Proving Woman (9 page)

⁹⁵
Jean Duvernoy, ed.,
Le Registre d
’
inquisition de Jacques Fournier,
è
v ê
que de Pamiers
(1318
–
1325)
(Toulouse: E. Privat, 1965), Petrus Maurinus, 3:229. The witness is reporting what the heretics commonly said. In the interest
of clarity, I have retained the Latin names for individuals in inquisitional records.

⁹⁶
See Raymond of Peñafort,
Summa de poenitentia
3.34.59, p. 489; Aquinas,
Sent
. bk. 4, dist.

21, q. 1, sed contra, 4:1068. Also see Bonaventure,
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, pt. 2, art. 2, q. 1 ad 2, 4:565–66.

⁹⁷
Caesarius of Heisterbach,
Dialogus miraculorum
3.32, ed. Joseph Strange (Cologne, Bonn, Brussels: J. M. Heberle, 1851), 1:49; trans. H. Von E. Scott and C. C. Swinton Bland,
Dialogue
on Miracles
(New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1929), 1:168.

⁹⁸
An Alphabet of Tales: An English Fifteenth Century Translation of the Alphabetum narrationum
, ed. M. M. Banks,
EETS
, o.s., no. 126, pt. 1 (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1904), no. 179, p. 126 (probably by fourteenth-century Arnold
of Li[egrave]ge). Caesarius is cited.

⁹⁹
Bernard Gui’s
Liber sententiarum inquisitionis Tholosanae
, printed as an appendix in Philippus von Limborch’s
Historia inquisitionis cui subjungitur Liber sententiarum inquisitionis Tholosanae
(Amsterdam: Henricus Wetstenium, 1692), p. 251. Cf. Arnaldus de Vernhola, who posed as a confessor—partially to pursue his
homosexual seductions (Duvernoy,
Le Registre
, 3:14–50). See John Arnold’s deployment of Judith Butler’s performative framework in analyzing Arnauldus’s sexuality (
Inquisition and Power: Catharism and the Confessing Subject in Medieval Languedoc
[Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001], pp. 214–25).

¹⁰⁰
On the relation between preaching and hearing confession, see particularly Roberto Rusconi, “De la prédication a` la confession:
transmission et contr ô le de mod[egrave]les de comportement au XIIIe si[egrave]cle,” in
Faire Croire
, pp. 67–85; Little, “Les techniques de la confession,” in ibid., pp. 88–89; and Jacques Berlioz, “ ‘Quand dire c’est faire
dire’: exempla et confession chez Etienne de Bourbon (d. v. 1261),” in ibid., pp. 299–335.

¹⁰¹
Conrad Eubel, ed.,
Bullarii Franciscani epitome: sive Summa bullarum in eiusdem bullarii
quattuor prioribus tomis relatorum addito supplemento
(Florence: College of Saint Bonaventure, 1908), Reate, 29 July 1234, p. 232; see Donato Soliman,
Il ministero della confessione nella
legislazione dei Frati Minori
, Studi e testi Francescani, no. 28 (Rome: Edizione Francescane, 1964), p. 41. Eventually, the general chapter of the Franciscans
would attempt to secure the strict observance of the seal. See Paris 1292 under rubric 6 (“De occupationibus fratrum”) c.
4, c–d, Michael Bihl, ed. “Statuta Generalia Ordinis edita in capitulis generalibus celebratis Narbonae an. 1260, Assisii
an. 1279 atque Parisiis an. 1292. Editio critica et synoptica. Index specialis,”
AFH
34 (1941): 75; cf. Soliman,
Il ministero
, pp. 157 ff.

¹⁰²
See Mark Pegg,
The Corruption of Angels: The Great Inquisition of 1245
–
1246
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001), p. 67.

¹⁰³
James of Vitry,
The Exempla or Illustrative Stories from the Sermones Vulgares of Jacques
de Vitry
, ed. Thomas Frederick Crane, Folk-Lore Society Publications, 26 (London: Folk-Lore Society, 1878; reprint, Nedeln, Liechtenstein:
Kraus, 1878), no. 80, p. 36. They are probably mendicants, because they are called “preachers,” and they were in the area
to preach and hear confession.

¹⁰⁴
See
De apibus
2.30.3, p. 321; 2.30.4, p. 321; 2.30.9, p. 324; 2.30.55, p. 359; 2.55.2, p.532, etc.

¹⁰⁵
Ibid. 2.30.6, p. 322.

¹⁰⁶
Ibid. 2.30.48, p. 354.

¹⁰⁷
Cited by Antoninus of Florence,
Confessionale Anthonini
3.29 (Paris: Jehan Petit, 1507?), fol. 38r. Colverner, editor of
De apibus
, aware of the problem, is nevertheless at pains to justify any possible indiscretion of Thomas (notes for 2.30.3, p. 91 at
the end). On Antoninus, see Michaud-Quantin,
Sommes de casuistique
, pp. 73–75.

¹⁰⁸
Jean Gobi,
La Scala coeli
, ed. Marie-Anne Polo de Beaulieu (Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1991), no. 260, p. 275.

¹⁰⁹
See, for example, Bonaventure,
Quare fratres
c. 15, 19, in
Opera omnia
, 8:379, 381. This information also makes its way into confessors’ manuals. See John Nider’s
Confessionale seu
manuale confessorum fratris Johannis Nyder ad instructionem spiritualem pastorum valde necessarium
(Paris: Jehan Petit, n.d.), 2.1 (unpaginated).

¹¹⁰
Bonaventure also envisages instances of a person intent on marrying someone, despite the existence of a hidden affinity,
or of a prior who confesses a sin to the abbot that will persist as long as the prior retains his position of responsibility
(
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, art. 2, q. 1, ad contra, 2–4, 4:566). Aquinas, familiar with Bonaventure’s
Sentences
, raises the same hypothetical cases (
Sent
. bk. 4, q. 3, art. 1, ad 1, 4:1067–68). See Gy, “Le précepte . . . et la détection,” pp. 448–49.

¹¹¹
Bonaventure,
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, art. 2, q. 1, resp. ad 2, 4:566–67.

¹¹²
Ibid. resp., 4:566–67.

¹¹³
Aquinas,
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, q. 3, art. 1, resp. ad 1, 4:1069; cf. his comment “concealment is the essence of the sacrament,” art. 2,
resp., ibid., 4:1072.

¹¹⁴
Here he compares revealing a confession with an attempt to consecrate elements entirely different from bread and wine as
the body and blood of Christ, either offense constituting a sacrilege. “The effect, moreover, of penance is the hiding of
sins from the eyes of the punishing [
punientis
] God; and this hiding is signified in the secrecy of confession,” Aquinas, quodlib. 12, q.

10, art. 2 [17], in
Opera omnia
, 25,2:411. Unfortunately Thomas’s quodlibet 12, which raises the question of the seal of confession, is incomplete (Leonard
Boyle, “The Quodlibets of St. Thomas and Pastoral Care,” in
Pastoral Care, Clerical Education and Canon Law, 1200
–
1400
[London:

Variorum, 1981], II, p. 236).

¹¹⁵
Aquinas,
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, q. 3, art. 1, resp. ad q. 1 ad 1, 4:1070.

¹¹⁶
Ibid. resp. ad 2, 4:1070; Gy, “Le précepte . . . et la nécessité,” pp. 537 ff.

¹¹⁷
See Leonard Boyle, “The
Summa confessorum
of John of Freiburg and the Popularization of the Moral Teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and Some of His Contemporaries,” in
Pastoral
Care
, III, esp. pp. 249–58. For dating, see III, pp. 248–49. Michaud-Quantin suggests that John may even have been a student of
Thomas (
Sommes de casuistique
, pp. 43–48).

¹¹⁸
John of Freiburg,
Summa confessorum
bk. 3, tit. 34., q. 91, fol. 194r.

¹¹⁹
Carletti, who upholds the integrity of the seal, includes the opposing view of Innocent IV and others, who argue that, if
one really wants to do something evil, this is not part of the penitential forum and hence not protected (
Summa angelica
, ad
confessio ultimo VIII
nos. 1–4, fols. 115v–16r; 7, no. 3, fol. 116v).

¹²⁰
Mansi, vol. 23, col. 363, c. 28; cf. Lorenzo Paolini, ed.,
Il
“
De of
fi
cio inquisitionis
”
: La
procedura inquisitoriale a Bologna e a Ferrara nel Trecento
(Bologna: Editrice Universitaria Bolognina, 1976), bk. 2, p. 80; and Zanchino Ugolini,
Tractatus de haereticis
c. 34, in
Tractatus
universi iuris
, ed. Camillo Campeggi (Venice: Franciscus Zilettus, 1584), vol. 11, pt. 2, fol. 264r. This prohibition seems to have been
lifted after the person is dead, however, as Gui provides a form for summoning the confessor in the defense of his dead penitent
(Gui,
Practica inquisitionis
hereticae
, ed. Célestin Douais [Paris: Alphonse Picard, 1886], 1.26, p. 23).

¹²¹
Bonaventure,
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, pt. 2, art. 2, q. 2, 4:567–68; Aquinas,
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, q. 3, art. 2, sed contra et resp., 4:1072. Note, however, that both stress sensitivity to scandal.

¹²²
Bonaventure,
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, pt. 2, art. 2, q. 3, contra ad oppositum 3–5, 4:569.

¹²³
Ibid. contra ad 5, and resp. ad opinio 1, 4:569–70. He thinks this is an extremely dangerous position, as does Aquinas (
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, q. 3, art. 3, resp., 4:1074).

¹²⁴
Bonaventure,
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, pt. 2, art. 2, q. 3, resp. ad 5, 4:571; cf. Aquinas,
Sent
. bk.

4, dist. 21, q. 3, art. 3, resp., 4:1073–74.

¹²⁵
Aquinas,
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, q. 3, art. 1, ad 2, 2 and resp. 2, ad 2, 4:1068–69, 1071. Cf. Bonaventure,
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, pt. 2, art. 2, q. 3, resp. ad 5, 4:571.

¹²⁶
Cf. Palémon Glorieux’s indexes for the Parisian masters between 1260 and 1320 in
La Litte
è
rature quodlib
è
tique de 1260 [agrave] 1320
, 2 vols. (vol. 1: Le Saulchoir, Kain: Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 1925; vol. 2: Paris: Librairie Philosophique
J. Vrin, 1935). Twenty-three different masters addressed the seal, while a number of these (most notably Henry of Ghent, Nicolas
Trivet, and Thomas Aquinas) returned to this subject on several occasions.

¹²⁷
Boyle, “The Quodlibets of St. Thomas,” in
Pastoral Care
, II, pp. 240 ff.; Glorieux,
Litt
è
rature
quodlib
è
tique
, 1:24.

¹²⁸
Henry of Ghent, quodlib. 7, q. 26,
Henrici a Gandava: Quodlibet VII
, ed. G. A. Wilson, in
Opera omnia
, vol. 11 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1991), p. 237; Glorieux,
Litt
è
rature
quodlib
è
tique
, 1:87–94, 177).

¹²⁹
Henry of Ghent, quodlib. 8, q. 29,
M. Henrici a Gandava . . . Quodlibeta
(Venice: Jacobus de Franciscus, 1613), 2:51. The abbot is unable to report the situation to his superior since his knowledge
came from confession alone, where he knows as God, not man. And yet as confessor, and hence “secretary of God,” the abbot
can resolve in secret to move his sinful penitent, though he ought to provide a separate reason to the public. Cf. Bonaventure,
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, pt. 2, q. 1, ad oppositum 4, and resp. ad 4, 4:566, 567, and Aquinas, quodlib. 5, q. 7, art. 1 [13], in
Opera omnia
, 25,2:378–79. James of Viterbo challenges the distinction between knowing as God and knowing as man, arguing that in a strict
sense, only Christ can know as both man and God (
Jacobi de Viterbio O. E. S. A. Disputatio secunda de Quolibet
, ed. Eelcko Ypma [Würzburg: Augustinus, 1969], p. 231). On James, see Glorieux,
Litt
è
rature quodlib
è
tique
, 1:214–15.

¹³⁰
Godefroid of Fontaines,
Les Quodlibets onze
–
quatorze de Godefroid de Fontaines
, ed. J. Hoffmans (Louvain: Editions de l’Institut Supérieur de Philosophie, 1932), quodlib. 12.18, vol. 5, fasc. 1–2, pp.
137–39. Cf. Aquinas’s similar conclusion (
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, q. 3, art. 1, resp. ad 3, 4:1071), and its reiteration by John of Freiburg (
Summa confessorum
bk. 3, tit. 34, q. 97, fol. 194r–v). On Godefroid, see Glorieux,
Litt
è
rature quodlib
è
tique
, 1:149–51. Lay confession disappeared largely as a result of Aquinas’s intervention. See particularly quodlib. 12, q. 10,
art., 1 [16] in
Opera omnia
, 25,2:411, and n. 22, above.

¹³¹
Carletti,
Summa angelica
, ad
confessio ultimo VIII
, fols. 116r–17r.

¹³²
Ibid. no. 6, fol. 118r. Here Carletti relies on Bonaventure. The distinction between the seal of secrecy and the seal of
confession is common to other manuals as well. See John of Freiburg,
Summa confessorum
bk. 3, tit. 34, q. 96 and q. 98, fols. 194r, 194v; Antoninus of Florence,
Confessionale
c. 28, fol. 37v; cf. Antoninus’s discussion of a criminal pressured by a judge to give his confessor permission to reveal
a confession (c. 27, fol. 36r). Henry of Ghent argues against the obligation of a religious subordinate, bound by secrecy,
to reveal something to his abbot under obedience—provided no one is at risk (quodlib. 9, q. 27, in
Henrici a Gandavo: Quodlibet IX
, ed. R. Macken, in
Opera omnia
, 13:312. Cf. Aquinas, quodlib. 4, q. 8, art. 1 [12], in
Opera omnia
, 25,2:332.

¹³³
Some, however, such as Bartholomeus of Pisa, writing ca. 1338, attempt to circumvent the controversy by only reiterating
the conclusions of Bonaventure (et al.), suppressing the alternative view (
Summa de casibus conscience secundum compilacionem Bartholomei
, ad
confessionis celacio
, Bodleian MS, 736, fol. 26v; see Michaud-Quantin,
Sommes de casuistique
, pp. 60–62).

¹³⁴
Antoninus of Florence,
Confessionale
c. 27, fol. 26r; cf. Bonaventure,
Sent
. bk. 4, dist. 21, p. 2, art. 2, q. 2, contra ad 1, 4:567.