Proving Woman (27 page)

A heretical trial would, at this stage, proceed from a speedy judgment to sentencing, not only driven by the logic implicit
in summary justice but further impelled by what can only be described as an institutional paranoia over howinquisitorial hesitation
or indecision might be perceived. For instance, Bernard Gui was sensitive to the potential dangers if the proceedings “are
abandoned, as it were, in confusion, and they [the laity] are to some extent weakened in their faith by observing that learned
men are thus mocked by lowand uncouth persons.”
⁵⁸
The assessors in a process of canonization, however, apparently experienced no such qualms. Delay was normal and, perhaps,
even desirable since it was so concrete a demonstration of the degree of weighty deliberation involved. Aspects of this delay
were structural. In cases of canonization, the roles of inquisitor and judge were, according to correct legal form, more clearly
separated than was the practice with inquests into heresy. With the centralization of canonization through the papacy, judgment
and final sentencing belonged to the papal curia. Thus once the inquest was complete, the dossier—comprising an account of
the entire process, a vita, the articles supporting contentions of sanctity, and the testimony of witnesses—was copied by
the notary, sealed by the inquisitors, and sent to the pope.

The papal curia’s deliberation and final pronouncement on sanctity occurred in slowmotion. Not only could this portion of
the process take years, but frequently, in response to curial queries, the dossier might be sent back for supplemental material
or the inquest abandoned altogether. Yet despite these immense differences in pacing from heretical trials, certain similarities
still pertain in the circumstances surrounding judgment in each forum. Both the inquisitor into heresy and the pope in his
determination of sanctity are supposedly reliant on counsel: the bishop and the assembly of the learned in heretical trials,
the College of Cardinals in a process of canonization. Thus, as outlined in Gaetani’s directives, the pope designates certain
members of the curia to examine the entire dossier carefully—summarizing it, and dividing it into sections with rubrics. He
then assigns a different set of cardinals (a priest, a deacon, and a bishop, according to Gaetani) to examine the rubrics,
in conjunction with the entire process. A full report is made in consistory by this second set of cardinals; it describes
the general contours of the process but leaves aside the depositions of witnesses on the life and miracles of the candidate.
(It is presumably at this time that the rubrics are read out, though Gaetani does not say this explicitly.) At a final secret
consistory, the depositions of the witnesses attesting to the life and miracles of the saint are read aloud, beginning with
the life, while the pope and the cardinals discuss whether or not the individual witnesses make their case for every given
contention or miracle. One of the cardinals acts as secretary, recording each cardinal’s vote on the different items.
⁵⁹
The pope then pronounces on whether or not canonization is warranted.

A number of documents still remain demonstrating the rigor and complexity of the proceedings leading up to the final secret
consistory. Sometime between 1288 and 1297, for example, Cardinal Peter of Colonna was commissioned to write an assessment
of the validity of the second miracle attributed to Saint Louis IX concerning whether a certain Amelot of Chaumont had, in
fact, been healed of her crippling infirmity. Carefully articulating the pros and cons, the exercise is set up like a scholastic
disputation. 60 Similarly, an unknown member of the curia produced a report on the life and, particularly, the miracles of
Saint Thomas of Cantilupe. Bypassing the miracles that were deemed proven, the anonymous cardinal lingered over the ones that
raised doubts—assaying legitimization through biblical or theological precedents, or, failing that, making efforts at establishing
empirical evidence through rudimentary medical knowledge and the like.
⁶¹

Of particular interest is the verbal process of the final secret consistory of 1306 for Peter of Morrone, which can be read
against Gaetani’s more general report of the proceedings.
⁶²
In a slight departure from the protocol outlined in Gaetani, both the rubrics and testimonies to miracles were read aloud
in consistory on the same occasion at an earlier stage in the proceedings. Clement V apparently took this opportunity to attest
with his own hand to the miracles that seemed to be fully proven. At this point, the pope appointed “six or eight prelates
of great knowledge and dignity to examine that inquisition carefully, not touching those things that your sanctity [i.e.,
the pope] decided or signed with the counsel of the brothers.” 63 In preparation for the final secret consistory “and so that
your [i.e.the pope’s] brethren can deliberate more securely, you had many of the attestations of the miracles put into writing
at length, word for word.”
⁶⁴

The verbal process begins by listing possible procedural doubts raised by two of the cardinals: should the inquest be redone
since Peter’s fame had not been investigated sufficiently? The answer is no, because his fame was already known throughout
the world. Should the initial inquest be redone since much of it was the work of only one person? (And in fact Gaetani tells
us that the bishop of Valencia died in the course of the inquest, and the archbishop of Naples had to complete it alone.)
The answer is still no; not only was the remaining inquisitor commissioned to act, but much more arduous inquisitions have
been undertaken by only one person.
⁶⁵
Procedurally, should they not begin by examining the sanctity of Peter’s life rather than his miracles? Here again the answer
is no, because the miracles after his death will attest to his sanctity.
⁶⁶

Subsequent to these preliminaries, the miracles are grouped according to when they were performed: before Peter became pope,
during his papacy, after his abdication, or after his death. A rubric summarizing each miracle is followed by a brief statement
of whether or not an individual cardinal was satisfied with the proof in question. The vote of each cardinal on a given miracle
is scrupulously recorded. If a substantial majority was convinced by the evidence and agreed that the incident was indeed
a miracle, it received papal approval through a terse formula: “The Lord [pope] defines that it is a miracle and is sufficiently
proven,” or words to that effect. In instances where a majority, or even a substantial number, of the cardinals were skeptical,
the papal imprimatur was withheld and the miracle ultimately does not appear in the bull of canonization.
⁶⁷
Gaetani’s recollection of these determinations concludes with a reiteration of how miracles are the surest way of reflecting
holiness of life: “Finally after careful effort it was found by your sanctity and your brothers that some miracles were performed
through his merits before the papacy of that Brother Peter, and some in the papacy, and some after its renunciation and before
death, and some in death, and some after death, and the good and holy life of Brother Peter was proved.”
⁶⁸

The circumstances surrounding the first miracle examined in the secret consistory are especially illuminating. In this instance
alone, the papal imprimatur (“Dominus definivit istud miraculum esse, et esse probatum sufficienter”) is affixed in advance
of the cardinals’ vote—a deviation that the editor ascribes to undue haste on the scribe’s part.
⁶⁹
But this reversal may identify the miracle as one of the fewthat had already received papal approval, which (according to
Gaetani’s assurances) the cardinals would not presume to gainsay. If this was the case, the pope seems to have been prepared
to forfeit a modicum of papal dignity for the security of curial support, and thus subjected this miracle to the rigors of
the cardinals’ examination. It did not stand the test. Eleven of the cardinals agreed that the episode in question was a miracle.
A twelfth equivocated, saying that he had not seen the depositions in their entirety that attested to the miracle but wished
to see them. A thirteenth said that it was a miracle, but added “as according to human judgment”—clearly wishing to register
the possible fallibility of his own. But three of the cardinals did not believe the miracle sufficiently proven, at least
for purposes of canonization. Two more said it was neither a miracle nor proven (although one of these added that he did not
doubt that the episode occurred in fact, but it was not sufficiently established for purposes of canonization—a comment that
seems gratuituous considering he did not think the event qualified as a miracle in the first place). Thus the eleven affirmations
that this was a true miracle (twelve, counting the pope’s) were countered by a full seven expressions of differing degrees
of doubt. These odds were simply not good enough. The fact that this particular miracle was not included in the bull of canonization,
despite a possible papal imprimatur, emphasizes the degree of papal dependency on the counsel of the cardinals.

Thus, in their capacity as counsel to the pope, the College of Cardinals extended the interrogatory stage of the inquisition,
subjecting the dossier (but ultimately the saint and witnesses to his or her sanctity alike) to its most vigorous cross-examination
yet. In the fifteenth century, moreover, the adversarial nature of this task would be formally recognized in the creation
of the office of
procurator fidei
—a position that would eventually come to be known as the “devil’s advocate.” The implicit contours of a courtroom trial achieve
even clearer definition as canonizations are transformed into a struggle between the original
procurator
, who acted on behalf of his holy “defendant,” and the prosecuting
procurator fidei
.
⁷⁰

The curia’s central role in determining the final judgment suggests a major difference between the theory and practice of
our two kinds of inquisition. For, in theory, the inquisitor of heresy is not autonomous and is supposed to arrive at a judgment,
informed by the assembly of the learned, in conjunction with the bishop. In cases of canonization, however, despite repeated
recommendations for counsel, the final decision resides solely with the pope—a point dwelt on lovingly by experts like Hostiensis.
⁷¹
Indeed, for the canonization of Peter of Morrone, Gaetani reports that at several crucial junctures when the cardinals were
required to speak on the saint’s merits in public, they invariably concluded with the supplication for the pope to canonize.
The pope would respond by saying, “You well knowth at canonization pertains to us alone.”
⁷²
Yet, in practice, the positions of inquisitorial dependency in cases of heresy versus papal autonomy in cases of canonization
were often just the reverse.73With the Guglielmite sect, the inquisitors conducted the interrogations entirely on their own,
dispensing altogether with even a show of episcopal collaboration. In the Bolognese inquisition occurring between 1296 and
1301, for which the consultations with the counsel of the learned are extant, their contribution usually provided credible
support for the inquisitors’ decisions.
⁷⁴
Hence inquisitors were frequently rebuked for acting autonomously, dismissing the requisite auxilliary counsel as nugatory.
Meanwhile, the pope voluntarily sacrificed his own will to curial discretion.

Hitherto, the investigative part of the procedure for canonization has been a series of inquisitions within inquisitions,
resembling nothing so much as an ornamental egg whose laquered shell opens to reveal a smaller egg, and so forth. The same
principle is at work with the final liturgical stage of the process, only now in reverse, as the movement proceeds from smaller
to progressively larger replicas. This is one way, at least, of describing the dress rehearsals for dress rehearsals that
eventually culminate in the canonization proper. Thus if the saint has been properly acquitted throughout the various inquests,
the larger clerical community of archbishops, bishops, and important prelates are called together and informally told of the
upcoming canonization. A second (but by no means secondary) motive is to establish the protocol for the dress rehearsal that
precedes the public consistory, at which time the clergy will, in turn, be briefed on the protocol for the public consistory
itself. It is only at this latter event that the greater clergy are
formally
made aware of the business afoot. The procurator will usually make his case before the pope at this time. Many of the cardinals
will preach on the merits of the prospective saint and then join in the procurator’s supplications. After the pope has indicated
his willingness to act, various cardinals are commissioned to prepare appropriate prayers and litanies.
⁷⁵

The canonization proper will, in turn, adumbrate the preparations and the ritual already described for the public consistory.
The news is eventually disseminated among the lesser clergy and the laity, and the preordained day for the canonization (assigned
at least a month ahead of time) arrives. The appointed church is adorned with carpets and candles. The pope, arriving in the
morning and dressed in his red mantle that was adorned with exquisite embroidery from England (the famed
opus anglicanum
) and a miter of burnished gold and pearls, enters in procession with the clerics attached to that particular church, assisted
by two cardinal deacons. He goes to the altar and prays, and then seats himself in a prominent chair in front of the altar.
Subsequent to this, the cardinals enter, dressed in their albs, do their accustomed reverence to the pope, and seat themselves
facing him according to rank, as was the custom in consistory. The other prelates are seated behind the cardinals, with the
laity behind them.
⁷⁶
The pope then removes his miter and proceeds to render an account of the process and the various proofs, requesting that the
people pray for him “that God not permit him to err in this business.” After a series of prayers, the pope formally declares
that the individual is made a saint by the universal church (Gaetani provides a set formula for the actual declaration of
canonization), to be inscribed in the catalog of saints, and worshiped by all on his or her feast day. A solemn office is
then read. Those who visit the saint’s tomb on the feast day will receive an indulgence of a year and forty days; those who
approach during the octave of the feast, forty days. Subsequent to this declaration, many of the cardinals will, in turn,
preach the merits of the saint. Those in attendance are granted an indulgence of seven years and as many Lenten fasts. Finally,
solemn mass is celebrated in the newsaint’s honor, concluding with another set of indulgences. The ceremony is a grand one.
Gaetani claims that there were 150 large torches (
torticia
) and either 450 or 500 smaller ones for Peter of Morrone’s canonization.
⁷⁷
The immense number of candles was also emphasized in the anonymous account of Bridget’s canonization: candles encrusted in
gold, worked with roses and assorted flowers painted different colors, little candles all painted green with two doves and
two turtledoves. The pope was angry (
fuit turbatus
) when the canons of the cathedral processed without the candles they were supposed to be carrying, and, still sulking, dined
alone in his room that night with only his immediate household for company.
⁷⁸