Thursday, 3 January 2008
Interrogatio 16: why do such things happen?
[213] About that question which was posed: what might be the reason that God, as is said, often allows these things to happen in legitimate marriage?
Interrogatio 15: questions of magical practice
[205] About that which was asked, whether it is able to be true as many men say, that there are women who by their evil-doing are able to place an irreconcilable hatred between husband and wife, and are able to sow a love beyond words between a man and a woman, and all the rest which the questioners wanted to bring to this question.
Interrogatio 14/Responsio 14: about the oath
[203] Let the words of St Gregory in his book on the morals, c.33, be read for the question raised about the oath. For he says: “Imagine someone who seeks friendships of this world, and who binds himself by an oath to someone leading a life similar to his, that he will cover over his secrets in total silence; and that he to whom this was sworn is known to be committing adultery, and even tries to kill the husband of the adulteress. The man who swore the oath comes back to his senses and is buffeted about by various thoughts: he fears to keep silence about it, lest by keeping silent about the adultery he becomes a participant in the murder; but he fears also to betray, lest he render himself guilty of perjury. He is tied by the entwined nerves of his testicles. Fearing to come down on either side, lest he not be free of the sickness of transgression.” And a little later, “There is however a principle which is useful for eliminating these trickeries, which is that when the mind is compelled between lesser and greater sins, then if there is really no path of escape open without sin, the lesser sins should always be chosen. For he who is enclosed by a circuit of walls so that he might not escape jumps off in flight there where the walls are lowest.”
And the venerable priest Bede says in his homily on the Gospel according to Matthew, in which Herod’s foolish oath is described, “How greatly we should avoid the rashness of taking an oath, the Lord in the Gospel and James in his letter teach, saying “Before all things, my brothers, do not swear by the heavens nor by the earth, nor by any other oath.” Let your speech be ‘yes’ and ‘no’, so that you will not fall at the judgment. That judgement at which Herod falls, so that fearing perjuring or perjury, it was necessary for him to commit a sin. But if it happens perhaps that we should swear unwisely, which oath if kept would lead to worse consequences, then by wise counsel we know that the oath can be changed, and by force of necessity, we will have to perjure, rather than avoiding perjury only to fall into a more serious crime. For David swore by the Lord to kill Nabal, a foolish and impious man, and to destroy all that belonged to him. But at the intercession of his prudent wife Abigail, he revoked his threats, he sheathed his sword, and grieved that he had committed a sin with such perjury. And Herod swore to give to the dancer whatever she demanded of him, and, lest he be called a perjurer by the revellers, he polluted the revels with blood, making the death of the prophet into a dancer’s reward. A careful moderation is to be observed not just in swearing, but in all things. so if by the traps of the wily enemy we make such a slip from which we cannot escape without some stain of sin, let us escape it by seeking the outcome in which we foresee that we will commit the lesser sin. And so, for those shut in by enemy walls on all sides, and who trying to escape see all exits blocked off, it is necessary that they chose some place from which to jump, where from the lowest wall they run the least danger of falling.” And the Council of Lerida, “whoever obliges himself by an oath that he will in no way make peace with someone who he is suing, he will be separated from the communion of the body and blood of the Lord for one year for his perjury, and he will absolve his guilty with alms, tears and as far as he can, fasting, and hurry to return quickly to charity, which deals with a multitude of sins.”
[204] And since the questioners wished to ask about an oath of this sort, we thought it not irrelevant to write about such things which are accustomed to happen to human fragility. We will not attack anyone in particular with what we write, but rather in case there is such a person, whom this advice would be able to help, mindful of the scripture saying “whatsoever thou shalt spend over and above, I, at my return, will repay thee”. And so although we were not asked about it, we thought we should include [advice] for someone who must chose between two things and hesitates. For no one will easily find, indeed no one is able to find someone who is holier than David, wiser than Solomon, and stronger than Samson. And these, captured by love of a woman which tames iron wills by lust, and neither shrinks back from the rags of the poor nor fears the royal purple, did things which were not befitting. And women often come to us complaining that young men made them a pledge and then scorned them and left. And it has meanwhile been found by us that men leave their legitimate wives and adhere to adulteresses that they should keep the pledge they promised, and they struggle with great effort to be separated from these wives. About this business, St Augustine says in his book On the good of marriage “There is this further, that in that very debt which married persons pay one to another, even if they demand it with somewhat too great intemperance and incontinence, yet they owe faith alike one to another. Unto which faith the Apostle allows so great right, as to call it "power," saying, "The woman has not power of her own body, but the man; again in like manner also the man has not power of his own body, but the woman." But the violation of this faith is called adultery, when either by instigation of one's own lust, or by consent of lust of another, there is sexual intercourse on either side with another against the marriage compact: and thus faith is broken, which, even in things that are of the body, and mean, is a great good of the soul: and therefore it is certain that it ought to be preferred even to the health of the body, wherein even this life of ours is contained. For, although a little chaff in comparison of much gold is almost nothing; yet faith, when it is kept pure in a matter of chaff, as in gold, is not therefore less because it is kept in a lesser matter. But when faith is employed to commit sin, it were strange that we should have to call it faith; however of what kind soever it be, if also the deed be done against it, it is the worse done; save when it is on this account abandoned, that there may be a return unto true and lawful faith, that is, that sin may be amended, by correction of perverseness of the will. As if any, being unable alone to rob a man, should find a partner in his iniquity, and make an agreement with him to do it together, and to divide the spoil; and, after the crime has been committed, should take off the whole to himself alone. That other grieves and complains that faith has not been kept with him, but in his very complaint he ought to consider, that he himself rather ought to have kept faith with human society in a good life, and not to make unjust spoil of a man, if he feels with how great injustice it has failed to be kept with himself in a fellowship of sin. Forsooth the former, being faithless in both instances, must assuredly be judged the more wicked. But, if he had been displeased at what they had done ill, and had been on this account unwilling to divide the spoil with his partner in crime, in order that it might be restored to the man, from whom it had been taken, not even a faithless man would call him faithless. Thus a woman, if, having broken her marriage faith, she keep faith with her adulterer, is certainly evil: but, if not even with her adulterer, worse. Further, if she repent her of her sin, and returning to marriage chastity, renounce all adulterous compacts and resolutions, I count it strange if even the adulterer himself will think her one who breaks faith.” And this is equally to be understood about adultery, that someone breaches an agreement made with an adulteress, that adulteress cannot rightly say that he is a violator of a pledge.
And the venerable priest Bede says in his homily on the Gospel according to Matthew, in which Herod’s foolish oath is described, “How greatly we should avoid the rashness of taking an oath, the Lord in the Gospel and James in his letter teach, saying “Before all things, my brothers, do not swear by the heavens nor by the earth, nor by any other oath.” Let your speech be ‘yes’ and ‘no’, so that you will not fall at the judgment. That judgement at which Herod falls, so that fearing perjuring or perjury, it was necessary for him to commit a sin. But if it happens perhaps that we should swear unwisely, which oath if kept would lead to worse consequences, then by wise counsel we know that the oath can be changed, and by force of necessity, we will have to perjure, rather than avoiding perjury only to fall into a more serious crime. For David swore by the Lord to kill Nabal, a foolish and impious man, and to destroy all that belonged to him. But at the intercession of his prudent wife Abigail, he revoked his threats, he sheathed his sword, and grieved that he had committed a sin with such perjury. And Herod swore to give to the dancer whatever she demanded of him, and, lest he be called a perjurer by the revellers, he polluted the revels with blood, making the death of the prophet into a dancer’s reward. A careful moderation is to be observed not just in swearing, but in all things. so if by the traps of the wily enemy we make such a slip from which we cannot escape without some stain of sin, let us escape it by seeking the outcome in which we foresee that we will commit the lesser sin. And so, for those shut in by enemy walls on all sides, and who trying to escape see all exits blocked off, it is necessary that they chose some place from which to jump, where from the lowest wall they run the least danger of falling.” And the Council of Lerida, “whoever obliges himself by an oath that he will in no way make peace with someone who he is suing, he will be separated from the communion of the body and blood of the Lord for one year for his perjury, and he will absolve his guilty with alms, tears and as far as he can, fasting, and hurry to return quickly to charity, which deals with a multitude of sins.”
[204] And since the questioners wished to ask about an oath of this sort, we thought it not irrelevant to write about such things which are accustomed to happen to human fragility. We will not attack anyone in particular with what we write, but rather in case there is such a person, whom this advice would be able to help, mindful of the scripture saying “whatsoever thou shalt spend over and above, I, at my return, will repay thee”. And so although we were not asked about it, we thought we should include [advice] for someone who must chose between two things and hesitates. For no one will easily find, indeed no one is able to find someone who is holier than David, wiser than Solomon, and stronger than Samson. And these, captured by love of a woman which tames iron wills by lust, and neither shrinks back from the rags of the poor nor fears the royal purple, did things which were not befitting. And women often come to us complaining that young men made them a pledge and then scorned them and left. And it has meanwhile been found by us that men leave their legitimate wives and adhere to adulteresses that they should keep the pledge they promised, and they struggle with great effort to be separated from these wives. About this business, St Augustine says in his book On the good of marriage “There is this further, that in that very debt which married persons pay one to another, even if they demand it with somewhat too great intemperance and incontinence, yet they owe faith alike one to another. Unto which faith the Apostle allows so great right, as to call it "power," saying, "The woman has not power of her own body, but the man; again in like manner also the man has not power of his own body, but the woman." But the violation of this faith is called adultery, when either by instigation of one's own lust, or by consent of lust of another, there is sexual intercourse on either side with another against the marriage compact: and thus faith is broken, which, even in things that are of the body, and mean, is a great good of the soul: and therefore it is certain that it ought to be preferred even to the health of the body, wherein even this life of ours is contained. For, although a little chaff in comparison of much gold is almost nothing; yet faith, when it is kept pure in a matter of chaff, as in gold, is not therefore less because it is kept in a lesser matter. But when faith is employed to commit sin, it were strange that we should have to call it faith; however of what kind soever it be, if also the deed be done against it, it is the worse done; save when it is on this account abandoned, that there may be a return unto true and lawful faith, that is, that sin may be amended, by correction of perverseness of the will. As if any, being unable alone to rob a man, should find a partner in his iniquity, and make an agreement with him to do it together, and to divide the spoil; and, after the crime has been committed, should take off the whole to himself alone. That other grieves and complains that faith has not been kept with him, but in his very complaint he ought to consider, that he himself rather ought to have kept faith with human society in a good life, and not to make unjust spoil of a man, if he feels with how great injustice it has failed to be kept with himself in a fellowship of sin. Forsooth the former, being faithless in both instances, must assuredly be judged the more wicked. But, if he had been displeased at what they had done ill, and had been on this account unwilling to divide the spoil with his partner in crime, in order that it might be restored to the man, from whom it had been taken, not even a faithless man would call him faithless. Thus a woman, if, having broken her marriage faith, she keep faith with her adulterer, is certainly evil: but, if not even with her adulterer, worse. Further, if she repent her of her sin, and returning to marriage chastity, renounce all adulterous compacts and resolutions, I count it strange if even the adulterer himself will think her one who breaks faith.” And this is equally to be understood about adultery, that someone breaches an agreement made with an adulteress, that adulteress cannot rightly say that he is a violator of a pledge.
Saturday, 29 December 2007
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]
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]
Monday, 24 December 2007
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 8: was Teutberga cheating?
[163] This also is said, that some people say that the woman was concentrating not on her brother but on someone with the same name, when she sent her champion to the ordeal on her behalf. And that this was why her champion was not burned in that ordeal.
Wednesday, 3 October 2007
Interrogatio 6 Concerning oaths and ordeals
(p.146) In the third chapter, we request that we be advised what to do about the above-mentioned woman, accused of casual sex and abortion, for which she has now undergone an ordeal: what do you think about this judgment? For some say that ordeals of boiling or cold water, or of red-hot iron, are of no authority or credence, but that they are inventions of human ingenuity, in which, through evildoers, very often falsehood takes the place of truth, and so they ought not to be trusted. And we ask to be informed what you thnk about the oath to clear oneself, what authority this has; and whether it might be true that, as some people say, because of the secret confession the woman made, as he [Archbishop Gunther] is a witness who heard it, her champion who went to the ordeal escaped uncooked. And they also say that the woman was thinking of someone else with the same name as her brother when she sent her champion to the ordeal, so he was not cooked in that ordeal. And also, if any cheating can be found in an ordeal or an oath after one has cleared oneself, whether that matter resolved by ordeal or oath might be brought back to legal judgment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)