Proving Woman (4 page)

Raymond was, in essence, suggesting that the sacrament of penance should follow the contours of an inquisitional process,
a procedure with which his legal training made him intimately familiar.
⁶⁶
He further en-sured that the protocol for an inquisition was safely secured in contemporary canon law: the first title of
book 5 of his
Decretals
is “On Accusations, Inquisitions, and Denunciations.”
⁶⁷
While in the context of his
Summa
Raymond employs the term
interrogationes
to describe his system of inquiry,
inquisitiones
would be equally appropriate. And, in fact, later confessors’ manuals or manuals preparing the penitent for confession will
use the term
inquisitiones
.
⁶⁸

The methods of the first papal inquisitors against heresy, appointed by Gregory IX, were unsystematic, to say the least.
⁶⁹
It was Raymond who introduced the same confessional/inquisitional initiative to the prosecution of heresy that was already
present in his confessors’ manual.
⁷⁰
Yet although his role in the establishment of the inquisition against heresy was central, his hand was frequently concealed.
⁷¹
In 1234, writing in the pope’s name, Raymond redacted a number of canonical responses to problems presented by the mission
of the two mendicant orders in Tunis, a number of which bore on questions of heresy.
⁷²
According to Peter Marsilio, a Dominican from Barcelona writing at the end of the thirteenth century, Raymond was behind King
James of Aragon’s request to establish an inquisition in order to exterminate the threat of heresy in his lands, which resulted
in the papal bull to the bishop of Tarragona of 1232.
⁷³
When Raymond himself refused the archbishopric of Tarragona two years later, he was asked to name the new incumbent and,
accordingly, chose someone he knew would continue to purge the area of heretics.
⁷⁴
Finally, Raymond was further involved in a series of consultations with the archbishop of Tarragona regarding the prosecution
and treatment of heretics. One of these, undertaken in 1242, underlines how heretics should be treated in prison as well as
various criteria for proof of culpability.
⁷⁵
Such consultations eventuated in a set of guidelines for the prosecution of heresy—an unquestionable precedent that would
serve as a model for subsequent inquisitional manuals.
⁷⁶

In a compelling comparison of confessors’ manuals with inquisitional manuals, Annie Cazenave demonstrates that the two genres,
both oriented toward extracting a “voluntary” confession and instilling true contrition, were, from a certain perspective,
inseparable processes.
⁷⁷
As author of one of the earliest and most influential of confessors’ manuals as well as the motive force behind the earliest
set of inquisitional guidelines, Raymond oversaw this conflation. But he attempted still more: he wanted to make the two confessional
tribunals cooperative, subordinating the secrecy of an individual’s sacramental confession to the welfare of the church. This
impetus is evident in Raymond’s consultation of 1242.

If someone who formerly believed the heretics is cited in court and confesses spontaneously [
confitetur sponte
], that is without fear of torture [
non metu probationum vel tormentorum
], but saying that he has amended himself from the crime and was reconciled in secret confession and is prepared to prove
[
probare
] this through his confessor; if the crime was secret, so that beyond confession no other proofs [
probationes
] are to be had, it seems that the testimony of the confessor should suffice in this matter—if the latter is a discreet man
of good reputation. If, however, such a confession was made not spontaneously but out of dread or if the crime was not hidden,
it seems that the judgment should proceed further, according to discreet men, especially if, according to the knowledge of
his confessor and the proofs [
probationes
] found against him [the defendant], he is able to be convicted for having kept silent about certain errors in confession,
though it should always be taken into consideration as to whether this seems to have been done from simplicity or malice.
⁷⁸

Raymond’s advice is suffused with a confident and untroubled sense of the easy permeability of sacramental and heretical tribunals—a
confidence that betrays the assumption that the two were always intended as complements. The confessor, moreover, likewise
moving between two tribunals, can work on behalf of either the defense or the prosecution of a penitent. This fluidity is
also signaled in the overlapping uses of the words “proof” and “confess,” which tend to confound efforts at neat distinction.
The first evocation of the ubiquitous word “proofs” is actually a reference to torture, as the accompanying sister term “torments”
makes clear. Such terminology suggests that torture, which was seen to advance lockstep with the spread of inquisitional procedure,
was already glimpsed as a possibility at the very dawn of the papal inquisition against heretics.

A similar policy is articulated in the guidelines for prosecuting heresy, in which Raymond permits a former heretic or fautor
(a suspected sup-porter of heretics) to be cleared by appealing to his confessor, who would in turn testify that the penitent
had confessed and done penance for his sin. Raymond does, however, reflect that “the priest would have acted badly because
he did not not remit [
remisit
] him”—an ambiguous reflection on the priest’s responsibilities. It could simply mean that the confessor was expected to urge
the penitent to report to the bishop so he could make a public abjuration of his heresy. Another possible reading is that
the priest was required to send in the former heretic’s name, with or with-out the approval of his penitent.
⁷⁹
An entire chapter is devoted to how penitents should be interrogated by their confessors in the course of sacra-mental confession
as to whether they are aware of any heretics, or their fautors. All information thus elicited should be written up faithfully
and presented before the bishop or his representative by the confessor, who should also have his penitent-informant in tow.
If the latter does not want this information revealed, “the priest ought nonetheless to seek counsel from learned and God-fearing
men, though not specifying the person [i.e.,the confessee], on how to proceed further.”
⁸⁰
Although the informant’s name has been withheld in this context, at least temporarily, the names of those accused of heretical
activities would, presumably, be cited, while “learned and God-fearing men” would probably discuss whether or not the hapless
informant could be forced to testify.

The potential for traffic between penitential and antiheretical fora is most dramatically opened up in the
Summa on Penance
, where Raymond embarks on an interesting piece of casuistry that actually pits the celebrated secrecy (or “seal”) of sacramental
confession expressly against the church’s fear of heresy. Moreover, as Raymond makes clear in the prologue to his
Summa
, this very explicit treatment was intended for the relatively humble priest as opposed to the trained inquisitor, giving
this advice a very different kind of salience.
⁸¹
Raymond begins his discussion of the seal with an enumeration of penalties that await a confessor who reveals a confession,
including the most recent sanctions enjoined by Innocent III at Lateran IV: deposition and imprisonment in a strict monastery.
⁸²
But then the mitigating circumstance of heresy is introduced through a series of shifting lenses. Suppose that a confessor
is confronted by an unrepentant heretic, who will confess only his other sins? or by someone who is prepared to give up heresy
but will not name his former heretical confederates? Or what if he names them but does not wish the priest to reveal their
names—whether because he took a vow of secrecy or because he fears retaliation? What is the priest to do? Raymond answers
that according to some men, the priest should go to the bishop and tell him to beware and keep careful watch over his sheep
because a wolf is loose. Or else he can reveal the information to someone who can profit but will not harm the person of heretical
leanings.
⁸³
But then Raymond goes on to proffer his own utilitarian view on the confessional rights of the unrepentant heretic.

It seems that the priest is not bound on account of the power of [the sacrament of] penance first because he [the confessee]
did not do penance and then because he does not preserve the faith since he is a heretic and an infidel. And therefore faith
should not be kept with such a person.
⁸⁴

In other words, although the category of heresy is premised on a baptized individual’s ongoing and indeed compulsory membership
in the church, the heretic has nevertheless forfeited the usual protections that his or her now irksome faith would have afforded.
What remains is compulsion. Moreover, the
Summa
’s concluding comment on heresy lowers the bar considerably as to where suspicions of heresy should begin: “In sum, note that
a person wavering in faith is an infidel [
dubius in fide infidelis est
], nor are those who are ignorant of the faith of truth entirely to be believed.”
⁸⁵

A formal petition for Raymond’s canonization was made within four years of his death, a fact that comes as little surprise
considering his prominence in the papal and Dominican circles, as well as the scholarly world at large.
⁸⁶
Even so, a compelling case for sanctity would be difficult to craft from achievements that were so academic and institutional
at a time when, as we will see, hagiographical culture was progressively favoring qualities like poverty, mysticism, and miraculous
somatism. How would his achievements stack up against such flamboyant competition?

An anonymous life, written before 1351 and accompanying his process of canonization, does its best to bring the great canon
lawyer’s achievements into line with some of the current trends. This task was certainly facilitated by Raymond’s ill-health.
Thus his refusal of the archbishopric was eventually tolerated when “he was seized by a continual fever for three days and
was in the greatest torture in body and mind, until the Lord Pope, at the instance and importuning of certain cardinals, absolved
him from this office and freed him from obedience.”
⁸⁷
Moreover, in his capacity as confessor to Gregory IX, the pope gave him the nickname “the father of the poor.” This was because
Raymond frequently imposed on his papal penitent, in place of penance, the task of hearing the legal petitions of the deserving
poor.
⁸⁸
Raymond’s remarkable scholarly achievements were also recast. Thus the writing of the
Summa of Penance
is described as an act of humility and obedience, undertaken only at the repeated requests of his brothers. The commission
of the
Decretals
is likened to Christ’s voluntary assumption of the cross, which, borne in humble obedience, seemed light.
⁸⁹
And Raymond’s first miracle—which is also the one that is most compelling, and most fully described—fittingly relates how
Raymond was responsible for restoring the powers of speech to a dying man so that the latter could make his confession.
⁹⁰

But the anonymous life, interestingly, did not avail itself of the spectacular miracle attending his election as master of
the Dominican order:

A miracle occurred in the election of Master Raymond of PeÑafort. . . . Once the [electors] were shut in, every one else returned
to the church praying and beseeching the Lord that he should provide them with a suitable shepherd. . . . A certain devout
brother then stood before the tomb of the blessed father [Dominic], and, with the hand of the Lord upon him, he saw through
images in a certain vision all the electors leaving the room and proceeding to the church. They erected unanimously a single
marble column bespattered with drops of blood from top to bottom, which reaching from the floor of the church and touching
the ceiling, helped keep up the rest of the entire church. . . . Scarcely was there time to say one nocturn when behold: the
electors left the room and, calling the chapter, announced that Brother Raymond of PeÑafort was unanimously chosen. . . .
The brothers were exultant that so holy and so famous a man was divinely given to them; the scholars especially rejoiced about
so out-standing and excellent a man as master. And that day, by chance, the reading in the refectory was, with God ordaining,
from the Book of Joel: “Children of Sion, rejoice, and be joyful in the Lord your God: because he has given you a teacher
of justice” (2.23).
⁹¹

The tale of Raymond’s election is from the eyewitness account of Stephen of Salagnac. It would be retold in about 1300 by
another Dominican, Bernard Gui, the famous inquisitor and author of one of the most widely circulated of inquisitional manuals.
But the episode was related in a much more condensed fashion with no indication of how the visions should be understood.
⁹²
The anonymous life was written at least several decades later, possibly by Nicolas Eymeric (d. 1399)—also a Dominican confrere,
renowned inquisitor, and author of yet another celebrated inquisitional manual. But whoever wrote the life was surely aware
that inquisitors made poor candidates for sanctity. And, indeed, Raymond’s pivotal role in the creation of the inquisition
may well have compromised his case. In any event, by the time that the anonymous hagiographer was writing, a bloody pillar
representing a teacher of justice had lost its savor. Silence hangs over Raymond’s exertions on behalf of the inquisition,
not only in the vita itself but, with the exception of Peter Marsilio, in all contemporary references as well.
⁹³
Repeated efforts on behalf of Raymond’s canonization foundered, probably because his achievements were too arcane and recondite
to inspire a popular following. He may also have been hampered by his association with the inquisition, which, as will be
seen below, was a decided liability. His case was reopened by Pope Paul III in 1542. The timing is significant. This was the
same year that Clement, responding to the threat of Protestantism, would establish the reorganized and more centralized Roman
Inquisition.
⁹⁴