This is a text produced by the Council of Douzy in June 874. No manuscripts of the acta survive, only two fragments printed in 1629 by Jacques Sirmond. The first is a letter to the bishops of Aquitaine, the second is this decision. Based on the style of the text and the contents of the now lost manuscript from the abbey of St-Laurent in Liège, the judgement was written by Hincmar. The text is taken from MGH Concilia 4 no 40B, pp. 587-596.
Translation by Rachel Stone with assistance from Charles West
The decision of the same synod about a certain sacrilegiously
corrupted nun, Duda, and also about Berta and Erpreda who consented to her wicked
deed.
We reckon that we can reasonably decide the case according
to the path of scripture and the preaching of the elders, through the sacred
laws and rules which blessed Pope Gregory placed together many times in his
decrees for deciding cases. The case is about a wicked deed between the nun (monacha)
called Duda, who, convicted by a birth, at last confessed
she had conceived and given birth from the priest Huntbert. The same Huntbert
stubbornly denied this, in the hope that he could conceal his iniquity by an
oath, swearing with his priestly accomplices. They, according to what is
written, protect his shadow with a shadow [Job 34:22, Job 40: 17], that
is in defence of his villainy, believing they could protect themselves by
hiding his wickedness when they were summoned about it. The case also involves
the nuns Berta and Erpreda, consenting to this wicked deed, who when interrogated,
are said to have confessed without difficulty.
1) First, since the priest Huntbert is excusing
himself about an open (manifestus) sin, we should attend to what blessed
Gregory in the Pastoral Rule says:
There the hedgehog had
its nest [Isaiah 34:15]. For by the name of hedgehog is
denoted the duplicity of a mind that is insincere, and cunningly defends
itself; since when a hedgehog is caught, its head is perceived, and its feet
appear, and its whole body is exposed to view; but no sooner has it been caught
than it gathers itself into a ball, draws in its feet, hides its head, and all
is lost together within the hands of him that holds it which before was all
visible together. So assuredly, so insincere minds are, when they are seized
hold of in their deviations. For the head of the hedgehog is perceived, since
it is seen from what beginning the sinner has advanced to his crime; the feet
of the hedgehog are seen, because it is learned by what steps the wickedness has
been perpetrated; and yet by suddenly bringing in excuses the insincere mind
gathers in its feet, in that it hides all traces of its wickedness; it draws in
its head, because by strange defences it claims that it has not even begun any
evil; and it remains like a ball in the hand of one that holds it, because the
one that reproaches it, suddenly losing all that he had just now learned, holds
the sinner rolled up within his own consciousness, and, although he had seen
the whole of him when he was caught, mocked by the evasion of dishonest defence,
is now similarly ignorant of the whole of him.[1]
Therefore, it is necessary that the same Huntbert is
met with another of his actions, which he cannot deny, just as the same St
Gregory teaches in the aforesaid rule:
Some hidden things,
however, ought to be closely investigated, so by the breaking out of certain
symptoms, the pastor (rector) may discover all that lies hidden in the
minds of his subordinates, and, by reproof intervening at the right time, from
very small things become aware of greater ones. Thus, behold it is said to
Ezekiel, Son of man, dig into the wall [Ezekiel 8:8]; where the said
prophet presently adds: And when I had dug thoroughly into the wall, there
appeared a door. And he said to me: Go in, and see the most wicked abominations
that they do here {Ezekiel 8:8-9][2]
About this it should be noted that first the hole in
the wall and then the door is seen, and then at last the hidden abomination is
shown. Since first evidently there are the outward signs of a single sin, then
the door of open wickedness is shown and then at last every evil which lies
hidden inside is laid open.
2) For it is said that the aforesaid Duda, aspiring to
the role of abbess, recruited as her confidant the priest Huntbert, who used to
write little letters (breviculi), which Duda would send to diverse
people, so that they might be active in getting her made abbess. This was against
the rule of her profession, for blessed Benedict decrees:
On no account may a nun
either accept from or to give to her relatives (parentes), or other people or
another nun letters or offerings of blessed bread or small gifts of any,
without the abbess’ permission…If someone presumes to do otherwise, let her be
subject to the discipline of the Rule.[3]
And indeed the hidden evil grew to such an extent that
the same Huntbert wrote false letters against the abbess to whom he had sworn
faith, but also against his provost (praepositus), so that with the
abbess deposed, Duda could assume the rule [of the convent]. He offered those
letters to the presence and enquiry of the royal missi and was there
convicted in their presence about lying and infidelity and perjury, and through
that incurred the reproach of being a malicious accuser (calumniator).
The holy laws (leges), which the holy church is managed with together
with the holy rules (regulae) say:
Malicious accusers are
those who by offering falsities against whatever innocent person, presume to
move the minds of princes to anger, who all, having been made infamous, will be
driven into exile.[4]
And again:
It is not reasonable that
the punishment of obvious (manifesti) malicious accusers is delayed. For
we do not suffer to be repeated frequently charges which cannot stand in the
first accusation and to have the innocence and security of another without
crime be terrorised by damnable appetite.[5]
And again:
Whoever offers a written
letter in an audience, let him be ordered to prove its truth. For this is
instituted in all cases, that the offeror affirms the written document. If he
who offers a written document should not be able to show the truth, he is to be
held guilty of forgery.[6]
Among the ten commandments which the Lord gave to the
Israelite people on Mount Sinai through his servant Moses, he specially
prohibited false witness: Do not speak false witness. For those who
oppose false witness to justice, as the Catholic doctors teach, are like those
false witnesses who in the passion of Christ spoke false witness against him.
It is thus ordered about false witnesses in the book of Deuteronomy:
If a lying witness rise
up against anyone accusing him untruthfully, both the people between whom the
controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, in the sight of the priests and
the judges, who there shall be in those days. And the judges shall make
diligent inquisition: and if they find the witness is lying and has testified
falsely against his brother, you shall do to him, as he had thought to do to his
brother. And thus you will bear away the evil from among you, so that the
others hearing such things may fear, and nevermore dare to do such things, and…
you shall not pity him. [Deuteronomy 19: 16-21]
Solomon says about false witnesses: the false
witness will not be unpunished [Proverbs 19:5] And elsewhere, in the six
things which God says he hates, he includes the false witness and the
one offering a lie [Proverbs 6:16]. The person offering false witness is
obnoxious in three ways: first to God, whom he despises by perjury, then to the
judge, whom he desires to deceive by lying, finally to the innocent, whom he
hurts by false testimony. Also in his holy law the Lord specially forbids false
testimony and perjury and lying. Whoever therefore transgressed in one of
these, without doubt by the Lord’s precepts is a prevaricator. And the priest
Huntbert is said to have been convicted about the aforesaid three crimes before
the royal missi. Therefore he has no voice to be able to clear himself by oath either individually or with
accomplices about that adultery.[7] Sacred law decrees this,
which the Church approves:
The judge will decide
about whether or not a convicted party, who has been convicted about the truth
of a criminal charge, may or may not be tortured as he sees fit.[8]
And the African Council decrees:
Whenever many crimes are brought
about clerics by accusers, if one of the crimes, which is presented first, is
not able to be proved, the other charges are now not admitted..[9]
But on the contrary, the priest Huntbert, who is said
to have been proved and convicted about the aforesaid crimes, is not held to be
suitable to purge himself about the accused sacrilegious adultery, just as the
preceding law makes clear.
3) Since indeed the law says:
Examination of the crime
should happen where the crime was done, for the defendant of a charge is
prohibited from being heard elsewhere.[10]
And the Carthaginian council says:
if the accused or the
accuser fear any force from the reckless multitude in that place, from where
the accuser comes, let him choose a neighbouring place for himself where the
case may be finished, where it may not be difficult to produce witnesses.[11]
And the African council thus ordered a judgement to be
done at a place to which “the necessary witnesses are able to be led, either
because of sex, or the infirmity of old age or of many other impediments.”[12] And since those [women]
who testify about sacrilegious adultery against him [Huntbert] cannot
reasonably be led far away out of their monastery, let the representatives of
the synod with the royal missi go to the same monastery and decide the
case in the following way.
4) Let the nuns be separated from each other and
interrogated separately, to see if perhaps they will change their statements or
remain with the same statement as at first. And let Duda be interrogated about
the times and places and hours when she committed this abominable crime with
the priest Huntbert. And let it be explained to her how gravely she will add
sin to sin [Isaiah 30:1] if she conceived and bore [her child] from another
man, and falsely accused Huntbert about the crime. And let it be mentioned to
her that she should offer “truth from the heart and mouth”, according to the
Rule of her profession.[13] For by pure confession
she frees herself from death and obtains justification by the indulgent mercy
offered to those confessing before God, as the Scripture says: State your
iniquities first, so that you may be justified. It says “first” because if
she herself does not state them, the Devil will state them in the [last] judgement
before all the saints and sinners. Therefore it is better for her that she
makes pure confession here and receives pardon, rather than be confounded in
the future judgement in the sight of angels and all humans, and handed over to
perpetual flames. And if she will confess purely, her penance will be lighter.
Then the sisters [Berta and Erpreda] who consented to this evil deed are to be
interrogated individually and the proof similarly assembled from their
statements.
Then let the same priest be secured, because he cannot
clear himself by oath either individually or with other priests, since because
of his previous deeds he is not able to have a voice to render himself suitable
[for oath-taking]. And if he confesses simply and purely, let the same priest
and Duda his accomplice, and those consenting to them, come together in the
sight of the congregation and all individually confess. But if the same priest
denies the offences, let him come before the representatives of the synod and
the royal missi and the priest and clerics of the monastery and before
the abbess and the congregation, and let the same Duda, and those consenting to
her, come and let them convict the priest, counting the times and places and
hours, according to what awareness about the crime any of them have. And if the
priest confesses, the penance will be easier for him, but if he should persist
in his obstinacy, let him be convicted in this way.
5) The laws say:
The judge trying a
criminal should not offer a capital sentence before either the man himself
should admit guilt or be convicted either by innocent witnesses or accomplices
of his crime, and be most clearly convicted of having committed homicide,
adultery or sorcery.[14]
And again:
An enquiry is to be
applied in investigating crimes, but it is not immediately to be begun by
torture. Therefore, it is first to be sought through evidence, and if an
accused is pressed by some suspicion, let him be compelled by torture to
confess about his associates and crimes.[15]
And again:
Very many accused of a
single crime are to be heard thus: beginning with him who seems to be more
fearful and of tender age.[16]
And again:
Witnesses ought to be constrained
by an oath before they are questioned about a case, so that they swear they are
going to say nothing false.[17]
This is because an oath is not to be used except in
necessity, as the Lord says: Let your yes be yes and your no, no. What is
further is from evil [Matthew 5:37]. That is, if you are forced to swear,
know that this arises from the need of the weakness of the people you are persuading
about something. This weakness is surely evil. We pray to be freed from this
weakness every day when we say: Deliver us from evil [Matthew 6:13].
Therefore he [Jesus] did not say, what is further is evil, but that it is from the
evil of that person, by whose weakness you are forced to swear.
According to what the aforementioned law says, let
Duda first swear on the most holy gospels and other divine mysteries, and
afterwards those who consented to her evil deed, that they will say nothing
false when questioned about the case. And after the oath, let them offer
testimony against the priest Huntbert, since the law says (which the Lord in
the Gospel approves): Let every matter be established in the mouth of two or
three witnesses [Matthew 18:6}, and the Apostle writes to Timothy: Do
not receive accusations against a priest, unless with two or three witnesses
[1 Timothy 5:19]. And charge the sinners in front of everyone, so that the
others may fear. And as said before, the laws say that the guilty man should be
convicted either by innocent witnesses or accomplices of his crime of having
committed homicide, adultery or sorcery.[18] And the holy canons of
Nicaea decree that:
if any offence of the
soul is discovered about the person of the new bishop, and it is shown by two
or three witnesses, such a man should abstain from the clergy.[19]
After the testimony has been offered, the priest
Huntbert, either confessed or convicted by three witnesses to his crime, should
be deposed by the authority of holy laws and the judgement of synodal rules by
the representatives of the synod, and should be led by the royal missi into
a distant land and perpetual exile, according to the ancient and customary laws
of the emperors and kings, and thrust into some monastery in the same exile
under penance, with only lay communion kept for him. St Innocent decreed about degradation of this
kind, saying:
You are to order those
who are said to have perpetrated such things to be placed in the middle [of the
synod], and when the objections have been discussed, which the priest
themselves have pressed, if they can be convicted, let them be removed from
office, since those who are not holy cannot handle holy things, and let them be
made foreign to the ministry which they have polluted by unclean living.[20]
Concerning permanent exile in a distant land, both the
holy laws and the letters of Leo and Gregory show that he ought to be moved and
led far from the place which the excrement of his wickedness infects. St Leo
decrees about thrusting into a monastery:
It is alien to
ecclesiastical custom that those who should have been consecrated in the
priestly honour or diaconal grade may receive the remedy of penance for some
crime through the imposition of hands. This without doubt descends from the
apostolic tradition, according to what is written: If a priest sins, who
will pray for him? [1 Samuel 2: 25]. Therefore to merit the mercy of God
for this kind of lapse, private withdrawal should be sought, where the
satisfaction of that may be fruitful if it is worthy.[21]
And St Gregory to Bishop Sabinianus:
As to the priest about
whom your Fraternity has consulted us through the representation of the bearer
of these presents, know that after his lapse he cannot by any means remain in,
or be restored to, his sacred order.[22]
but he should be thrust into a monastery under
penance.
And the canons of Neocaesaria:
If a priest takes a wife,
let him be deposed from his order. Indeed, if he fornicates or commits
adultery, he ought to be struck further and lead back to penance.[23]
About not excluding him from the communion of the body
and blood of Christ, again the canons say:
Let the bishop, priest or
deacon found in fornication, perjury or theft be deposed, yet not deprived of
communion. For Scripture says: The Lord will not judge twice in the same
matter.[24]
6) About Duda, since she is a nun corrupted
sacrilegiously, St Siricius decreed to Himerius, saying:
You testified, moreover, that
certain monks and nuns, having thrown off the resolution of sanctity, plunged
into so much wantonness that they joined in illicit and sacrilegious
intercourse, first secretly, as it were under cover of the monasteries, but
afterward, led on hastily by foolhardy consciences they freely produced
children from illicit relationships, which both public laws and ecclesiastical
regulations condemn. We command,
therefore, that these shameless and detestable persons should be banished from
the community of monasteries and the congregations of churches. So that having
been thrust away in their houses of correction (ergastulae), bewailing
with constant lamentation so great a crime, they can boil in the purifying fire
of repentance, so that at least at death, out of consideration of mercy alone, indulgence
through the grace of communion can assist them.[25]
And on this St Innocent:
Women who marry Christ
spiritually and are then veiled by a priest, if afterwards they should either
publicly marry or secretly corrupt themselves, are not to be admitted to do
penance unless the man to whom she joined herself should have departed from the
world. But if this is rule is kept generally, that whatever woman who marries
another when her husband is living is regarded as an adulteress and licence to
do penance is not conceded unless one of them [the adulterous pair] has died,
how much more the rule is to be held about the woman who first joined herself
to an immortal bridegroom and afterwards moved to a human wedding.[26]
And St Leo:
The monk's vow, being
undertaken of his own will or wish, cannot be given up without sin. For what a
man has vowed to God, he ought also to pay. Therefore he who abandons his
profession of a single life and turns to military service or marriage is to be
purged by the satisfaction of public penance. For although military service may
be innocent and marriage honourable, it is transgression to have forsaken the better
choice.[27]
And St Gelasius:
We have learned that
certain men dare to associate with sacred virgins and have intercourse in an
incestuous and sacrilegious pact, after a vow made to God. These people are
immediately and equally to be thrust out of holy communion and are not to be
received in any way, unless by public and proved penance; though indeed the viaticum
should not be denied to those leaving the world, if they are still doing
penance.[28]
7) These things were decreed by the holy canons about
this sort of matter, before the Holy Spirit gave forth the rule of monks
through blessed Benedict, holy canons which were also established by the same
Holy Spirit, and also the things which St Ambrose and St Jerome wrote about the
fall of a virgin consecrated to God, and which blessed Augustine wrote about
holy virginity and the fall of a monk.[29]
Duda should attentively and often reread these, so she
may understand how great a dignity she has lost and how great a vileness she
has arrived at, what she has lost and from what fallen; and let her do penance
with weeping and humility of abjection as long as she lives.[30] May this penance be to
her, as it is written, like a covering of the eyes, may she remember that
she was apprehended.[31] When she reads Augustine
about the fall of a monk, let her know that although inferior by sex, she is
equal by profession, and what is said about a monk, let her understand said
about a nun. Thus for the remainder [of the charges], the aforesaid Duda is to
be judged with moderation as corrupted by sacrilegious adultery, by the same
Rule promulgated by the Holy Spirit and decreed by the authority of blessed
Pope Gregory to be held among the canonical writings and writings of the
Catholic fathers, so that the judgement may fit regularly with the sacred
canons.[32]
A monk or nun, by the same Rule, does not cast off the
yoke of the rule from their neck, if they apply themselves to amending what
they have done against the Rule through the regular judgements of their vow.[33] Therefore, since Duda has
committed offences against the Rule and the punishment of more serious offences
is to be chastised with the chastisement of a switch (virga), just as
her actions show, it is ordered that she be flogged (flagellatur) with a
switch on her bare back, far from the presence of men, before her abbess and
sisters, so that the others may have fear. (Let those who know the Rule
understand, since we think it superfluous to insert all the matters here).[34] If she humbles herself
with mercy, just as is written: The just man will correct me in mercy
[Psalm 141:5], then the flesh which led her delightfully to sin, afflicted, may
lead her back to pardon, and by the blood of the flesh, elicited by the switch,
she may produce blood of the soul, that is profuse tears from the mind through the
whip (flagellum). But if she should be harder, let the abbess act according
to the chapter of the rule in which is written:
She should repress the
shameless, the hard and the proud at the very start of their sin with the
punishment of corporal blows (verberibus), knowing that it is written: The
foolish woman (stulta) is not corrected by words; and again: Strike your
daughter with a rod and you will free her soul from death.[35]
And since the holy canons order punishing with public
penance of this kind, according to c. 25 of the Rule, which agrees with the
sentence of the Apostle Paul and the decision of the canons, let her receive
judgement for her very serious fault.[36] Let her remain in this
judgement for three years and let the abbess diligently show solicitude about
her penance and consolation, according to chapter 27 of the Rule.[37] And for another three
years, according to chapter 49 of the Rule, let her communicate in prayer with
the sisters, yet not in the choir with the sisters, but standing or praying
behind the door, according to the holy canons, or in a place set for her by the
mother of the monastery, so that she may be seen by everyone, just as the Rule
says about her who comes late to divine office, when it orders her to stand and
make satisfaction.[38] In the seventh year,
according to chapter 29 of the Rule, spending time in last place during the
offering, let her communicate with the sisters, according to the holy canons.[39] And after seven years,
let her receive communion of the body and blood of Christ, if she does penance
worthily.
For the rest, let her remain in all regular
subjugation till the end of her life. And just as the Rule says, let her
confess her previous sins with tears and groans daily to the Lord in prayer.
Let her recall before her own eyes how many groans she had in giving birth to the
child whom she conceived with enjoyment, and how many sighs she also emitted
before the birth, fearing to be caught, just as she was caught. And let her
admit those groans and sighs and profuse tears in penance of her crime, about
which the Psalmist says: There their anguish is like those giving birth
[Psalm 48:6]. There, that is in the penance of a contrite heart, is anguish
like those giving birth.[40] For the anguish of a
penitent is like the anguish of a woman giving birth; since the one by
confessing in prayer with groans and tears frees himself from what he badly and
voluptuously conceived in his will. Thus another psalm says: Enter his gates
in confession, his courts with hymns, confess to him [Psalm 100: 4].
When we confess our sins
with tears, we enter the gates of the narrow way. But when after this we are
led to eternal life, we enter the courts from our gate in confession of praise;
since there will now no longer be a narrow way, since the joy of the eternal
festival will receive us. Because of this narrowness of our confession, the
Truth says: Enter through the narrow gate. And when the Psalmist anticipated
himself as received into the breath of eternal joy, he used to say: You have placed my feet in a broad space
[Psalm 31:8].[41]
Therefore it should be
provided for those who deplore the sins they have committed that they may wash
away evils committed with perfect lamentation, lest they be more bound in the
debt of perpetrated deeds and they may less loosen themselves in tears of
satisfaction. Just as it is written [Psalm 80:5]: he gave us a full measure
of drink in tears, that is, that each individual mind may drink as many
tears of compunction in doing penance, as it remembers dried up by sins away
from God.[42]
Everyone ought to exercise greater severity about
themselves, so that they are judged a [male or female] sinner by themselves and
will not be judged by God. An act of penance will then be perfect if a person (homo)
rises against themself in the tribunal of their mind and puts themself before their
own view, in order that this does not happen to them afterwards, just as God
threatens to the sinner. And thus thought may be present as an accuser with a
court constituted in the heart, the conscience as witness, and with just reason
and fear as executioner. Then let the blood of a confessing soul flow forth
through tears. Afterwards, let such a sentence be offered from the same mind
that he or she may judge himself or herself a sinner unworthy of participation
in the body and blood of the Lord. Let the image of future judgement turn
before their eyes, so that when others come to the altar of God, to which he or
she does not come, they may think how that penalty is to be feared, in which
some receive eternal life and others are precipitated into eternal death. After
the regular eleven grades of humility have been kept, as much as human frailty
allows, then according to the twelfth grade:
in her body she should
always indicate humility to those seeing her, that is at work, in prayer, in
the monastery, in the garden, on the road, in the field or wherever, sitting,
praying, walking or standing, let her head always be bowed, her gaze fixed on
the ground, thinking herself guilty about her sins every hour. Let her think
that she is even now being presented to the dread judgement, saying always
there in her heart, what that tax-collector in the Gospel said with eyes fixed
on the ground: Lord, sinner [peccatrix] as I am, I am not worthy to lift my
eyes to heaven [Luke 18:13]. And again with the prophet: I am bowed down and humble at all
times [version of Psalm 38:7].[43]
Let her imitate the prostitute, washing the feet of
the Lord with tears and drying them with her hair and anointing them with
ointment, whose many sins were dismissed, since she loved much [Luke 7: 37-47].
Let her bear the stench of lxury constantly in the nostrils of her mind, and
the [mentally] portrayed sacrilege of her body dedicated to God and the
incestuous adultery committed by her, who spiritually married God, saying in
her heart with tears from her inward bowels: Wash me thoroughly from my
iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. Since I know my iniquity and my sin is
always before me. I have sinned against Thee alone and have done evil before
Thee [Psalm 51: 2-4]. And with guilt creeping in, conscience says: I
have sinned Lord, so that the Lord may bear his sin and he will not die
eternally. For the sacrifice to God is a broken spirit, God does not despise
a contrite and humbled heart [Psalm 51:17]. God, who heals the contrite
in heart and releases their grief [Psalm 147:3] and comforts all who
fall down and raises the shattered [Psalm 145:14]. After tears both night
and day, she should not permit her heart to return to inane levity or
death-bringing sadness or wicked or shameful thoughts and lose the treasure of
compunction through carelessness of loose thought. But whenever shameful and
loose thoughts creep up on her, let her sign her forehead and heart with the
sign of the cross of Christ, asking that the crucified salvation of the world
may crucify her mind and flesh together with the vices and desires, and let her
assiduously keep in her memory that the holy woman Hannah thus merited to
receive what she asked for, since she persevered in the same vigour of mind
after tears [1 Samuel 5]. About whom [Hannah] it is written: Her countenance
was no more sad [1 Samuel 1:18], because what she asked for is not
forgotten, she is not deprived of the gift she requested. And in all these
things, according to the holy Nicaean canons, it is suitable that her purpose
and form of penance is examined.[44] But if before [the end of
the penance] she sickens and is despaired of, let her not be deprived of the viaticum.
And if she recovers after communion, may she only be among those who follow the
communion of prayers, until she has completed the years fixed in the decreed
way. But let the abbess remember, according to c. 64 of the rule:
that the bruised reed
should not be broken, and she should always mistrust her own frailty and not
overdo things, lest when she tries to remove verdigris, the vessel is broken.
In these things, we are not saying, that she should allow vices to flourish,
but prudently and with charity remove them, as seems best in each case.[45]
8) Just as there is a distinction in the sins of those
sinning and [thus] in healing them, so there is a distinction in the correction
of sinners and in the disclosure and healing of the sins of sinners. About all
of this, since a longer discussion may be burdensome to those reading, let us
say succinctly about this only what pertains to what should be done. For
Benedict, blessed in grace and by name, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says in
his Rule (consonant with holy scriptures and the preaching of the other
orthodox Father):
If anyone in work
anywhere, in whatever place, should commit some excess, and that one does not
come immediately before the abbot and congregation, declare his transgression
and make satisfaction and the transgression becomes known through another, let
him undergo a heavier penalty. However, if the sin is hidden in the soul, let
him declare it only to the abbot or spiritual superiors, who know how to cure
their own and others’ wounds, without revealing or publicising them. [46]
It also behoves the nuns to observe this towards the
spiritual mothers of the monastery of their own sex.[47] For the rest, both
clerics and laymen, and women (feminae),[48] confessing their sins in
secret confession to priests (sacerdotes) and bewailing them with the
satisfaction of worthy penance, are in no way to be revealed [as sinners] and
no priest is to make their sins public by whatever indication (significatio),
but only reveal to God in secret prayer. For their sins and also for his own,
let him intercede continually. About sins which a brother admits to a brother,
the Gospel text is to be followed directly, in which is said: If your
brother should sin against you, correct him between yourselves alone, and
the rest until it says: let him be to you like a heathen and a tax-collector
[Matthew 18: 15-17]. The holy scripture, both Old and New Testament, shows that
those conscious of the sins of others, unless they either correct them or show
the grace of emendation to those who are present, are led into danger. The Lord
says: If a soul should sin and hear the voice of one swearing and he is a
witness (whether he has seen it himself or is conscious of it), unless he
indicates it he will bear the other’s sin [Leviticus 5: 1], that is without
doubt the sin of the one who did something or swore something that he should
not have. This also, as our forefathers explained, according to history builds
us and teaches us, lest we may ever pollute our consciences with the sins of
another or grant consent to those doing evil. And consent means not only doing
the same thing, but also keeping quiet about things done illicitly, which
according to the gospel rule we ought to disclose.
Therefore the Apostle Paul says: And have no
fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them
[Ephesians 5: 11]. Blessed Augustine
explains this sentence:
There are two ways in
which the wrongdoer does not defile you: if you do not consent and if you
reprove; that is not to communicate, not to consent. And since it was not
enough not to consent, if it were followed with negligence of discipline, he
added: but rather reprove them.[49]
Therefore it is to be known, just as the Catholic
church holds:
if someone does not
either inform about the things which he sees in the fault of his male or female
neighbour, according to the rule given above, or when he or she is called to
witness, should not say the things which are true, he or she will take upon him
or herself the sin which the other man or woman committed, which he or she
keeps secret, and the penalty of the committed deed returns to the man or woman
conscious of it,[50]
So the Holy Spirit protests, saying through the
Psalmist: When you saw a thief, then you consented with him, and have shared
your portion with adulterers [Psalm 50: 18]. And through the Apostle: Not
only those who do evils, but those consenting to those who do evils are worthy
of death [Romans 1: 32].
Therefore Berta and Erpreda, conscious of so great an
iniquity, not indicating it, according to the rule of the book of Leviticus and
the gospel and the apostolic doctrines, through that act received the sin of
those committing it. Their uncleanliness of more serious leprosy burst forth,
just like that of Duda, and is to be purified by the judgement, according to
the precept of priestly law: after a measured beating with a switch (since when
interrogated they are said to have confessed immediately), let them do penance
for three-and-a-half years in the aforesaid manner of Duda. If they should
become ill, let them in the aforesaid way receive the viaticum as a
gift, and if they should recover, let them continue in the order determined
towards the perfection of restitution, and just as we wrote about Duda, let
them remain until the end of their lives in all subjection and the humility of
the Rule and the confession of their sins.
For both Duda and those consenting to her crime should
have doubled to a double number of years in penance, since both a nun committed
sacrilege with a priest and her accomplices consented to this sacrilegious
adultery. But since their sex is fragile and the Apostle says: Lest those of these kind be swallowed up
by overwhelming sadness [adapted from 2 Corinthians 2 7:], and this
statement is decreed by the Fathers, that before God it is not so much a
measure of time as of sadness, nor of abstinence of food so much as
mortification of sins, we believe that through this penance, if they should do
it strictly and worthily, they can satisfy the Lord, whose mercy, as Leo wrote:
we can neither place a
limit on or define times for, before whom confession suffers no delays of
favour, for as the Sprit says through the prophet: As soon as you sigh, you
will be saved [version of Isaiah 30:15] And: Say your iniquities first,
so that you may be justified, since there is mercy with the Lord and copious
redemption with him [version of Isaiah 43:26; Psalm 130:7.[51]
But the blows of the switch may reduce the time of
penance until the restitution of communion to them, just as is written: The
blueness of a wound cleanses away evils and blows in the secret parts of the
belly [Proverbs 20: 30]. Gregory says:
The blueness of a wound
cleanses away evils because the pain of scourges cleanses iniquities, whether
thought or perpetrated, because when we are smitten outwardly, we are recalled,
silent and afflicted, to memory of our sins, and bring back before our eyes all
our past evil deeds, and through what we suffer outwardly we grieve inwardly
the more for what we have done. Whence it happens that in the midst of open
wounds of the body the blow in our secret belly (that is our mind) cleanses us
more fully, because a hidden wound of sorrow heals the iniquities of
evil-doing.[52]
We have put together this combined medicine of diverse
forms of penance, like an antidote from diverse ingredients against the poisons
of the devil (that is sins), made from holy scriptures and the constitutions of
the canons and the Rule of St Benedict and the preaching of the orthodox,
following in our small way the industry of the Fathers, not prejudging the
statutes of the forefathers, since, as Gregory says, “the art of arts is the
rule of souls”;[53]
so that the verdigris may be removed without breaking the vessels (vascula),
and according to the voice of Truth, let bruised reeds not be broken, let those
who are shattered be bound up,[54] and let those women, who
are cast down by diabolic suggestion and their own fragility, be led back by
the satisfaction of penance to the bosom of mother church.
[1] Gregory the
Great, Pastoral Rule 3, 11.
[2] Gregory the
Great, Pastoral Rule 2, 10
[3] Regula Benedicti,
c. 54, with omissions. Hincmar specifically uses a female form of the rule
here.
[4] Theodosian Code
IX, 39, 3.
[5] Theodosian Code
IX, 39, 1.
[6] Theodosian Code
IX, 39, 7.
[7] Huntbert was
accused of adultery because was Duda a nun and therefore theoretically already
“married” to Christ.
[8] This is adapted
from Sententiae Pauli V, 16, 13, where the admissibility of torture as a
punishment on the convicted depends on the crime, not the judge’s discretion. Hincmar’s
statement that it is the judge’s decision is presumably with the implication that
if a judge has the right to torture someone who has already been convicted, he
can also make any less stringent decision about a convicted defendant, such as limitations
on his ability to clear himself of further charges.
[9] Council of
Carthage 419 c. 130. This looks suspiciously like citation for the purpose of
citation, rather than having any particular relevance to this case.
[10] Theodosian Code IX, 1, 10.
[11] Canones in causa Apiarii, c. 30
[12] Council of
Carthage 424/425.
[13] Regula Benedicti
c. 4.
[14] Theodosian Code
IX, 40, 1. Hincmar turns to Roman law here because it allows accomplices to act
as witnesses, rather than all witnesses needing to be of good character, as
often required by conciliar texts.
[15] Sententiae Pauli V, 16, 1.
[16] Sententiae Pauli V, 16, 2.
[17] Theodosian Code
XI, 39, 3.
[18] See above, n. 14.
[19] Council of Nicaea
325 c. 2
[20] Innocent I,
Letter 38.
[21] Leo I, Letter
167, c. 2
[22] Gregory the
Great, Register, 8, 24. Note that Gregory goes on to say that the priest should
be dealt with mildly, as he confessed his fault and does not mention putting
him in a monastery, unlike Hhincmar’s additional clause.
[23] Council of
Neocaesaria 315 c. 1
[24] Canones
Apostolorum c. 25
[25] Siricius, Letter 1, c. 6
[26] Innocent I, Letter 2.
[27] Leo I, Letter 167, c. 14
[28] Gelasius I, Letter 14, c. 20
[29] Ambrose wrote several
treatises on virginity: De virginibus, De virginitate, De
institutione virginis, Exhortatio virginitatis. Jerome, Adversus
Iovinianum discusses the superiority of virginity to marriage. Augustine
wrote De sancta virginitate. The lack of specific passages mentioned or
cited implies that Duda was at a convent with a relatively well-stocked
library.
[30] Duda is told that
she should maintain a penitential attitude for the rest of her life; her actual
penance, discussed later in this chapter, is for seven years.
[31] The phrases are
taken from Genesis 20:16, in a passage discussing how Sarah, Abraham’s wife,
was married bigamously by King Abimelech, because Abraham had claimed she was
his sister, not his wife. When God warned Abimelech in a dream, he returned
Sarah to her husband.
[32] Hincmar’s aim
here is to show punishments in church canons and in the Benedictine Rule as
equivalent. This involves some creative understandings of the Rule.
[33] Regula Benedicti c.
58, 15-16 discusses how a novice who is accepted into the monastery must
realise that he then cannot leave. Elsewhere in the Rule, however (c. 28, c. 29
and later in c. 58) it is specified that a monk can either leave or be expelled
from the monastery.
[34] Regula Benedicti
c. 28 and c. 30 allow corporal punishment for the incorrigible and those too young
to understand other punishments. Possibly these were not cited because Duda
would not fit easily into either category.
[35] Regula Benedicti c.
2, 28-29, with both the text and the Biblical allusions changed to female from
male. The two “quotations” are influenced by, though not direct quotes from,
Proverbs 18:2 and Proverbs 23:14.
[36] Regula Benedicti
c. 25 provides for a complete ban on association with a monk who has committed
very serious faults.
[37] Regula Benedicti
c. 27 discusses how the abbot should care for and reform excommunicated monks.
[38] Regula Benedicti
c. 49 is actually about Lent observance. Chapter 43 deals with latecomers to
services, who must stand in last place or a separate place.
[39] Regula Benedicti
c. 29 deals with monks who have left the monastery and then returned, who must
take the lowest place. It does not specify any time period for this.
[40] The exegesis of
this psalm verse is inspired by a patristic text, but its exact source is not
known.
[41] Gregory the
Great, Homily on Ezekiel 4, 1.
[42] Gregory the
Great, Pastoral Rule III, 29 as adapted by Paterius.
[43] Regula Benedicti
c. 7, using female pronouns.
[44] Council of Nicaea
325, c.12
[45] Regula Benedicti
c. 64. The text has been rearranged slightly, so that the reminder of the abbess’
own frailty comes first.
[46] Regula Benedicti
c. 46 (not using female pronouns).
[47] The abbess (and
possibly also some of her subordinates) here have the right and duty to hear
nuns’ confessions. Presumably the term “sui sexus spiritales monasterii matres”
is used to distinguish between religious men who might regard themselves as
spiritual mothers and religious women.
[48] Tam clerici
quam laici is a common Carolingian expression referring to all people (in
male terms). Here, women are also explicitly added.
[49] Augustine, Sermon
88, c. 19
[50] Origen, Homilies
in Leviticus c. 2, with female nouns and pronouns added.
[51] Leo I, Letter
108, c. 4
[52] Gregory the
Great, Pastoral Rule, 3, 12 (abridged).
[53] Gregory the
Great, Pastoral Rule 1.1.
[54] See above, n 45.
