National Catholic Register portal reports on Dr. Philippe Charlier, a French forensic pathologist who performs autopsies on the remains of saints and historical figures, including St. Thérèse of Lisieux, St. Francis of Assisi, and Mary Magdalene. The article presents his work as a bridge between faith and science, claiming that scientific analysis “legitimizes” devotion to relics and offers “concrete understanding” of how these figures lived and died. It also highlights a supposed “resurgence of interest in relics” since COVID, framing relics as a response to humanity’s “need for something tangible.” While the article attempts to harmonize Catholic devotion with modern forensic science, it reveals a profound theological confusion that undermines the very nature of faith, relics, and the communion of saints.
The Idolatry of the Autopsy Table: Reducing Saints to Forensic Specimens
The central premise of Dr. Charlier’s work — that the remains of saints should be subjected to forensic analysis as if they were “patients” on an autopsy table — is a fundamental inversion of the Catholic understanding of sanctity. The Church has always taught that the saints are not merely historical figures to be dissected and catalogued, but living members of the Mystical Body of Christ, interceding for us in heaven. Their relics are not objects of scientific curiosity, but sacramentals — sacred signs that dispose us to receive grace and remit venial sins (Council of Trent, Session XXV).
Charlier’s approach reduces the saints to mere biological specimens, treating their bones and hair as data points in a forensic investigation. He speaks of St. Louis’ jawbone, St. Thérèse’s hair, and St. Francis’ skeleton with the same clinical detachment one might apply to a modern corpse. This is not reverence; it is desecration. The Church has always insisted that the relics of saints be treated with the utmost veneration, not subjected to the profane gaze of secular science. As St. Jerome wrote: “We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are” (Ad Riparium, PL 22:907).
The article’s claim that Charlier’s work “legitimizes” devotion is particularly offensive. Devotion to relics does not require scientific legitimation. The Church’s veneration of relics is based on faith in the communion of saints and the resurrection of the body, not on forensic evidence. To suggest that science can “prove” the authenticity of relics is to place human reason above divine revelation — a hallmark of the rationalism condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (propositions 1-7).
The Myth of the “Odor of Sanctity”: Naturalizing the Supernatural
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Charlier’s work is his investigation into the so-called “odor of sanctity” — a supernatural phenomenon reported around the remains of saints such as Teresa of Ávila. Rather than accepting this as a genuine sign of holiness, Charlier seeks to reduce it to a chemical composition, collaborating with perfumers, oenologists, and chocolatiers to identify its “ingredients.” This is a textbook example of naturalism — the philosophical error that denies the existence of the supernatural and reduces all phenomena to material causes.
The odor of sanctity is not a chemical reaction; it is a charism, a gift of God that manifests the holiness of the saint. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, the body of a saint is a temple of the Holy Spirit, and the sanctifying grace that animated it can leave traces perceptible even to the senses (Summa Theologiae, III, q. 25, a. 6). To reduce this to a matter of embalming substances or chemical compounds is to deny the reality of sanctifying grace itself.
Charlier’s earlier finding that the “scent” around Richard the Lionheart’s heart was due to embalming substances is irrelevant. The fact that some cases may be explained naturally does not mean that all cases are. The Church has always distinguished between genuine miracles and natural phenomena, and it is the role of theology — not forensic science — to make this distinction. By subjecting the odor of sanctity to chemical analysis, Charlier commits the error condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu: “Divine inspiration does not extend to the whole of Holy Scripture to such an extent that all and individual parts of it are protected from every error” (proposition 11). The same principle applies to the signs of sanctity: they are not subject to the judgment of natural science.
The Relics “Comeback”: A Symptom of De-Christianization, Not Revival
The article claims that there has been a “resurgence of interest in relics” over the past 15 years, accelerated by COVID, and frames this as a positive development — a return to the sacred in de-Christianized societies. This interpretation is deeply flawed. The article itself admits that this interest is driven by humanity’s “need for something tangible” and the “gradual loss of the sacred.” In other words, it is not a revival of faith, but a symptom of its absence.
True devotion to relics is rooted in faith in the communion of saints and the resurrection of the body. It is not a substitute for the sacraments or a compensation for the loss of the sacred. As Pope Pius XI taught in Quas Primas, the reign of Christ is primarily spiritual, and the Church’s mission is to lead souls to eternal happiness — not to provide tangible objects for a faithless society to cling to. The article’s framing of relics as a response to anthropological need is a naturalistic reduction of Catholic piety, consistent with the modernist error condemned by St. Pius X: “Revelation was merely man’s self-awareness of his relationship to God” (Lamentabili, proposition 20).
Moreover, the article’s claim that “even traditions like Protestantism… create their own points of reference” (such as Luther’s death mask) is a false equivalence. Protestantism, having rejected the communion of saints and the veneration of relics, has no theological basis for such practices. The fact that Protestants may venerate Luther’s death mask is not evidence of a universal human need, but of the inconsistency of a tradition that claims to reject material intermediaries while secretly relying on them.
The Joan of Arc Relics: A Case Study in Modernist Deception</h2
The article mentions Charlier's finding that the relics of Joan of Arc venerated in Chinon were actually fragments of Egyptian mummies. This is presented as an example of "historical deception," but the article fails to draw the obvious conclusion: the post-conciliar Church has been profoundly negligent in safeguarding the authenticity of relics. The fact that fragments of Egyptian mummies could be venerated as relics of Joan of Arc for decades without detection is a scandal that reflects the broader decay of discipline and reverence in the conciliar sect.
The Church before 1958 maintained rigorous standards for the authentication of relics, requiring a thorough investigation by the competent ecclesiastical authority before any relic could be publicly vetted. The Code of Canon Law (1917) prescribed severe penalties for the sale or fraudulent alteration of relics (Canon 1281-1289). The laxity that allowed Egyptian mummy fragments to be venerated as relics of Joan of Arc is a direct consequence of the post-conciliar abandonment of these standards — a consequence of the modernist spirit that treats sacred things as mere historical artifacts.
The “Two Hemispheres” of Faith and Science: A False Dichotomy
Charlier describes himself as having “two hemispheres” — one belonging to the believer, the other to the scientist. This is a false dichotomy that reflects the modernist attempt to separate faith and reason into watertight compartments. The Catholic Church has always taught that faith and reason are complementary, not contradictory. As Pope Leo XIII wrote in Aeterni Patris, “the Church does not oppose the pursuit of knowledge, but rather embraces it as a gift of God, provided it is subordinated to the truths of faith.”
Charlier’s work, however, does not subordinate science to faith; it subordinates faith to science. His investigations are not conducted to deepen devotion, but to satisfy historical curiosity. His reconstruction of Mary Magdalene’s face, for instance, is presented as “significantly supporting” the tradition — but tradition does not need the support of forensic reconstruction. The Church’s faith in the authenticity of relics is based on the authority of the Church, not on the findings of forensic pathologists.
The article’s claim that Charlier’s work “brings the dead closer to the living” is also problematic. The saints are not “dead” — they are alive in Christ, interceding for us in heaven. To speak of them as “dead” is to deny the communion of saints, a dogma defined by the Council of Florence (1439) and reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (Session XXV). The saints do not need forensic science to be “brought closer” to us; they are already present to us through prayer and the sacraments.
Conclusion: The Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Place
Dr. Charlier’s work, as presented in this article, is not a service to the Church but an abomination. It reduces the saints to forensic specimens, naturalizes the supernatural, and substitutes scientific investigation for faith. It is a product of the post-conciliar world, where the sacred has been profaned, the supernatural denied, and the communion of saints forgotten.
The Church does not need forensic pathologists to “legitimize” her devotion to relics. She needs faith — faith in the resurrection of the body, the communion of saints, and the reality of sanctifying grace. As St. Paul wrote: “We walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7). The relics of the saints are not objects of scientific investigation; they are signs of the victory of Christ over death, and they deserve the veneration of the faithful — not the scalpel of the pathologist.
Source:
Meet the Pathologist Performing Autopsies on the Great Saints (ncregister.com)
Date: 21.04.2026