Of the Method of
passing Sentence upon one who has been Accused by
another Witch, who has been or is to be Burned at the
Stake
The
fourteenth method of finally concluding a process on
behalf of the Faith is used when the person accused of
heresy, after a careful discussion of the circumstances
of the process with reference to the informant in
consultation with learned lawyers, is found to be
accused of that heresy only by another witch who has
been or is to be burned. And this can happen in thirteen
ways in thirteen cases. For a person so accused is
either found innocent and is to be freely discharged; or
she is found to be generally defamed for that heresy; or
it is found that, in addition to her defamation, she is
to be to some degree exposed to torture; or she is found
to be strongly suspected of heresy; or she is found to
be at the same time defamed and suspected; and so on up
to thirteen different cases, as was shown in the
Twentieth Question.
The first
case is when she is accused only by a witch in custody,
and is not convicted either by her own confession or by
legitimate witnesses, and there are no other indications
found by reason of which she can truly be regarded as
suspect. In such a case she is to be entirely absolved,
even by the secular Judge himself who has either burned
the deponent or is about to burn her either on his own
authority or on that commissioned to him by the Bishop
and Judge of the Ordinary Court; and she shall be
absolved in the manner explained in the Twentieth
Question.
The second
case is when, in addition to being accused by a witch in
custody, she is also publicly defamed throughout the
whole village or city; so that she has always laboured
under that particular defamation, but, after the
deposition of the witch, it has become aggravated.
In such a
case the following should be the procedure. The Judge
should consider that, apart from the general report,
nothing particular has been proved against her by other
credible witnesses in the village or town; and although,
perhaps, that witch has deposed some serious charges
against her, yet, since has lost her faith by denying it
to the devil, Judges should give no ready credence to
her words, unless there should be other circumstances
which aggravate that report; and then the case would
fall under the third and following case. Therefore she
should be enjoined a canonical purgation, and the
sentence should be pronounced as shown in the
Twenty-first Question.
And if the
civil Judge orders this purgation to the be made before
the Bishop, and ends with a solemn declaration that, if
she should fail, then, as an example to others, she
should be more severely sentenced by both the
ecclesiastical and civil Judges, well and good. But if
he wishes to conduct it himself, let him command her to
find ten or twenty compurgators of her own class, and
proceed in accordance with the second method of
sentencing such: except that, if she has to be
excommunicated, then he must have recourse to the
Ordinary; and this would be the case if she refused to
purge herself.
The third
case, then, happens when the person so accused is not
convicted by her own confession, not by the evidence of
the facts, nor by credible witnesses, nor are there any
other indications as to any fact in which she had ever
been marked by the other inhabitants of that town or
village, except her general reputation among them. But
the general report has become intensified by the
detention of that witch in custody, as that it is said
that she had been her companion in everything and had
participated in her crimes. But even so, the accused
firmly denies all this, and nothing of it is known to
other inhabitants, or of anything to save good behaviour
on her part, though her companionship with the witch is
admitted.
In such a
case the following is the procedure. First they are to
be brought face to face, and their mutual answers and
recriminations noted, to see whether there is any
inconsistency in their words by reason of which the
Judge can decide from her admissions and denials whether
he ought to expose her to torture; and if so, he can
proceed as in the third manner of pronouncing a
sentence, explained in the Twenty-second Question,
submitting her to light tortures: at the same time
exercising every possible precaution, as we explained at
length towards the beginning of this Third Part, to find
out whether she is innocent or guilty.
The fourth
case is when a person accused in this manner is found to
be lightly suspected, either because of her own
confession or because of the depositions of the other
witch in custody. There are some who include among those
who should be thus lightly suspected those who go and
consult witches for any purpose, or have procured for
themselves a lover by stirring up hatred between married
folk, or have consorted with witches in order to obtain
some temporal advantage. But such are to be
excommunicated as followers of heretics, according to
the Canon c. excommunicamus, where it says:
Similarly we judge those to be heretics who believe in
their errors. For the effect is presumed from the facts.
Therefore it seems that such are to be more severely
sentenced and punished than those who are under a light
suspicion of heresy and are to be judged from light
conjectures. For example, if they had performed services
for witches or carried their letters to them, they need
not on that account believe in their errors: yet they
have not laid information against them, and they have
received wages and vails from them. But whether or not
such people are to be included in this case, according
to the opinion of learned men the procedure must be as
in the case of those under light suspicion, and the
Judge will act as follows. Such a person will either
abjure heresy or will purge herself canonically, as was
explained in the fourth method of pronouncing sentence
in the Twenty-third Question.
However, it
seems that the better course is for such a person to be
ordered to abjure heresy, for this is more in accordance
with the meaning of the Canon c. excommunicamus,
where it speaks of those who are found to be only under
some notable suspicion. And if such should relapse, they
should not incur the penalty for backsliders. The
procedure will be as above explained in the fourth
method of sentencing.
The fifth
case is when such person is found to be under a strong
suspicion, by reason, as before, of her own confession
or of the depositions of the other witch in custody. In
this class some include those who directly or indirectly
obstruct the Court in the process of trying a witch,
provided that they do this wittingly.
Also they
include all who give help, advice or protection to those
who cause such obstructions. Also those who instruct
summoned or captured heretics to conceal the truth or in
some way falsify it. Also all those who wittingly
receive, or visit those whom they know to be heretics,
or associate with them, send them gifts, or show favour
to them; for all such actions, when done with full
knowledge, bespeak favour felt towards the sin, and not
to the person. And therefore they say that, when the
accused is guilty of any of the above actions, and has
been proved so after trial, then she should be sentenced
in the fifth method, explained in the Twenty-fourth
Question; so that she must abjure all heresy, under pain
of being punished as a backslider.
As to these
contentions we may say that the Judge must take into
consideration the household and family of each several
witch who has been burned or is detained; for these are
generally found to be infected.
For witches
are instructed by devils to offer to them even their own
children; therefore there can be no doubt that such
children are instructed in all manner of crimes, as is
shown in the First Part of this work.
Again, in a
case of simple heresy it happens that, on account of the
familiarity between heretics who are akin to each other,
when one is convicted of heresy it follows that his
kindred also are strongly suspected; and the same is
true of the heresy of witches.
But this
present case is made clear in the chapter of the Canon inter
sollicitudines. For a certain Dean was, owing to his
reputation as a heretic, enjoined a canonical purgation;
on account of his familiarity with heretics, he had to
make a public abjuration; and through the scandal he was
deprived of his benefice, so that the scandal might be
allayed.
The sixth
case is when such a person is under a grave suspicion;
but no simple and bare deposition by another witch in
custody can cause this, for there must be in addition
some indication of the facts, derived from certain words
or deeds uttered or committed by the witch in custody,
in which the accused is at least said to have taken some
part, and shared in the evil deeds of the deponent.
To understand
this, the reader should refer to what was written in the
Nineteenth Question, especially concerning the grave
degree of suspicion, how it arise from grave and
convincing conjectures; and how the Judge is forced to
believe, on mere suspicion, that a person is a heretic,
although perhaps in his heart he is a true Catholic. The
Canonists give an example of this by the case, in simple
heresy, of a man summoned to answer in the cause of the
faith, and defiantly refusing to appear, on which
account he is excommunicated, and if he persists in that
state for a year, becomes gravely suspected of heresy.
And so
likewise in the case of person accused in the way we are
considering, the indications of the facts are to be
examined by which she is rendered gravely suspect. Let
us put the case that the witch in custody has asserted
that the accused has taken part in her evil works of
witchcraft, but the accused firmly denies it. What then
is to be done? It will be necessary to consider whether
there are any facts to engender a strong suspicion of
her, and whether that strong suspicion can become a
grave one. Thus, if a man has been summoned to answer
some charge, and has obstinately refused to appear, he
would come under a light suspicion of heresy, even if he
had not been summoned in a cause concerning the Faith.
But if he then refused to appear in a cause concerning
the Faith and was excommunicated for his obstinacy, then
he would be strongly suspected; for the light suspicion
would become a strong one; and if then he remained
obstinate in excommunication for a year, the strong
suspicion would become a grave one. Therefore the Judge
will consider whether, by reason of her familiarity with
the witch in custody, the accused is under a strong
suspicion, in the manner shown in the fifth case above;
and then he must consider whether there is anything
which may turn that strong suspicion into a grave one.
For it is presumed that it is possible for this to be
the case, on account of the accused having perhaps
shared in the crimes of the detained witch, if she has
had frequent intercourse with her. Therefore the Judge
must proceed as in the sixth method of sentencing
explained in the Twenty-fifth Question. But it may be
asked what the Judge is to do if the person so accused
by a witch in custody still altogether persists in her
denials, in spite of all indications against her. We
answer as follows:
First the
Judge must consider whether those denials do or do not
proceed from the vice or witchcraft of taciturnity: and,
as was shown in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Questions of
this Third part, the Judge can know this from her
ability or inability to shed tears, or from her
insensibility under torture and quick recovery of her
strength afterwards. For then the grave suspicion would
be aggravated; and in such a case she is by no means to
be freely discharged, but, according to the sixth method
of sentencing, she must be condemned to perpetual
imprisonment and penance.
But if she is
not infected with the taciturnity of witches, but feels
the keenest pains in her torture (whereas others, as has
been said, become insensible to pain owing to the
witchcraft of taciturnity), then the Judge must fall
back upon his last expedient of a canonical purgation.
And if this should be ordered by a secular Judge, it is
called a lawful vulgar purgation, since it cannot be
classed with other vulgar purgations. And if she should
fail in this purgation she will be judged guilty.
The seventh
case is when the accused is not found guilty by his own
confession, by the evidence of the facts, or by
legitimate witnesses, but is only found to be accused by
a witch in custody, and there are also some indications
found which bring him under light or strong suspicion.
As, for example, that he had had great familiarity with
witches; in which case he would, according to the Canon,
have to undergo a canonical purgation on account of the
general report concerning him; and on account of the
suspicion against him he must abjure heresy, under pain
of being punished as a backslider if it was a strong
suspicion, but not if it was a light one.
The eighth
case occurs when the person so accused is found to have
confessed that heresy, but to be penitent, and never to
have relapsed. But here it is to be noted that in this
and the other cases, where it is a question of those who
have or have not relapsed, and who are or are not
penitent, these distinctions are made only for the
benefit of Judges who are not concerned with the
infliction of the extreme penalty. Therefore the civil
Judge may proceed in accordance with the Civil and
Imperial Laws, as justice shall demand, in the case of
one who has confessed, no matter whether or not she be
penitent, or whether or not she have relapsed. Only he
may have recourse to those thirteen methods of
pronouncing sentence, and act in accordance with them,
if any doubtful question should arise.
|