Would It Be A Sin To Sell St. B16's Car That You Bought On Ebay?

A reader writes:

When JPII is canonized, will that mean that any faithful Catholic trying to sell something that the pope used (say like a popemobile) would be in a state of sin as it would then be considered a relic?   

Let me change the question just a little bit to sharpen the point: Suppose that our present pontiff, His Most Awesomeness Benedict XVI, one day goes to his reward and is declared a saint.

Since his car was sold on eBay a piece back, it is actually in the hands of someone other than the Church (I don't know that to be the case for the popemobiles JP2 used, which is why I make the change in the question).

Should such a canonization occur, would selling B16's former 1999 Volkswagen Golf be a sin?

Well, canon law provides the following:

Canon 1190
§1. It is absolutely forbidden to sell sacred relics.

The question is thus whether something like this would count as a relic in the sense that canon law is using the term. If it is then, since traffic in sacred things is sinful, it would be sinful to sell it.

Well . . . this canon has not received an authentic interpretation from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, so we don't have much guidance on that front of what the Code considers a relic.

None of the commentaries I have at hand dwell on this question either. Both the Code and the commentators tend to assume that you already know what the law intends to count as a relic. This would suggest that one should fall back on what is traditionally called a relic, which would include first-class, second-class, and third-class relics. (More on those distinctions below.)

The most official treatment of the subject that I've been able to find comes from the Directory on Popular Piety, which defines relics as follows:

The Relics of the Saints

236. The Second Vatican Council recalls that "the Saints have been traditionally honoured in the Church, and their authentic relics and images held in veneration". The term "relics of the Saints" [a] principally signifies the bodies - or notable parts of the bodies - of the Saints who, as distinguished members of Christ's mystical Body and as Temples of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 3, 16; 6, 19; 2 Cor 6, 16) in virtue of their heroic sanctity, now dwell in Heaven, but who once lived on earth. [b] Objects which belonged to the Saints, such as personal objects, clothes and manuscripts are also considered relics, as are [c] objects which have touched their bodies or tombs such as oils, cloths, and images.

The blue letters I've inserted into this treatment correspond to what are commonly (in English, anyway) called first-, second-, and third-class relics. First-class relics are principally bodies or parts of bodies. Second-class relics are former belongings of the saints. And third-class relics are things touched to their bodies (after death) or their tombs.

Now, the Directory for Popular Piety is not a legal document. It's an instructional document. And the body that issued it--the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments--is not empowered to make authentic interpretations of canon law. Nevertheless, what it has to say may shed light on Rome's thinking at least in a general way.

So now having established how the directory uses the term "relic," let's go on to see what it has to say about the treatment of relics:

237. The Missale Romanum reaffirms the validity "of placing the relics of the Saints under an altar that is to be dedicated, even when not those of the martyrs". This usage signifies that the sacrifice of the members has its origin in the Sacrifice of the altar, as well as symbolising the communion with the Sacrifice of Christ of the entire Church, which is called to witness, event to the point of death, fidelity to her Lord and Spouse.

Many popular usages have been associated with this eminently liturgical cultic expression. The faithful deeply revere the relics of the Saints. An adequate pastoral instruction of the faithful about the use of relics will not overlook:

• ensuring the authenticity of the relics exposed for the veneration of the faithful; where doubtful relics have been exposed for the veneration of the faithful, they should be discreetly withdrawn with due pastoral prudence;       
• preventing undue dispersal of relics into small pieces, since such practice is not consonant with due respect for the human body; the liturgical norms stipulate that relics must be "of a sufficient size as make clear that they are parts of the human body";              
• admonishing the faithful to resist the temptation to form collections of relics; in the past this practise has had some deplorable consequences;       
• preventing any possibility of fraud, trafficking, or superstition.    

The various forms of popular veneration of the relics of the Saints, such as kissing, decorations with lights and flowers, bearing them in processions, in no way exclude the possibility of taking the relics of the Saints to the sick and dying, to comfort them or use the intercession of the Saint to ask for healing. Such should be conducted with great dignity and be motivated by faith. The relics of the Saints should not be exposed on the mensa of the altar, since this is reserved for the Body and Blood of the King of Martyrs.

So as the highlighted phrase from paragraph 237 indicates, trafficking in relics is to be forbidden, and since the preceding paragraph (236) just defined relics for purposes of this discussion as including first-, second-, and third-class relics, it would seem that the Congregation for Divine Worship doesn't want people selling them--even third class relics.

And I can see the logic behind that. My own sensibilities regarding piety do suggest to me that we shouldn't have people running up to a saint's tomb, pressing cloths to it, and then selling them on the ground that they are now holy relics. If you're going to have the idea of third-class relics at all then it seems to me you shouldn't be selling them.

(NOTE: I also am not impressed with the theory I've heard that you can sell a third-class relic for the intrinsic value of the relic--thus if you pressed a handkerchief to the tomb of St. Pius V, you could sell it for the value of the handkerchief. I don't think things have determinable intrinsic economic values--the market has to determine value, and you'll never be able to properly untangle the "third-class relic" factor from a third-class relic. This is just a back-door way for people wanting to sell such relics to rationalize it. The mere fact that something has become a third-class relic changes its value. The "intrinsic" value of a handkerchief comes from the fact I can blow my nose on it. If I can't blow my nose on a third-class relic handkerchief then I no longer am receiving an object with the "intrinsic" value of a handkerchief. How much would you pay for a handkerchief you can't blow your nose on or wipe your brow with? And why would you want to buy one in the first place if it wasn't for it being a third-class relic? That's its real value to you. A "cost of materials" rationale would be better here--i.e., "I paid 50 cents for this handkerchief at Wal-Mart, so you can reimburse me for that much now that it's a third-class relic," but this exception isn't present in the law, or in the commentaries I have to hand, or in the Directory of Popular Piety.)

I also understand the rationale behind not selling first-class relics. That clashes with my sensibilities regarding piety, too.

But what about second-class relics? The way the Directory presents matters, selling them would also be prohibited. But is every paperclip ever owned by Joseph Ratzinger really a second-class relic once he becomes a saint?

One theory I've heard floated is that not all legal property of a saint should be counted as a second-class relic. Perhaps only things that are especially "personal" should be--things like his clothes, his reading glasses, his Breviary, his Bible, his Rosary, etc.. By that standard, someone might judge that a saint's paperclips or automobile are not sufficiently personal to get counted as relics (unless, perhaps, his heroic virtue was displayed by his tireless efforts on behalf of ministries like Meals on Wheels or Clips for the Clipless).

That's not what the Directory for Popular Piety says, of course. It simply speaks of objects owned by the saints being relics. But the fact that it feels the need to go on and name examples could be taken as an indication that there is something of this concept lurking in the back of the Congregation's mind.

It thus strikes me that we have an ambiguity here, and we may (don't hold your breath) get clarification on it at some point in the future. At least, that's what we'd really need to settle it.

Comments

[Mary]

The canon says it's forbidden to sell SACRED relics. What's sacred about his car?

[John E]

Perhaps a good reason not to canonize until many years after death.

"When JPII is canonized..."

A bit presumptious, eh?

[Esperanto Christopher]

The car belongs in a church. Somewhere, sometime, there will be a St. JP2 Church which should have the Holy Coupe prominently, but reverently, displayed.

[erick]

What if the car has had repair work done on it?.
Would those original parts that were removed from it(say alternator)-be consider "relic"?.

[Ed Pie]

Only if the parts are "of a sufficient size as make clear that they are parts of the human body the Popemobile."

[erick]

Is "sufficient" analogous to "necessary" as pertaining to "being"?
In other words a wind-shield is "of a sufficient size", but not "necessary" where as an alternator is "necessary"- though smaller!.
Never mind!.

[MenTaLguY]

Along those lines, it seems like another factor might reasonably also be involved in the paperclip example: few of the paperclips owned in life by a hypothetical Pope Saint Benedictus XVI would be positively identifiable as such (and people are rather cavalier about the ownership of paperclips anyway); this is probably less true of a car. This is true also of many actual third-class relics -- many objects will have come in contact the body or tomb of a saint at one time or another without that fact necessarily being noticed or ultimately remembered.

On the other hand, if someone is selling paperclips as Paperclips Once Owned By Pope Saint Benedict XVI, I think that's pretty clearly not okay.

[J.R. Stoodley]

I'm not a big car person, but it seems to me that a car is sufficiently personal to be considered a second-class relic even with Jimmy's more limited definition. Something like paperclips though that the saint wouldn't even recognize as his or hers were he or she here perhaps should not count.

Seperately, while I agree that is persumptuous to say "When JPII is canonized" it is true that an established cultus of a saint was once considered necessary to have first before considering canonization. This is still reflected in the fact that we still need miracles performed through the intercession of the person after their death, which assumes that people are praying for the persons intercession before even beatification.

[J.R. Stoodley]

If you yourself touch the tomb of a saint do YOU become a thrid class relic?

[JohnH]

"since traffic in sacred things is sinful,"

So, if the pope gets cannonized, and I drive his old VW, then it's immoral to be stuck in traffic? :-)

"Get out of my way, holy car coming through!"

[TOH]

"When JPII is canonized..."

A bit presumptious, eh?

I agree. It is not for the laity to canonize saints, but the Holy Spirit. Popularity does not equal sainthood. Consider the tens of thousands of blesseds, all with miracles attributed to them, who are not canonizes. To vault Pope John Paul over them all because you and several thousand of your buddies said so is the height of presumption.

Pope John Paul had great personal sanctity, but there were many, many problems which some of his actions brought about. While I must imagine he did not intend them, the unceasing and damaging nature of ecumenism as practiced during his pontificate has reaped rancid fruit (as we just saw two weeks ago when his successor Pope Benedict was flamed for quoting a guy from the 14th c....who told the truth, namely, that Islam is a hateful and violent error!

Do you think Ven. Pius XII or St. Pius X would have received that reply? Certainly not, because they put up with no nonsense regarding ecumenism and "esteeming Islam." There is nothing to esteem about a faith whose "holy" book demands that Allah's curse be on Christians (Sura 9:5).

I think that things are moving way too fast for the canonization case for Bl. Pope JPII. It is an emotional reaction, when it really should be something that is carefully and objectively considered. The process ought to take many years of careful examination. Not this great leap of "santo subito" and "JP the Great"... Not every Pope, even some of the more historically significant ones (and there is no doubt about JPII's historical significance!), is a saint. And very few Popes are honored as "the Great." Honestly, I really don't think that objectively speaking, you can put JPII on the same level as Pope St. Gregory the Great or Pope St. Leo the Great.

[Meg Q]

Do you think Ven. Pius XII or St. Pius X would have received that reply?

If they lived today? Sure they would. It's the answer anyone gets for criticizing Muslims one eeny teeny bit, no matter how "ecumenical" you are - or are not.

[J.R. Stoodley]

Bl. Pope JPII? Did I miss something?

[Brother Cadfael]

Honestly, I really don't think that objectively speaking, you can put JPII on the same level as Pope St. Gregory the Great or Pope St. Leo the Great.

Objectively speaking, I honestly think you're wrong. FWIW

Cadfael,

You've got to be joking...

St. Leo the Great was a staunch defender of orthodoxy and opposed several dangerous heresies. JPII went out of his way to make nice with heretics, participated in Jewish worship, and kissed the Qur'an.

St. Gregory the Great reformed the Liturgy to bring it a greater dignity and air of holiness, whereas JPII did little to cease the steady erosion of the Liturgy and the devolution of it into something resembling Protestant worship.

How you can put JPII in the same category as either of those two "Great" Popes is beyond me!

[John]

If I am not mistaken before Vatican II, only 4 Popes in the entire history of the church were cannonized as saints. Since Vatican II, specifically JPII and his Saint Machine, ALL of the Popes after Vatican II-John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII and even JPI (can you believe that?) have either been beautified and or on their way to sainthood. Now what does that say today about JPII who cannonized more saints in this pontificate that all of the other Popes in the past 500 years?

[bill912]

"If I am not mistaken..." You are. Look at any list of popes.

John,

Actually, there are only two: Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope St. Gregory the Great.

Even such other great saintly popes like St. Pius V did not get the appellation "Magnus" ("Great")... so why JPII?

[bill912]

Isn't Nicholas I sometimes called "the Great"?

[J.R. Stoodley]

bill912, Yes, Nicholas I is often called the great

John,

Many, many Popes are called saints, including all before AD 496, with the exception of only Pope Liberius (352-366). Of course as you probably know these early saints were not canonized, but popular devotion does not really distinguish between early saints and late, canonized saints.

Also, the fact that a canonization does not, or at least certainly should not, mean that the process will go any further. I have a hard time believing the Holy Spirit will let JPI, or even Paul VI, be canonized.

[Some Day]

That would be a very wierd, somewhat 3rd class relic.

[J.R. Stoodley]

Oops, the first sentence of the last paragraph of my last post should read "Also, the fact that a process for canonization has been opened does not..."

[Gerald]

Is it a sin to BUY a relic?

[The Masked Chicken]

I am not a canon lawyer, but ordinarily, in order to buy a relic, it must be sold to the person and the person buying it then becomes a cooperator in the original sin.

That being said, there are some people who try to skirt the law by selling the container and not the relic. In my opinion, those people are playing with fire.

There is also the case where someone sees a relic up for sale and buys it so as to prevent further sinning - should the relic try to be sold later for an even higher price - or even blasphemy involving the intention of the buyer with regards to the relic (if it is known). A case can be made for double effect in this case, since one is not buying the relic as a possession, but as a means of protecting it from abuse. This would excuse form sin, but I would have to let an experienced canonist make a judgment on whether double effect could be applied in this case.

In general, try to avoid situations where money and relics are mixed.

The Chicken

[SDG]

Is it a sin to BUY a relic?

My instinctive thought would be to see the morality of selling and buying relics as akin to taking and paying bribes. The OT condemns those who take bribes but not those who pay them, because sometimes cooperation with an unethical demand is necessary for a greater good. Likewise, individuals who have sought to sell, e.g., consecrated hosts on eBay have committed objectively grave sin, but I don't think those who have offered to buy them (with the intent of turning them over to a priest) have necessarily done anything wrong at all. I'm not sure that buying a relic might not likewise be at times an act of piety.