shown any enthusiasm for having these relics subjected to any rigorous scientific testing. Granted, the Church has of late distanced itself from the whole issue of incorruptibility, however the discussion on these pages was never one about dogma per se, but that some relics that are recognized (at some level) as ‘incorruptible’ are certainly not.
It is this aspect of the claimed incorruptibility vs. the reality that the author of the lead article was underlining.
At any rate, I fail to see the point you are trying to make. Sainthood is not just an indication that the individual led an exemplary life, there is that aspect where this dead person can be called upon to act in some agency with a deity to effect events among the living. Again, this is ludicrous to those outside the faith, and underlines the fact that making fine distinctions between one nonsensical belief in cases like this is pointless, from a skeptic’s perspective.
Quote Comment
September 10th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
I do congratulate you for the encouragement you give to critical thinking. I wish you well, and leave it at that.
Quote Comment
May 2nd, 2011 at 9:56 pm
DV82XL said:
This is very contrary to media portrayal. Something to think about and plausible. Thank you for this point of view.
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
To all of the Scientists in this discussion, it is important to always remember that Religion answers spiritual questions while science answers physical ones. Naturally, where these two meet (death), there will be a lot of debate. But just as no religious man or woman can make anybody believe in their faith, scientists cannot disprove it by pointing out scientific facts. Answering a question such as, “is this body decaying?” is simple to answer scientifically, and Catholics, just as any other people, should seek out the knowledge of Scientists to answer these questions. But there is no way to prove by science that God is not active in those bodies. So scientists, do not be offended when Catholics do not believe your input on that topic, because that is our area of expertise.
That being said, I am a Biology major at a state university with a curriculum heavily based in Evolution and Organismal Biology. Most of the natural preserving phenomena mentioned above are very rare. Ask yourself, “why did so many beloved Catholics naturally have slower rates of decomposition?” ——-And I don’t understand why athiests think pointing out that natural processes preserved these bodies proves that it’s not a miracle; God made the world, obviously He’d use it when preforming miracles… He’s not a wizard, He’s God. ———–It could be chance. Or it could be God giving the loved ones of his beloved more time to look upon the face of their friend. Either way, these saints are still here for us to actually see. We can actually see someone who really has it right, and knows God on a level we cannot yet comprehend. For a Catholic, it is so beautiful to know that these people really do exist, and that we can do it to.
Just, please try and keep an open mind, even with the heavier and scarier topics like this.
Quick side note, St. Rose of Lima, if you click on the link… well, she’s basically a skull now. But a little note about St. Roses life, her real name isn’t Rose, it is…. Isabela.. i think… and her mom insisted that she be called Rose because she was so beautiful and her mom wanted her to marry a wealthy man. Well St. Rose wanted to be a nun… and obviously couldnt do both. So she rubbed her face with peppers until her face got so blistery that no man would marry her. She never officially became a nun, but she took a personal vow of virginity and spent her life in service. Anyway, the point is… she was so concerned about her beauty in life… that it only seems right that God would let her face decay after death. I mean, wouldn’t it be sad for her if she was still irresistible? But God knows what’s up, so St. Rose got a nice normal decaying body
Quote Comment
August 10th, 2011 at 1:31 am
Grace said:
Science is based on fact and logic, religion is based on belief and dogma – the two never meet. Furthermore, science is not, and never has been in the business of disproving anything, which for technical reasons, is impossible.
As well, you seem confused on what the RC church means by ‘incorruptibility’; they are not considering natural embalming phenomena, but a miraculous state where the body of the subject doesn’t change after death. You have not, it would seem, studied your own stated faith enough to comment on this subject credibly.
We might note that while the Church maintains its traditional position on these relics, they do not entertain any further additions to their numbers, and for some time now it has been debunking new claims regularly.
As to you sophomoric attempt at explaining the state of the remains of Rose de Lima, you are drifting into an area that lay Catholics are forbidden to hold descending opinions on. Again I have to question your grasp of your own faith.
Quote Comment
August 10th, 2011 at 8:50 am
Grace said:
Is it really so rare? There are a huge number of beloved catholics, a HUGE number. So it would be expected that many would in a state of preservation based on sheer number.
Also, as far as the decay going slower, it’s not like they don’t decay, they clearly do, they sometimes decay a lot, but the claim of incorruptability seems to be made any time that the flesh does not quickly decay completely.
Is it so unusual that they would dry out and not decay right away? Bodies dry out and retain the flesh all the time when they are stored in certain conditions. Decay is heavily based on moisture. If the body dries out it pretty much stops decaying. A body won’t usually dry like that if it’s in a normal burial, but these bodies were commonly put in stone tombs and catacombs. They’re not in the dirt and moise soil. They are in very dry, cool places that are away from the enviornment. They’re also often exhumed not terribly long after death.
Quote Comment
August 10th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Grace said:
What a load of nonsense that is.
Science answers questions about how the world works, religion makes things up and tortures those who call them on it (when they can get away with it).
Grace said:
Christinsanity has already been shown to be false, of course you have the right to believe whatever you like, even if it is false.
Grace said:
So what? It isn’t up to science to disprove god as the non-existence of god is assumed unless proven otherwise (and no one has managed that).
Grace said:
Your area of expertise as Catholics is defrauding people, being defrauded and covering up child abuse.
Quote Comment
September 1st, 2011 at 9:19 pm
He is another quote from Wikipedia about Bernadette Soubirous omitted here:
“Three years later in 1928, Doctor Comte published a report on the exhumation of the Blessed Bernadette in the second issue of the Bulletin de I’Association medicale de Notre-Dame de Lourdes.”
It then goes onto say. “What struck me during this examination, of course, was the state of perfect preservation of the skeleton, the fibrous tissues of the muscles (still supple and firm), of the ligaments, and of the skin, and above all the totally unexpected state of the liver after 46 years. One would have thought that this organ, which is basically soft and inclined to crumble, would have decomposed very rapidly or would have hardened to a chalky consistency. Yet, when it was cut it was soft and almost normal in consistency. I pointed this out to those present, remarking that this did not seem to be a natural phenomenon.”
Frank.
Quote Comment
September 1st, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Plenty of other people who should have known better have said that something couldn’t have happened naturally only to be proven wrong, I see no reason to assume Doctor Comte was any different.
Quote Comment
September 30th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
I was raised by mum and nan as mum divorced my natural dad young because he was caught having affairs etc and then mum found my my step dad whom neither loved nor hated but because I was born disabled my nan got nuns from where near she was born to bless me and keep me safe and nans catholic faith was embedded deeply within her upbringing but she never put her catholic opinions faith on too us ever. But sadly the lord took her abt 4 yrs ago but before she past on she asked a carer for me too come too see her and this ignorant care manager was quite patronizing and rude in my opinion but I knew she wanted me for a reason that evening and I went into her room and she played dannyboy and I then just sobbed sobbed and she was saying in her way goodbye too me as she could not speak at this time as parkinsons had really taken hold quite badly as u could see her arthritis had too and she had struggle to write a personal simple note of goodbye to me and my heart had never been so heavy that night as I then noticed a picture in my note from my nan and it was a picture of a incorrupt catholic saint whom was the saint of protection of disabled children and disabled adults and on the back of this picture my nan said I have prayed everyday too this saint too keep u safe and I was so deeply touched and since then I have come more and more interested in catholic and russian incorrupt saints and I wonder can really call some incorrupt after they have had so much preservation work on them to protect their remains and I keep asking myself are they really incorrupt after so much work on their bodies answer really is no u can’t and I think after so long on display then in that situation they should be reburied and be at peace in my opinion and remembered the good they had done for others that’s just my opinion and plz don’t send offensive messages as I shared my story how close I was with my nan with honesty and and truth and how I got interested in catholic and russian saints I too thankful too my whom at 18 was thrown out of the family home in ireland and to go on a boat too england too never return so we her family did not suffer the suffering she and her family endured while growing up I thank my nan with all my heart as I wld prob not had lived if I was born in ireland as medicial care was not up too standards it was in the 70s as when I was born in the uk so my nan said god bless her I so miss her soo much god bless u nan where ever u are
Quote Comment
October 1st, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Dan R UK said:
I cannot comment on your religious beliefs or faith.
However, I agree that there is not any solid evidence that you can look at these bodies and proclaim them to be proof of some kind of divine intervention.
Quote Comment