Letter on Stephen 2: next procedural steps

[p 90] But with him heard, the synod ordered him to withdraw. And once individuals had spoken according to how it seemed to them, it was decreed that you co-provincial archbishops with your fellow bishops in that kingdom should undertake a synod at a convenient time and place, and let there be a placitum where the prince with the primores of the land may be present, lest - may it not happen - those illustrious men from either side may come together with the help of relatives and friends, and by the devil's working, a seditious tumult may be able to arise. And let the King attend to pacifying this case between noble men with noble men, but you, by episcopal authority and canonical definition, take it apart and take care to lead it to the due and healthy finish. Stephen having been called, this proposition was put to him and very gratefully received by him. But since the very littleness of my little intelligence, by the order of the synod, took care to suggest what it thought accordingly about the method of this case and the order of definition (?), it pleased the common consent of holy unanimity, that I transmitted and commended these things in letters also to your wisdom, just as they were then accepted in council. And therefore, not as if to those not knowing these things which follow, which are necessary to you, nor as claiming special authority of knowledge for myself, or boasting audacity of definition, but as a servant of the Church and your servant, namely of all the servants of God and servant to the Lord's people, I have taken care to collect anything, not as I ought, but as I could, from obedience of devotion and collected to transmit to you. In which things I have taken care to place nothing from civil law, which bishops ought not to recognise, but to note down briefly, as much as occurred to the memory, those things which are known to agree with ecclesiastical definition.

[p 90] St Gregory demonstrates in a letter of instructions to John the defensor, the order of judgement about things not yet spontaneously confessed or convicted openly, since otherwise no one, as Pope Leo discerned, can be judged regularly. St Gregory says: First so that judgement may be made in an orderly way, to what extent some are accusers and others witnesses. Then so that the quality of the cases, if it should be worthy of exile or condemnation, may be explored, with that one being present, who is accused, let testimony be offered against him under oath, and implanted with writing of the acts and let the accused be allowed to reply and defend himself. But it is to be enquired subtly about the persons of the accusers and witnesses, of what condition or what repute they are, lest they are needy, or lest perhaps they may have some enmities against the accused, and whether they have said testimony from hearing or really testify they specially know themselves, and so that the sentence judged from the writings may be recited with the parties present (?), and thus all things may solemnly be confirmed.

[p 91] But about a clear case and one known to very many, or which he thus confesses, just like that one (if yet also the girl [Raymond's daughter] should say, just what Stephen says, since often we hear among the masculine and women, that what one says the other one very often denies) witnesses are not to be sought, as St Ambrose says in a letter to the Corinthians, explaining the statements of the Apostle about the fornicator: Judges should not condemn without an accuser since also the Lord, although Judas was a thief, since he was not accused by no means cast him off, although with that work known, he should have been banished from the meeting of the brotherhood. For all used to know his crime and did not accuse. For publicly he had his stepmother in the place of a wife. In which matter there is neither work for witnesses nor could the crime be covered by any subterfuge. And a little later: With the face being absent but the spirit being present by authority, who is absent nowhere, I have now judged him as present who admitted this.

[p 91] Therefore it is necessary that Stephen brings the girl to the synod and the father of the girl herself should come, and the girl should be questioned if it is true what Stephen says, that he has preserved her intact until now. And since we have heard about another woman, since she wanted to be freed from a husband, she was prevailed upon and then said other things about herself which were not true, as is reported, let due liberty be given to her and the peril indicated, lest, prevailed upon, she might confess a lie for the truth. And if she should say thus just as Stephen and then, if it should be necessary, belief befitting reason and authority should be received thence by oath, or satisfaction through suitable person, if necessity demands, should be demanded by judgement. Since not for the sake of fraud or any other cause whatever should Stephen remove himself from carnal bond of this girl, except for this reason, which he himself indicated to the synod, namely that he had had lain carnally with a blood-relative of the girl betrothed to him, a relative by connection of the flesh.

[p 91] For this Pope St Leo and blessed Gregory judge to happen in a doubtful matter, openly through an oath from a priest or from whatever man or woman, noble or ignoble, just as he who should want to read will be able to find. Among other things that blessed junior Gregory says in a letter to Boniface Bishop of Mainz directed via the priest Denwald: In the case in which they should not be sure witnesses, who may confirm the truth of the crime produced, it should be sworn on oath in the midst and let the accused offer back testimony about the purity of his innocence, to whom all things are naked and open, and let him have as a witness of his conscience, he whom he will also have as his judge. Which purging of the sacrament is very usual both in churches and in external laws and is also established to have arisen from the truth of faith from the earliest times. But judgement is not accustomed to happen except for the sake of concord, peace and charity among equals; but it is done by subjects for the satisfaction of greater. Which in this case, cannot be required by authority unless it should happen from the placitum.

[p 92] Since it has been said to us to be required from Stephen that he designate by name the woman he has slept with, and demonstrates the certain affinity of relationship, for the sake of which he is not able to unite himself in carnal bond with this girl, we have reckoned to place this worthy thing here which the Apostolic authority discerns from this and the Catholic Church holds, with the truth on this account being known, that it is against reason and ecclesiastical authority and habit of Christian devotion to seek that from him, if perhaps it is sought from another. Leo, greetings to the universal Church in Campania, Samnium and Picenium and all provinces. I am moved with great indignation and saddened with much sadness that certain of you are learned to be forgetful of Apostolic tradition and entangled in zeal of their errors. And after a while: Namely about penance which is offered by the faithful: lest a written declaration should be publicised in the form of a booklet about individual sins, it suffices individual priests to have secret confessions of consciences indicated. For although a plenitude of faith should seem laudable, which because of fear of God does not fear to blush before men, yet since not all sins are of this kind, that those who desire penitence do not fear to publicise them, let the objectionable custom be removed, lest many are bent from the remedies of penitence, since either they blush or fear their deeds to be revealed to their enemies, by which they could be struck down by the law constitutionally. For that confession suffices which is offered first to God, then also to the priest, who he may approach as an intercessor for the sins of the penitent. For there are many who will be able to be provoked to penance, if their conscience is not publicised to the revealing ears of the people.

Appendix: Interrogatio 2.

[237] Some also say that there is neither authority nor reason why this matter which was settled by the judgement of bishops should be called back to judgement, because if this happened, the bishops who decided it will be as of no authority for other matters, and whatever they decide in the future will not be able to be so firm so that it cannot be retracted.

Interrogatio 11/Responsio 11: on public confession and penance

[174] We tried to show above by ecclesiastical authority that a husband cannot separate himself from his wife, or wife from her husband, by means of a written secret confession: just as a bishop cannot remove himself from the church entrusted to him or from his rank, nor can anyone in church orders remove himself from his rank. And nor should anyone have to undergo public penance on account of a booklet of secret confession passed around, and nor can someone be condemned on account of a guided text, or one submitted by somebody else. Rather, what should be judged publicly should be confessed or proven publicly, and in their presence. The great pope Leo wrote to Nicetas Bishop of Aquileia, saying “A sentence can justly be imposed on someone who, present and standing there, has been proven guilty or has confessed fully”, because it is against reason for them to discern the punishments of those whose motives they are not able to know.

Divine scripture also demonstrates the procedure for judging, accusers saying about an accused woman in a prepared judgment ‘“Send for Susanna the daughter of Elchias and wife of Joachim”. And they sent for her and she came with her kin and her children.’ And after testimony was given, the judges condemned her to death. But she was freed, freed by truth, and the false witnesses were punished since they had done harm to their neighbour.

But the woman caught in the act of adultery, and physically present, was not accused through someone else’s testimony or written deposition, which church and Roman laws forbid. Her confession is implied, when it was said to her by the Lord “‘Has no one condemned you?’ and she said ‘No one, Lord’. And Pilate too said about the Lord – though he was seized like a thief and tied up by a band of men, the legitimate procedure of power was maintained, as Augustine said – who was handed over to his prefectural responsibility by the ministers of the Jews, by Anna Caiphas and by Caiphas, “You have handed this man over to me”. Hearing that he was in the power of Herod, he sent him back to Herod. This teaches us to expect Christian and fair judgments from secular men of the world [?], and then to have to apply ecclesiastical healing ointment, ie judges’ medicine, to the infirm. The Apostle demonstrated the same thing, when the faithful were still mixing with the unfaithful, “Already indeed there is plainly a fault among you, that you are judged by outsiders, and not by the brethren. If therefore you have judgments of things pertaining to this world” amongst you, “set them to judge who are the most contemptible in the church.” And Gregory says in the Pastoral Rule “those unadorned with spiritual gifts should at least serve for earthly matters.” And Augustine in his Enchiridon shows that [?] such necessary judgments should not be prohibited, but should be judged amongst the faithful. And St Ambrose: “Since there are wise brothers, let some of these whose judgment the world will respect be chosen to judge. It is very shameful if amongst those who are said to know God none can be found who is able to conduct a judgment.”

[175] For how can a repentant murderer receive the peace of the church before he is pacified with the litigants? How is discord able to win forgiveness before it is united by the glue of charity? How can the rapacious man, who has exhausted himself in rapine, perform acts worthy of penance, before he has made a peace offering by making amends or satisfaction, according to the judgment of David and the example of Zacherias? Or how can a marriage be dissolved unless according to the Christian laws, by which it had been joined under the Lord? And if it was not initiated but rather usurped, how else should this be proven? So St Gelasius wrote to the Emperor Anastasius, “If bishops of religion obey your law in as much as it pertains to the order of public discipline [?], recognising your imperial power bestowed upon you by supernal disposition; so it is fitting and appropriate for you to obey them, who are endowed with elevating and venerable mysteries. As is written elsewhere, read it again “Return to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” To Caesar then pennies, tribute and livestock, the honour owed so long he faithfully honours the Lord [!], the taxes; to God tithes, first-fruits, oblations and offerings, and continual service. Just as He returned tribute for himself and for Peter, and returned to God what was God’s, doing his Father’s will. And St Augustine says in his sixth sermon on the Gospel of John, “Don’t say ‘What’s the king to me?’ What are your possessions to you? For possessions are possessed by kings’ law.” So questions of secular business are to be sorted out through legal trials – just and Christian ones.

[176] And about the booklet or secret confession, Leo observed “to all the bishops in Campania, Samnium and Picenum. I am moved by great indignation and grieved by much pain, when I learn that any of you have been forgetful of apostolic tradition, and ruined in the zeal of your error.” And a bit later, “About penance indeed, which is demanded by the faithful: rather than making public a profession of every particular sin in a written booklet [?], let it suffice for the conscience to indicate [them] to the priests alone, in secret confession. Although the plenitude of faith which on account of the fear of God has no qualms about blushing before men is praiseworthy; yet not all sins are of the sort that those requesting penance would not fear to make them known. So let this uncommendable customs be removed, lest many should be kept away from the remedies of penance, because they are embarrassed or because they fear to reveal their deeds to their enemies, by whom they could be struck with legal action. Let that confession suffice which is offered first to God, then to the priest, who goes as an intermediary for the sins of the penitents. For they will then be able to push many to penance, if the conscience of the confessing person is not made public to the ears of the people.” Let them also consider (since the sacred canons order the excommunication of a bishop [?] for as long as he does not communicate with someone who he says confessed secretly to him) whether anyone ought or would dare to submit someone to the laws of public penance, on the grounds of a secret confession, whether a booklet or hearsay. And how much less should a legally initiated marriage be dissolved without certain and obvious reason, which Leo intoned terribly to all the bishops appointed throughout all the provinces, saying “Our warning denounces this too: that if any of the brethren tries to act against the constitutions and dares to ascribe to prohibited things [?], he should know that he will be removed from his office, and he who does not wish to be a companion in discipline will no longer be a participant in communion.”
[end of responsio 11]

Interrogatio 10

In the fourth chapter we ask you to inform us as follows. If this issue, for which we heard (and some of us witnessed) the ordeal was performed, is called back to judgement, how should the judgment be canonically arranged? And should the woman be judged by the secret confession which, it is said, she committed to the bishops, or by the booklet proffered forth in the judgment? And, if it happened that she proffered the booklet under coercion or signed it unwillingly, can she legally be removed from the marital bed in this fashion?

Interrogatio I

They [the Lotharingian bishops] say in their first chapter [p.114]:
The wife [Teutberga] of the lord king Lothar was first of all accused [?] of fornication, that her brother had committed a dreadful deed with her in masculine intercourse between her thighs, as ‘men are accustomed to commit sin with men’, and that she had thereof conceived. And that, in order that the disgrace might be hidden, she had drunk a potion and had aborted the progeny. She denied this. For the sake of proof, and in the absence of witnesses, it was decided by the judgment of the lay nobles, by the counsel of the bishops, and by the agreement of the king, that a champion of this women should go to the ordeal of boiling water. After he was found to be uncooked, that woman was restored to the marital bed and to the ordained royal union, from which she had been suspended. Then, after a length of time, the pamphlet which we sent to you [the Booklet of Eight Chapters, see below]was written by some bishops, though we do not know whether about the same act or concerning something done after the beginning of the marital union. And it was widely suggested that because of the secret confession which the booklet mentioned, all you remaining bishops should take the floor, and should definitively remove her from marital union, and, if you should demand more, that she should be compelled to give you a booklet complete with her own signature. This way, just as Ebbo, the former bishop of Reims, was removed both from his seat and his [episcopal] order thanks to a booklet of secret confession, so she, through a booklet of secret confession, should be removed from marital union.

Concerning the venerable archbishop of Reims [Hincmar], we were told that he consented to this procedure, and that through bishops, that is Wenilo archbishop of Rouen and Bishop Hildegar, he passed on his verbal agreement. And that through Adventius [bishop of Metz], who had spoken to him at Reims about this, he had sent letters of his agreement to the royal meeting and to the bishops’ meeting, and that he had sent through this same Adventius letters to the apostolic seat [Rome]. Now, we demand that you tell us, in all Truthfulness, which is God, how much of all this should be authoritatively accepted as truth.

Now, the text of the Booklet of Eight Chapters runs like this [p.115]:
Chapter 1. We bishops, who were recently convened to the Palace of Aachen, have arranged to bring to the attention of our brothers and co-bishops what we learned and what we discovered there, so that they, physically hearing and spiritually understanding[?], might discern and work out in unanimous counsel what conclusion and what end they might put to this matter.
Chapter 2. The glorious king Lothar had an informal and secret meeting with us. There, he humbly and in devoted purety set forth his own particular and specific needs, and sought advice and a remdey. We, admiring his good will, were led and bent to compassion by his tears and sighs, by God’s will. To the king as he entreated, begged and pounded [the floor], we gave counsel and medicinal remedy.
Chapter 3. As we listened, not without grief and sadness, the king began to tell us about his wife in a melancholy tone of voice. He wanted to keep her, but she with constant and insistent requests was demanding that, freed from marital chains, as unworthy by her own account of the marital bed, she should take the veil and be worthy to serve Christ the Lord.
Chapter 4. Meanwhile a messenger of this queen summoned us, asking that we would not delay to go to her. As we went, she hurried to meet us. She almost threw herself at our feet, and begged us in hese words: “For the sake of God and of your ministry, I beg you, give me counsel.”
Chapter 5.We replied to her, as we stood, “So that”, we said, “God might give us counsel, which we could pass healthily and truthfully onto you, tell us, in a stratight and true confession of your conscience: what is it that you seek advice about with such agitation [?]. For unless we know the truth, we cannot give you that which you seek. But we warn you first, and by God’s authority and our own we carefully command: you must not confess any misdeed falsely ascribed to you, whether on account of the enticements of anyone’s persuasion is deception, or by fear of any punishment or death, since this would lead us into error: may it not be so! Rather, as we said above, reveal to us the truth of the matter, neither more nor less. And we, with God’s help, will struggle to give you advice and assistance, so that you will not be cheated of your justice in any respect.
Chapter 6. “May God and my conscience be my witnesses”, she said, “and with my confessor also as a witness, I will stray neither to the right nor left in what I say and confess about myseulf, saying nothing except what is truthful. I admit,” she said, “and I know this about myself, that I am not worthy to remain in conjugal union. And I present to you this bishop Gunter [of Cologne], to whom I confessed. He knows that I am not worthy.” And she turned to this bishop, and pleading, said “I ask, bishop, that you make your co-brothers to understand, as best you can, what it is about, just as I myself bore witness [to you].” The bishop replied to her “It would be better”, he said, that you yourself should open up to my co-brothers what still remains hidden, so that they might hear what they should judge upon from your own lips”. But she said “What need is there that I should say anything other than what you know? For God’s sake, tell them my necessity, so that you together my lord [husband] might give my permission to do what I want to. Since ‘even for the whole world’, I am unwilling to lose my soul. And so I ask you, for the sake of God and the ministry which you took on, do not deny to me that which I demand, for the salvation of my soul”
Chapter 7. Then we bishops asked in concern whether, if her request was granted, she would make some protestation or prepare a trap. To this she said unconstrainedly ‘Through the faith which I nourish, I promise to you in the presence of God that I shall never in eternity make a protestation, either directly or through any cunning.”
Chapter 8. What we learned from our co-brother [Gunther], grieving, anguished , lamenting, and regretting that he had ever been aware of this confession, this we will tell our brothers and co-bishops face to face, according to the licence given us. So that, as we said in the beginning, they might understand the gist of this hitherto hidden matter, and then everyone, with one mind and one agreement, might dispel error and raise up Truth. [P.116]