Vatican Targets Veronica in Anti-Apocrypha Campaign
The Times On-line reports that the scene in which Veronica wipes the face of Jesus has been removed from the Via Dolorosa. The move is a response to the popularity of apocryphal gospels (see a previous post on the Vatican and the CA here). Here is an excerpt:
The Pope will risk upsetting many of the Roman Catholic faithful tonight after recasting a central ritual of the Easter ceremonies.
Benedict XVI has revised radically the traditional Good Friday Stations of the Cross procession that marks Christ’s progress from prison to the Crucifixion. A reference to St Veronica, who wiped Christ’s face with a veil, has been dropped and Judas and Pontius Pilate have been introduced.
The new itinerary for the route, also known as the Via Dolorosa, or Way of Sorrows, has been drawn up to give more weight to authentic Gospels, Vatican officials said.
Veronica was an apocryphal figure and the Vatican is conducting a campaign against the trend in popular literature, such as The Da Vinci Code, and among some theologians, to bring apocryphal writings into the mainstream.
What’s next? Will Mary’s parents Anna and Joachim (first named in the Infancy Gospel of James) be written out of Catholic dogma? What about traditions of Jesus’ descent into Hell from the Gospel of Nicodemus? And the lives of the Saints which are principally drawn from the Apocryphal Acts? Perhaps the Vatican should stop before they realize how many of their cherished traditions are based on apocryphal literature.
Ouch. Where to begin? Probably by saying that we can’t rely on journalists to teach us history or religion. And I say that as a journalist.
First, there is no fixed canon of the Stations of the Cross. They’ve developed down through the ages, but they weren’t widespread until the Franciscans started promoting them, I think in the late middle ages. The events included have varied much down the centuries. Pope John Paul II changed them from year to year, and, yes, he dropped Veronica on occasion, only to restore her following year. Some parish churches went with the non-Veronica sets, but no one was required to do so. Nor will they ever be. Catholics are not fundamentalists, and oral tradition has its place in our devotional life. Augustine gave us a good rule of thumb: in doubtful matters, liberty.
For the same reason, I think Joachim and Anna are quite safe.
There is no campaign, no Vatican conspiracy to do away with the CA, no matter how we journalists choose to spin our stories. It’s Easter, after all, and we have to make a buck.
Thanks for all you do on this site. I’m loving it.
Somewhere on my blog I posted an intro to the Stations of the Cross, and it included some history (as I recall).
Thanks for the comments Mike. My use of “campaign” in the title should have been taken ironically (or perhaps as a quotation). And I hope I don’t come across as irate in the questions I pose at the end of the post. My point is only that the distinction between canonical and non-canonical is not as clear-cut as people (now and throughout history) have perceived it to be. I don’t advocate the removal of apocryphal traditions from dogma, but to single something out and declare it invalid *because* it is apocryphal leaves one open to hypocrisy (e.g., for a Christian commentator to state that material from, say, the Gospel of Thomas is off-limits because it is apocryphal is problematic if said Christian holds dear traditions that stem from otehr apocryphal texts; that said, to defend the inclusion of apocryphal traditions as long-held-dear traditions is more intellectually fair).
Thanks for bringing this Veronica issue to our attention.
I am new to this world of blogging, but have attempted a response to your post on my blog. http://shawnwflynn.blogspot.com/.
As you will see I agree with the observations of Mike. I also include a link on my blog to the meditations of the stations by the Monsignor GIANFRANCO RAVASI who was responsible for the change.
The “Gelasian Decree” aside, the Catholic Church isn’t a good candidate for anti-CA hysteria. The saints and Fathers weren’t shy about calling upon the apocryphal texts as witnesses to tradition, though it’s extremely rare that you find these texts accorded any kind of religious authority. (The exceptions prove the rule.) Pope Benedict has even cited the CA as witnesses, e.g. in his recent address on the apostle Thomas, which was covered well on this blog. Christian academics have often turned up their noses (and I think justifiably) at the historical value of CA, when compared with the canonical texts. (See Craig Evans’s outstanding book from last year.) Pastors, too, have worried over the way the CA often major in the minors. But the CA do provide valuable information about the liturgical and devotional life of the early Christians. I think the Catholic notion of tradition and authority gives us a structure wherein the CA can be useful and enriching.