The St. Philomena Controversy: Archeological Evidence

­­­­­Devotion to St. Philomena, as I have mentioned before, is often treated as a somewhat controversial topic, even being the subject of scorn, concern, or ambivalence in some Catholic circles. This can be due to several different factors, which will be discussed here.

Φ

The simplest objection cites the revised edition of the Roman Martyrology, in which St. Philomena is not mentioned. Also, her name was removed from liturgical calendars by a 1961 instruction issued by the Congregation of Rites. Therefore, some conclude, devotion to St. Philomena, is outdated and is no longer approved by the Church—the saint has been somehow “de-sainted”. Either that, or, as some have said, she never existed in the first place.

The first objection has no standing due to the simple fact that the Roman Martyrology never included St. Philomena, not even when devotion to the little martyr was at its height. Also, the Martyrology is not a comprehensive list of every saint and martyr venerated by the Church and was never supposed to be. As to the 1961 instruction, it was merely a liturgical directive, and was not intended to condemn devotion to St. Philomena. This was confirmed in the year 1964, when Monsignor Luigi Esposito, the rector of the Sanctuary of St. Philomena, asked for clarification regarding the directive. The reply he received stated that “The liturgical cult has been removed; the popular cult has remained unchanged. The Saint can be venerated and honoured even using the Common (of Virgins and Martyrs) as an external feast with Mass”. The Sanctuary of St. Philomena in Mugnano was allowed to operate with full Church approval, as were the various churches, shrines, and confraternities which take her as a patroness. Thus, we may safely conclude that devotion to St. Philomena is in no wise frowned upon by the Church. As to the objection against her existence, a look at the more scholarly side of the controversy will show whether or not the claim has any credibility.

Φ

An earlier cause of confusion is the rash of skepticism surrounding the discovery of St. Philomena’s relics and tomb which erupted in the early twentieth century. Much of this debate began with the archeologist Orazio Marruchi, whose 1906 publication “Osservazioni archeologiche sulla Iscrizione di S. Filomena” caused such a stir among the faithful. In this armchair archeological study—none of the claims he included were backed by any on-site examinations—Marruchi put forward some rather startling and questionable theories.

As you may recall, the tomb of St. Philomena was sealed with three tiles which bore the epitaph “PAX TECUM FILUMENA”: that is, “Peace be with you, Philomena”. However, the tiles were placed out of order, so that they read “LUMENA PAXTE CUMFI”. Marruchi suggested that the tiles originally sealed a different tomb—the true tomb of “Filumena”—and were later removed and used to seal the tomb of another young maiden, who may or may not have been a martyr. That, explained Marruchi, was why the inscription was in the wrong order—they were placed that way to show that the tomb was not that of the martyr Filumena. The images painted on the tomb, symbols previously associated with martyrdom, were dismissed as being purely “allegorical”; and the glass vial which was found in the tomb and which contained a blackish substance, hitherto thought to be blood, was explained away as aromatic spices.

Although Marruchi’s hypothesis was quickly refuted by Professor Giuseppe Bonavenia, S.J., and notable authority on the Catacombs J. B. De Rossi, it nevertheless gained much ground, even within the Church. An example of a toned-down version of this skeptical view is provided by the article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, which, to be fair, does make a brief reference to the wonders received through the intercession of the saint, but is otherwise written in a somewhat skeptical and even dismissive tone. In spite of its popularity, however, Marruchi's theory contained many gaps and unsettled difficulties. For example, if the tiles were re-used and the tomb was not that of Philomena, why weren't the tiles simply turned over, with the original lettering on the back, and a new epitaph painted? Also, why would anyone bother to re-use tiles of a cheap material, such as brick, when replacements could be easily obtained?

In spite of repeated refutations, the “St. Philomena problem” continued to cast its shadow over the hearts of the faithful. When Marruchi's theory, after lingering through the remainder of the twentieth century, dragged itself into the twenty-first, the rector of the Sanctuary of St. Philomena in Mugnano, the late Rev. Giovanni Braschi, decided to set the confusion to rest by enlisting the aid of archeological science.

Φ

The results of the research were announced in 2005. An analysis of the mortar on the three tiles showed that the tomb had been sealed only once—there was only one layer of mortar present, and the tiles showed none of the chipping or damage which would have marked them had they been re-used. Also, a close examination of the tiles themselves conclusively revealed the reason behind their incorrect order.

There were originally two tiles, a smaller one and a larger one, and the larger of the two had been broken in half in order to make three tiles of roughly the same size. The inscription had then been painted on the tiles. Unfortunately, when the time came to seal the tomb, it was discovered that the opening of the crypt was slightly wider at one end. The last of the three tiles was able to cover this end without leaving an opening, however, this resulted in the last few letters of the inscription being at the beginning.

(As an interesting side-note, although Rev. Braschi declared that this discovery was a “surprise that no one had previously realized”, it appears that Professor Buonavenia, writing in the early twentieth century and citing another scholar, one Msgr. Francis Trochu, had already resorted to this explanation, and had in fact noticed that two of the tiles had originally been one. For some reason, however, this was not frequently published in writings on St. Philomena, other theories, such as that of the “illiterate mason”, being more popular.)

The broken vial was also examined, and the blackish residue which adhered to its shards was indeed found to be blood. In addition, a tiny fragment of bone was discovered. Both these finds provided very strong evidence that St. Philomena was a martyr, in accordance with the symbols on her tomb. Also, the tomb and the blood were found to date from around 202 A.D., earlier than what was previously believed (so early, in fact, as to date before the time of Diocletian) and far earlier than the fourth century posited by Marruchi’s hypothesis.

Now that the archeological evidence for St. Philomena's martyrdom has been presented, we will turn to the evidence provided by the miracles she worked, and why this is important. We will discuss this in the next post in this series.

The three tiles which were used to seal the tomb of Philomena. (The red lettering is faded and is difficult to see here). This image, as well as the title image of this post, were acquired here.)