A moral argument in favor of the authenticity of the tomb of St. Philomena, was offered in an earlier work by H. Leclercq. (52) He argued that the catacombs under Rome are very large, in keeping with the Christian conception of immortality. They had an extreme reverence for each and every Christian body, whether a martyr or not. It was because of their hope for future glory that each body was treated as special, given its own burial spot and why it was forbidden for Christians to open a tomb, either to put one body on top of another, or to disturb a grave in any way. Now, if we were to accept the Marruchi hypothesis, then one would have to accept: a) an epitaph from a first century Christian named Philomena was used for another anonymous Christian's grave in the fourth century; b) that the first person was therefore removed from her grave and c) that this person was removed despite there being room in the lower parts of the catacombs for new bodies. Why would Christians commit these acts that had been forbidden as sacrilegious and against all tradition and belief? Morally, they would not. (53) More recent archeological study has provided additional clarity regarding the shortcomings of the Marucchi theory. Jesuit archeologist Fr. Antonio Ferrua, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission of Sacred Archeology and Professor of Archeology at the Gregorian University conducted an examination of the tiles and catacomb site in 1963 and issued the following conclusion: The hypothesis of Marucchi, that three tiles with their inscription came from another tomb and were sealed into the second with the inscription out of order is not sustainable to illustrate that the epitaph does not apply to her: 1. Because in that case one would be able to observe on them some traces of the second application of lime (examiners up to this point have all concluded to only one sealing). |
