Henke 2022es
How the 19th Century Roman Catholic Church and Lundahl (2022n) Took the St. Philomena Hoax as Fact
Kevin R. Henke
September 15, 2022
In Henke (2022a), I list four hypotheses to explain the Talking Snake story of Genesis 3. Hypothesis #3 compares the Talking Snake story to an ancient work of fiction or a “campfire story” that was mistakenly taken by the ancient Israelites as being real. I also linked to a webarticle by Jimenez (2014), which argues that some Roman Catholic saints are likely examples of works of fiction that were eventually taken as being true. Here is the relevant section from Hypothesis #3 from Henke (2022a):
3. The Talking Snake of Genesis 3 was part of a made-up campfire story, a parable or based on a pagan myth that eventually was taken as fact by the ancient Israelites, like how President Reagan and his fans mistook fictional stories from World War 2 as real. William Tell (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-search-of-william-tell-2198511/ ) and a number of Roman Catholic saints (https://listverse.com/2014/05/17/10-beloved-saints-with-fictitious-biographies/ ) are probably also myths.
Lundahl (2022c) then responded to this section from Henke (2022a):
“Modern scholars dispute the historicity of William Tell and Protestant scholars dispute that of lots of Catholic saints (and the modern scholars you provide are culturally Protestant. I may take up separate posts when trying to deal with these links, but Smithsonian Mag is not my best academic resource for European History of the Middle Ages and Listverse is trusted when providing lists, but not quite as trusted with backing up each detail on each list with good scholarship.”
This statement is from an individual that relies on Wikipedia (e.g., Lundahl 2022d; Lundahl 2022o), deliberately avoids using the actual peer-reviewed references that I give him, and shuns providing bibliographies (e.g., Henke 2022at; Henke 2022e). Mr. Lundahl knows nothing about good scholarship.
In Henke (2022b), I replied to Lundahl (2022c):
“In my discussions of Hypothesis #3 in Henke (2022a), I mentioned that stories about William Tell and some Roman Catholic Saints are additional examples of works of fiction that are now widely misinterpreted as historical fact. I linked to the following webarticles:
In Search of William Tell (Robert Wernick, Smithsonian Magazine)
Listverse: 10 Beloved Saints the Church Just Made Up by Larry Jimenez and fact checked by Jamie Frater.
Lundahl (2022c) complains about the reliability of my references (Smithsonian Magazine and Listverse). He also states that he may give a separate response on these topics later.
Granted, my preliminary links on William Tell and some of the Roman Catholic saints were not articles from peer-reviewed journals. They simply provided some background information on how these individuals were probably not historical. Nevertheless, Mr. Lundahl could consult Jean-François Bergier’s Guillaume Tell (1988), which is mentioned in the Smithsonian Magazine article, if he did not like the summary in the article. The Listverse article on the Catholic saints also contains links with additional information and documentation. Nevertheless, here’s a journal article that discusses more about the origin of William Tell:
Hughes, S.C. 2012. “The Limits of Cultural Nationalism: Italian Switzerland from a Risorgimento Perspective”, Nations and Nationalism, v. 18, n. 1, pp. 57-77.”
In Henke (2022ek), I further discuss the William Tell story and how it’s an excellent example of a fictional story eventually being widely mistaken as fact (Hypothesis #3 of Henke (2022a). In this essay, I reply to comments in Lundahl (2022n) about another one of the ten Roman Catholic saints discussed in Jimenez (2014) and how she probably never existed. Of course, Mr. Lundahl, being a conservative Roman Catholic, does not like any Bible stories and probably not any Roman Catholic saints being identified as likely myths. Lundahl (2022n) then attempts to defend the authenticity of the stories about the ten questionable saints identified in Jimenez (2014).
St. Philomena is #6 on the list in Jimenez (2014). Lundahl (2022n) treats St. Philomena as a special case and provides the following comments:
“All of above fall within what I consider as history, not so:
Jimenez states:
‘6) St. Philomena ... The pious fiction was inspired by the discovery in 1802 of a tomb in the Catacomb of Priscilla, mistakenly identified as belonging to an early Christian martyr. The name “Filumena” was inscribed on the earthenware slabs closing the grave, so the alleged martyr was assumed to be a virgin called “Philomena.”The relics were transferred to the church in Mungano, and a nun named Maria Luisa di Gesu began receiving revelations about the life and martyrdom of Philomena, allegedly from Philomena herself.’
So, no, it is not history, it is archaeology and prophecy stepping in. Did the prophecy get approval of the Church? Yes:
The revelations received the approval of the Holy Office (today’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), and the entire story, as it came to Mother Maria, was written in an official account by Fr. Di Lucia.
So, we should not hesitate to invoke St. Philomena, even if what we know of her is prophecy rather than history. Unlike Mother Maria, Joseph Smith had no such approval, you see.
Lundahl (2022n) leaves out an important accusation by Jimenez (2014):
“No ancient sources attest to St. Philomena. She was entirely an invention of rector Francis Di Lucia and a Dominican Tertiary nun in Mungano, Italy, near Naples.”
When the case of St. Philomena is examined in detail, it soon becomes apparent that Lundahl (2022n) is partially correct. The story is indeed not history. This case involves a complete lack of critical thinking, unwarranted archeological interpretations and widespread blind trust in totally unsubstantiated prophetic “visions” and “miracles.” The complete mishandling of this case and the mythmaking by the 19th century Roman Catholic Church have misled millions of Roman Catholics, including Mr. Lundahl.
Like he so often does, Lundahl (2022n) provides no references to support his claims of the approval of St. Philomena by the Holy Office and Fr. Francesco Di Lucia. Thus, I have given a few links below. Rather than taking a few minutes to provide his readers with some decent documentation, Lundahl (2022n) just expects people to take his word for it and that he is supposedly adequately summarizing this controversy.
Further details on the case of “St. Philomena”, such as at this website, reveal how the life of this “saint” was manufactured in the gullible 19th century Roman Catholic Church and how the Church in 1961 had the courage to take steps to undo some of their earlier mistakes. There are certainly questions about whether the name of the discovered female skeleton was actually Philomena. The stories about her shrine performing miracles and her skeletal remains multiplying to provide enough souvenirs for local congregations are highly questionable.
Sister Maria Luisa de Gesu supposedly received “visions” from Philomena. The visions allowed an entire, but totally unsubstantiated, biography to be constructed on Philomena, including dates, names, places and other details, as described here and here. We have no evidence that “Philomena” was a Greek princess who was murdered by a Roman Emperor. According to Jimenez (2014), the “visions” indicate that the Emperor eventually had Philomena beheaded. If so, it might be possible to confirm that claim by examining the skeleton if there’s enough left after people collected souvenirs. The totally unjustified approval of the “revelations” or “visions” by the Holy Office, which Lundahl (2022n) mentions, occurred on December 21, 1833.
In the 20th century, Philomena’s popularity greatly increased among the faithful. This is a prime example of large numbers of people coming to believe likely fictitious stories resulting from “visions.” In many ways, the case of St. Philomena mimics the “visions” of Joseph Smith Jr. and other frauds and deluded “prophets” in the early 19th century, all of which eventually misled millions of gullible people. Meanwhile, historians warned that Roman tombs were often reused. So, there was no way of knowing if the inscriptions on the tomb actually matched the skeleton identified as Philomena. Thus, on the basis of some unwarranted interpretations of a grave site that was discovered in 1802 and some unsubstantiated “visions” from a nun, a likely totally fictitious biography was constructed for the skeleton found in that grave.
As for Lundahl (2022n) noting that Joseph Smith Jr. does not have the approval of the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormons don’t care about what the Vatican thinks. The Mormons view their leaders as God’s spokesmen on Earth and not the Vatican. They consider the Roman Catholic Church as a false religion probably along with Mother Maria’s “prophecies.” Here, we see a prime example of two religions claiming that their leaders are God’s “true” representatives on Earth and that the other is a false religion. From a rational perspective, there’s no reason to believe any of these “visions” just because either the leadership of the Mormon or Roman Catholic churches declares them to be authentic.
In his essays in this debate, Mr. Lundahl correctly condemns the fictional stories that Joseph Smith Jr. and perhaps others made up in the Book of Mormon – stories supposedly coming from translations of golden plates with magic seer stones. Yet, he believes the equally totally unsubstantiated “life story” of St. Philomena just because some nun said so and managed to deceive the 19th century hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. In reality, no one should automatically trust the approval of the hierarchies of either the Mormons or the Roman Catholic Church and their baseless claims about prophecies and visions.
The case of St. Philomena illustrates how people’s imaginations and a Church hierarchy that is all too willing to uncritically promote the resulting fantasies can cause these fantasies to rapidly spread among millions of people in a major religion. Instead of being an example of Hypothesis #3, the case of St. Philomena is a perfect example of Hypothesis #4, where stories that were made up by a nun ended up being believed by millions of gullible people. The same types of events could have easily occurred with the acceptance of Genesis 3, Moses and other Old Testament stories in ancient Israel. The Israelite priests and kings endorsed fictional stories and the gullible people largely believed them and obeyed. Nevertheless, in the Philomena case, the Church has taken a few steps to correct their past mistakes. Due to a lack of evidence about this “saint”, Pope John XXIII had Philomena’s name removed as a saint from official calendars in 1961.
Reference:
Jimenez, L. 2014. “10 Beloved Saints The Church Just Made Up”, Listverse, https://listverse.com/2014/05/17/10-beloved-saints-with-fictitious-biographies/ (accessed July 25, 2022).