CHAPTER VI.

SOLICITATION

The seduction of female penitents by their confessors, euphemistically

known as _solicitatio ad turpia_ or "solicitation," has been a perennial

source of trouble to the Church since the introduction of confession,

more especially after the Lateran Council of 1216 rendered yearly

confession to the parish priest obligatory. It was admitted to be a

prevailing vice, and canonists sought some abatement of the evil by

arguing that the priest notoriously addicted to it lost his jurisdiction

over his female parishioners, who were thus at liberty to seek the

sacrament of penitence from others.[171] A Spanish authority, however,

holds that this requires the licence of the parish priest himself and,

when he refuses it, the woman must confess to him, after prayer to God

for strength to resist his importunities.[172]

It was an evil of which repression was impossible, notwithstanding

penalties freely threatened. A virtue of uncommon robustness was

required to resist the temptations arising from the confidences of the

confessional, and so well was this understood that an exception was made

to the rule requiring perfect confession, for reticence as to carnal

sins was counselled, when the reputation of the priest rendered it

advisable.[173] Few women thus approached, whether yielding or not,

could be expected to denounce their pastors to the bishop or provisor,

and for her who yielded the path to sin was made easy through the

universal abuse of absolution by her accomplice, and this, although

objected to on ethical grounds, was admitted to be valid.[174] On the

other hand, the peccant confessor could rely on obtaining absolution

from a sympathizing colleague, at the cost of penance which had become

habitually trivial.

The intercourse between priest and penitent was especially dangerous

because there had not yet been invented the device of the

confessional--a box or stall in which the confessor sits with his ear at

a grille, through which the tale of sins conceived or committed is

whispered. Seated by his side or kneeling at his feet, there was greater

risk of inflaming passion and much more opportunity for provocative

advances. It was not until the middle of the sixteenth century that the

confessional was devised, doubtless in consequence of the attacks of

heretics, who found in these scandals a fertile subject of

animadversion. The earliest allusion to it that I have met occurs in a

memorial from Siliceo of Toledo to Charles V, in 1547.[175] In 1565 a

Council of Valencia prescribed its use and contemporaneously S. Carlo

Borromeo introduced it in his Milanese province, while in 1614 the Roman

Ritual commanded its employment in all churches.[176] It was easier to

command than to secure obedience, for the priesthood offered a passive

resistance which even the Inquisition found it almost impossible to

overcome. As early as 1625 it forbade parish priests from hearing

confessions in their houses; between 1709 and 1720 we find it occupied

in endeavoring to enforce the use of confessionals and, to prevent

evasions, such as hearing confessions in cells and chapels, and not in

the body of the church.[177] How long-continued was the opposition, and

how transparent were the artifices to elude the regulations, are visible

in an edict of November 3, 1781, which led to considerable trouble.

After alluding to the repeated orders on the subject, and the deplorable

results of their disregard, it prescribed that women should be heard

only through the gratings of closed confessionals, or of open stalls in

the body of the churches, or in chapels open and well lighted. It

forbade the use of hand-gratings or handkerchiefs, sieves, bundle of

twigs, fans, or other derisive substitutes, and it prescribed minute and

highly suggestive regulations as to oratories and private chapels, while

a similar series concerning male penitents shows the dread of

contamination even with them.[178]

[Sidenote: _TOLERANCE OF SPIRITUAL COURTS_]

The crime of solicitation was subject to episcopal jurisdiction and,

throughout the middle ages, there was no general legislation prescribing

its penalties. Some apocryphal canons visited it with well-deserved

severity and, in 1217, Richard Poore, the reforming Bishop of Salisbury,

threatened it with fifteen years of penance followed by confinement in a

monastery.[179] The spiritual courts, however, were notoriously lenient,

and the prevalent sexual laxity tended to sympathy which disarmed

severity in the rare cases coming before them. When, during the

Reformation, this offence afforded a favorite topic for the heretics,

there arose a demand for sharper treatment. In 1587, Iñigo López de

Salcedo gives this as a reason for rigorous punishment, and he greatly

lauds Matteo Ghiberti, the reforming Bishop of Verona ([dagger symbol] 1543)

for decreeing a series of heavy penalties for attempts on the virtue of

female penitents, culminating in deprivation and perpetual imprisonment

when they were successful.[180]

This virtuous rigor, however, was purely exceptional. The usual tolerant

view adopted is manifested in a case which, in 1535 at Toledo, came

before the vicar-general, Blas Ortiz, a man so respected that he was

promoted to the inquisitorship of Valencia soon afterwards. Alonso de

Valdelamar, parish priest of Almodovar, was charged with a black

catalogue of offences--theft, blasphemy, cheating with Cruzada

indulgences, charging penitents for absolution, frequenting public

brothels and solicitation. It was in evidence that he refused absolution

to a girl unless she would surrender herself to him, that he seduced a

married penitent whose husband was obliged to leave Almodovar in order

to get her away from him, while Doña Leonor de Godoy admitted that he

repeatedly used violence on her in the church itself. His sentence,

rendered February 26, 1535, stated that the fiscal had fully proved his

charges, but for all these crimes he was punished only with thirty days'

penitential reclusion in his church, with a fine of ten ducats, besides

four reales to the fiscal, a ducat to the episcopal advocate, ten days'

wages to the notary who went to Almodovar to take testimony, and the

costs of the trial. From this the fiscal appealed to the archbishop but

the next day withdrew the appeal; Valdelamar accepted it and was sent

back to his parish to pursue his course of profligacy. Evidently the

episcopal tribunal was more concerned with the profits of its

jurisdiction than with the suppression of solicitation.[181]

[Sidenote: _SUBJECTED TO THE INQUISITION_]

It may be inferred from this that peccant confessors were not likely to

be prosecuted, unless there were other circumstances or offences to

stimulate action, and this is confirmed by another case, about the same

time, which also shows the readiness of the tribunal to claim

jurisdiction. Pedro Bermúdez, incumbent of Ciempozuelos, employed a

priest named Pareja as vicar, from 1525 to 1529. They quarrelled; Pareja

was dismissed, found employment at Valdemoro, and commenced suit against

Bermúdez. The latter retorted by instigating a certain Catalina Roldan,

who had borne a child to Pareja, and her mother, to complain to Romero,

a visiting inquisitor from Toledo, about the seduction, asking that he

be forced to provide a dower and find a husband for her. Romero took up

the case. Bermúdez busied himself in collecting testimony and was aided

by a priest named Solorzano, whose enmity had been excited by Pareja

having served as commissioner in taking evidence as to his seduction of

a married woman, for which he was prosecuted in Alcalá. The proof

collected against Pareja was conclusive. Two of his penitents admitted

to having yielded to him, and several others testified as to his

advances in the act of confession. When one of them was asked whether

she confessed to him their mutual sin, she said that he told her not to

do so, and afterwards admitted her to communion. There was also evidence

as to his violating the seal of confession, and to irreverence in

administering the sacrament. The trial pursued the usual course, the

main charges being his misdeeds with his female penitents, which he

admitted more or less explicitly. When the papers were sent to the

Suprema, it returned them, saying that the charges for the most part

were beyond the competence of the tribunal, and appertained to the

episcopal court, to which they should be transferred, while the tribunal

could proceed with the little that remained. The charges thus, after

omitting the solicitation, were reduced to four--that he persuaded his

accomplices that their mutual sin need not be confessed, that he told

them that they could take the sacrament without confessing, that he said

it was better to have masses celebrated than to pay debts, and that

almost all the witnesses held him to be a bad Christian, a heretic and

an evil man.

Pareja and his advocate argued that the case was outside of

inquisitorial jurisdiction, but the tribunal pushed it to the end on

these subsidiary points and, on May 23, 1532 sentenced him to perpetual

deprivation of hearing the confessions of women, to a fine of twenty

thousand maravedís, and to have Toledo as a prison for two years, during

which he was to fast and recite psalms on Fridays. As he was not

required to abjure, even for light suspicion, the charge of heresy was

abandoned, and as solicitation was not included in the sentence, he was

liable to further prosecution by the Ordinary. Yet the character of the

penalties shows that solicitation was the real gravamen, over which the

tribunal was seeking indirectly to acquire jurisdiction.[182]

Evidently, if there was to be any cure or mitigation of this corroding

cancer, some less sympathetic tribunal than the episcopal court was

requisite, and the Inquisition was eager to supply the want, yet matters

were allowed to drift for a quarter of a century longer. Possibly it may

have been the Lutheran alarm of 1558 that led Archbishop Guerrero of

Granada to seek the remedy and to call to the attention of the Holy See

the frequency of the crime and the need of its more energetic

repression.[183] His appeal was heard, and Paul IV, in a brief of

February 18, 1559, expressed his sorrow at learning that certain priests

of Granada misled their penitents and abused the sacraments, wherefore

he granted, to the inquisitors of Granada, jurisdiction over the heresy

implied in the crime and withdrew all exemptions of the religious

Orders.[184] What activity the Granada tribunal manifested in the

exercise of its new function is not recorded, but the field thus thrown

open was sufficiently inviting for Valdés, in 1561, to obtain from Pius

IV a brief granting to him and to his delegates throughout Spain the

same faculties.[185] It required some ingenuity to bring the crime

within the purview of the Inquisition, but it was alleged that no one

whose faith was correct could thus abuse the sacraments of the Church of

God. The point is not without importance, for it made the matter one of

faith and not of morals, leading, as we shall see, to a notable

limitation in the efficacy of the reform attempted.

The regular clergy sought to escape to the milder mercies of their own

superiors, and claimed that, in the constitution of Pius IV, in 1562,

which subjected them in general to the Inquisition, there was an

exception of cases in which the superiors had taken the earlier

action.[186] The application, however, of this exception to the crime of

solicitation was negatived, in 1592, by a decree of Clement VIII, which

declared that the jurisdiction of the Inquisition in this matter was

exclusive and not cumulative, and it ordered the members of all

privileged Orders to denounce to the Inquisition their guilty

brethren.[187] In 1608, Paul V granted the same powers to the

Inquisition of Portugal and, in 1612, he settled in favor of the faith a

question which had arisen, whether the briefs comprehended the

solicitation of men as well as of women.[188] Even before this,

solicitation in Italy had been subjected to the Roman Inquisition, for

it issued, December 15, 1613 a decree ordering confessors to instruct

their penitents that they must denounce to the tribunals all attempts to

solicit them to evil and, on July 5, 1614, it included, what it

described as a frequent offence, the discussion of indecent matters with

women in the confessional, even without confession.[189]

[Sidenote: _LEGISLATION OF GREGORY XV_]

Thus the Church was gradually realizing the necessity of more stringent

measures to curb the evil propensities of those to whom it confided the

salvation of souls, but as yet it had made only local regulations.

Gregory XV recognized that a general law was required, to cover all the

lands of the Roman obedience, and not merely those possessed of an

Inquisition and, at the same time, to define more comprehensively the

nature of the offence. The briefs thus far had limited this to seduction

in the act of hearing confessions. Papal legislation was always

construed in the strictest manner, and confessors felt safe if they

confined their seductions to the time preceding and following the actual

utterance of the confession. Had the moral and spiritual welfare of

priest and penitent been the only matter involved, it would have been

easy to include in general terms any indecent or illicit passages

between them, no matter when or where committed, but solicitation had

been made to involve suspicion of heresy, in order to bring it under the

Inquisition, and it became regarded as a purely technical offence,

punishable only when it could be connected directly with the sacrament,

leading to the unfortunate corollary that otherwise it was a trivial

matter, undeserving of special consideration.

Accordingly Gregory, in his brief _Universi Dominici Gregis_, August 30,

1622, while enlarging the definition, confined it to what was said or

done in the place destined to hearing confessions, whether it was before

or after confession, or even if there was only a pretext of confession.

He extended the provisions of his predecessors to all lands, and

delegated all inquisitors and Ordinaries as special judges, with

exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into and diligently prosecute such

cases, according to the canons in matters of faith. He further decreed

the penalties of suspension of functions, deprivation of benefices and

dignities with perpetual disability for the same and, for regulars, of

active and passive voice; besides these there were the temporal

penalties of exile, galleys, perpetual and irremissible imprisonment

and, in cases of exceptional wickedness, of degradation and relaxation.

In view of the difficulty of proof, single witnesses should suffice for

condemnation, when circumstances afforded due presumption. Confessors,

who found that their penitents had been previously solicited, were

required to admonish them to denounce the offenders, and for neglect of

this they were to be duly punished. This latter provision was of

difficult enforcement, for Urban VIII, in 1626, felt obliged to address

all archbishops, instructing them to call the attention of confessors to

it, and to insert a corresponding clause in all licences. The regular

clergy seem to have been the subject of special anxiety for, in 1633,

the superiors of all religious houses were ordered to assemble the

inmates yearly and warn them as to the observance of these decrees, and

this was also to be done in all chapters, general, provincial and

conventual.[190]

The Holy See was in earnest, but the result did not correspond to its

efforts. France and Germany paid virtually no attention to the decrees,

and in Spain the Inquisition made no change in its procedure or in the

mildness of its penalties. The only effect of Gregory's brief was to

raise the question whether it did not confirm, at least cumulatively, to

the bishops the jurisdiction of which they had been practically

deprived. No distinction was expressed between lands with and those

without an Inquisition, and the original briefs of Paul IV and Pius IV

had not deprived the bishops of jurisdiction, although the latter had

made little effort to assert it against the exclusive claims of the

tribunals. We chance to hear of the case of Dr. Miguel Bueso, who was

surrendered by the Archbishop of Valencia, in 1608, for trial on this

charge and, after punishment, was returned to the archiepiscopal

court.[191] Soon after this de Sousa argues that, in spite of the papal

decrees, bishops have cumulative jurisdiction, although the

inquisitor-general can evoke cases.[192] In 1620, Inquisitor-general

Luis de Aliaga had a struggle with his brother Isidor de Aliaga,

Archbishop of Valencia, over the case of Gaspar Flori, rector of Urgel,

who was on trial by the vicar-general for various offences, including

solicitation. The tribunal demanded cognizance of this special charge;

the vicar-general asserted cumulative jurisdiction, adding that he had

already tried two cases of the kind. The inquisitor-general argued

strenuously that, as a matter of faith, it belonged to the Inquisition;

if it were not a matter of faith it would go unpunished, for there would

be no obligation to denounce, and without this women would never imperil

their honor, for experience showed how rarely they did so voluntarily,

and they had to be compelled by the refusal of absolution.

Notwithstanding all this the archbishop of Valencia held good; his

vicar-general tried the case and executed the sentence.[193] There were

few episcopal courts, however, so audacious as this, and the claim of

the Inquisition to exclusive jurisdiction was generally conceded.

[Sidenote: _EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAIMED_]

The brief of Gregory XV was not published in Spain but, by some means,

the Ordinary of Seville obtained a copy and exhibited it to the

inquisitors. The Suprema promptly, on January 14, 1623 addressed a

consulta to Philip IV, stating that it had not learned that the brief

had reached any other bishop and dwelling eloquently on the frequency

and heinousness of the crime, the energy and rigor of the Inquisition in

its repression, and the disastrous consequences of concurrent episcopal

jurisdiction, where the leniency of punishment encouraged evildoers,

and the publicity of procedure conveyed knowledge to husbands and

kinsmen. The king was therefore asked to apply for the exemption of

Spain from the operation of the brief; this was speedily arranged and,

on April 10, Ambassador Alburquerque reported the forwarding of a decree

of the Congregation of the Inquisition, stating that it was not the

papal intention that the brief should apply to the Spanish dominions.

Cardinal Millino, at the same time, wrote that the pope had declared

that the Inquisition should continue to prosecute such cases in its

customary form and manner.[194]

This simply left the matter where it was before, but the Inquisition

boldly asserted that it had been given exclusive jurisdiction and, when

Urban VIII granted, to the Bishop of Astorga, cognizance of these cases

among the regular clergy, it had the effrontery to raise a competencia

with him.[195] On May 19, 1629, it sent to the tribunals copies of

Gregory's brief, with instructions to follow its prescriptions, as

punishment should be uniform in a crime of such frequent occurrence.

Although, it added, the brief appeared to confer only cumulative

jurisdiction, the pope had declared to the king that in his dominions it

was exclusive so that, if any Ordinary should undertake to hear such a

case, he was to be inhibited and a prompt report be made to the Suprema.

To make matters sure, this was followed by an order of August 9th, that

this exclusive cognizance should be asserted in the Edict of

Faith.[196]

It was not long before this produced another quarrel with Archbishop

Aliaga of Valencia. In 1631, Vicente Palmer, rector of Játiva, was

prosecuted in the archiepiscopal court for sundry offences, including a

charge of solicitation preferred by Ana Martínez. The notary employed

was a familiar who informed the tribunal. It promptly notified the

Ordinary to omit that specification, to which Aliaga replied that his

court had always possessed jurisdiction over the matter, and the brief

of Gregory XV had confirmed the cumulative jurisdiction of both

tribunals; if Urban VIII had rendered that of the Inquisition exclusive,

he had not seen the brief, but if shown to him he would of course obey

it. Then came a pause during which Palmer returned to Játiva and, from

the pulpit, denounced all who had testified against him, declaring that

all who accused ecclesiastics were excommunicated and he would not hear

them in confession, especially Ana Martínez; the town was in an uproar

and one man died without confession. After some months the tribunal, in

its customary arrogant fashion, with threats of excommunication,

summoned the archbishop to surrender the papers and admit that he was

inhibited. To this he replied at much length, pointing out that it was

unreasonable to ask him to strip himself of an established jurisdiction

on the simple assertion of the inquisitors that they held a brief of

Urban VIII, which they would not exhibit. He offered to submit the

question to the pope or to form a competencia in the regular way, but

both suggestions were rejected, although the tribunal adopted a more

moderate tone. The records are imperfect and we do not know the outcome,

but probably the Suprema quietly let the affair drop out of sight

through delay, in preference to provoking an investigation which would

have manifested the fraudulence of its claims.[197]

[Sidenote: _INCLUDED IN EDICT OF FAITH_]

The audacity of the claim increased with time and, in the formula of the

Edict of Faith, in use in 1696, there was an absolute assertion that

Gregory XV had declared that, in the Spanish dominions, the offence was

subjected to the exclusive cognizance of the Inquisition and not to that

of the bishops, their vicars, provisors or ordinaries.[198]

Notwithstanding this, when bishops asserted their rights, the Suprema

shrank from a direct contest. Thus, in 1755, when the Bishop of Quito

undertook to try cases of the kind, the Suprema merely presented a long

and argumentative consulta to the king. So, in 1807, the Bishop of

Badajoz tried Joseph Méndez Rodríguez, priest of Llerena, for

solicitation, apparently without remonstrance on its part and when, in

1816, Rodríguez was prosecuted by the tribunal of Llerena for

propositions and _mala doctrina_, the Suprema ordered it to obtain from

the bishop the papers of the former trial and add them to the new

proceedings.[199]

* * * * *

While the Inquisition was thus aggressive in grasping exclusive

jurisdiction, it hesitated for some time as to the vigorous use of its

powers. It could evidently do little more than the inert episcopal

courts unless it included solicitation in the Edicts of Faith, which

specified offences and the obligation of denouncing them, but this

involved the ever-present dread of scandal, and the necessity of calling

attention to a matter so delicate. This explains the initial

fluctuations of policy. When jurisdiction was first conferred, the

Suprema ordered the omission of solicitation and then, by edict of July

17, 1562, that it should be included.[200] This speedily brought forth a

vigorous remonstrance, which earnestly urged the necessity of secrecy to

prevent scandal and the rendering of confession odious. It should never

be admitted that such wickedness was possible; it had, in fact, always

existed, but such a remedy had never been imagined, which would lead men

to keep their wives and daughters from the confessional, nobles to

refrain from putting their daughters into convents, religion to be

despised and Christianity itself to be abhorred. Good confessors would

be driven to abandon the confessional, and the clergy, seeing that their

weaknesses were to be punished by the Inquisition, would withdraw their

support from it, leading to serious results. At least the punishment

should be secret, so that the people, seeing no results, might be led to

believe that there were no wicked men administering the sacrament.[201]

This final suggestion was superfluous, for clerical offenders, short of

those incurring degradation and relaxation, were always punished in

secret.

The opposition to this public admission of clerical frailty grew so

strong that the Suprema, in a carta acordada of May 22, 1571, stated

that, after many discussions, it had been decided that the disadvantages

attendant on it required its omission, and inquisitors were told to find

some other means, including notice to the Ordinaries to instruct

confessors to admonish penitents to denounce offenders to the Holy

Office. The exception thus made in favor of soliciting confessors

evidently led to a marked diminution in the number of denunciations,

causing the Suprema to hesitate for, in a carta of September 20, 1574,

repeating the orders to omit, the Suprema spoke of it as possibly a

temporary regulation.[202] The conviction seems to have grown that in no

other way could the abuse be checked and, in a carta acordada of March

2, 1576, inquisitors were ordered to replace the clause in the Edict of

Faith.[203]

[Sidenote: _REPUGNANCE TO DENOUNCE_]

Notwithstanding the publicity of the Edict, which imposed

excommunication for failure to denounce, the trials show that the most

fertile source of denunciation was the refusal of confessors to absolve

penitents who had been solicited, unless they would accuse their guilty

partners to the Inquisition. In spite of the assurance of secrecy, women

were naturally reluctant, whether they had yielded or not, to expose

themselves to the necessity of reciting details more or less revolting,

and subjecting themselves at least to suspicion. One feature which

rendered this exposure peculiarly distressing was the necessity of

ratification, when all the foul or incriminating matter was rehearsed in

the presence of two more men and, as much of this testimony was taken on

the spot, by commissioners and notaries appointed _ad hoc_, in small

places where everything was known, such revelations would only be made

under the severest pressure. Again there was the enmity which was sure

to be excited for, in these cases, the device of suppressing the names

of witnesses was no protection against identification, which was a risk

not lightly to be encountered, especially when the culprit was a parish

priest, whose capacity for revenging himself was unlimited. The

Inquisition sorrowfully admitted that, even when it had one accusing

witness, corroborative evidence was almost impossible to obtain.[204]

Even where no direct enmity was excited, the incidental troubles to

which a denunciation might give rise are illustrated in the case of Sor

María de Santa Rita, a nun, 29 years of age, in the convent of La

Magdalena at Alcalá de Henares, in 1737. During the absence of the

regular confessor, she confessed thrice a week for five weeks to Maestro

Diego de Azumanes, pastor of Alcalá. On her alluding to certain carnal

temptations, he pushed his inquiries to the furthest extent and then,

day after day, he poured into her ears a flood of foul and indecent

talk, with personal applications to her and to himself in a manner most

provocative of lust--or disgust. The regular confessor, on his return,

instructed her to report Azumanes to the Inquisition. In doing so she

unluckily mentioned that the superior of the house, Sor Teresa de San

Bartolomé, a virgin with thirty-eight years of conventual experience,

observing her repugnance to confess to Azumanes, told her not to mind

him; it was true that he was too clear and explicit in discussing such

matters, leading to temporary excitement of the passions, but she would

soon overcome this. The tribunal ordered a commissioner to examine Sor

María and, on receiving his report, instructed him to interrogate Sor

Teresa, which he did with a directness that must have been excessively

unpleasant, and it is easy to conjecture how miserable must have been

Sor María's subsequent life in the convent. The tribunal, it may be

added, did nothing, except to ascertain that no other denunciations had

been made against Azumanes. He was allowed to go on infecting the minds

of his penitents with his obscenity, until his death a few years

afterwards, in happy ignorance that any complaint had been made against

him.[205] When there were so many reasons to deter women from

denunciation, it is easy to understand how small a proportion of the

cases of solicitation reached the Inquisition. In 1695, Fray Luis

Aritio, a Recollect, was accused to the tribunal of Valencia by two

women and, on his trial, he confessed to ten.[206]

[Sidenote: _IS A TECHNICAL OFFENCE_]

The most available means of overcoming this repugnance was to render

denunciation a binding obligation on the woman. To effect this as far as

possible, when, in 1571, the clause in the Edict of Faith was suspended,

the Suprema issued an edict requiring confessors, under pain of

excommunication, not to absolve penitents confessing to having been

solicited, unless they would promise to denounce the offender.[207] It

was admitted, however, that there were degrees of danger which would

release the woman from the obligation, and casuists endeavored to define

this with their usual acuteness and lack of unanimity. One learned

writer, about 1620, even laid down the general principle that natural

law is superior to positive law, and the preservation of reputation

belongs to the former, while the obligation to denounce belongs to the

latter.[208] The Roman Inquisition, in 1623, made a concession to this

weakness, by providing that, when noble or modest women could not be

induced to denounce, there might be granted to their confessors

faculties to absolve them, on condition that, when the cause of fear was

removed, they would fulfil the duty, but this permission apparently was

abused for, in 1626, inquisitors and bishops were warned to grant such

faculties only when there were serious grounds.[209] That danger was

really sometimes incurred would appear from some fragmentary cases in

the Valencia records. In one of these, a baffled confessor threatens his

penitent with death if she betrays him; in another a priest, on finding

himself denounced, similarly threatens the confessor who had been the

medium of denunciation, unless he will write that the women had

withdrawn their statements.[210] The Spanish Inquisition, however, made

no allowances. It was apparently to put an end to the refinements of

casuistry that when, in 1629, it distributed to the tribunals the brief

of Gregory XV, it granted to all inquisitors a faculty to punish

confessors who taught that penitents were not obliged to denounce such

solicitors.[211] To render this more effective, in 1713, it ordered

that all women bringing charges of solicitation should be interrogated

whether any confessor had neglected to impose on them the obligation of

denunciation, and if so his name, residence and all the circumstances

were to be ascertained, so that he could be called to account.[212]

While the Spanish Inquisition was thus creditably rigid in exacting

denunciations, it was equally strict in construing the limits of the

technical offence as defined in the papal decrees. As stated above,

morals had nothing to do with the matter; the business of the tribunals

was not to prevent women from being ruined by their spiritual fathers,

but only to see that the sacrament of penitence was not profaned in such

wise as to justify suspicion of the orthodoxy of the confessor. In 1577,

inquisitors were warned that it did not suffice for prosecution that

confessors had illicit relations with their penitents, or that they

solicited in the confessional when there really was no confession and,

in 1580 it was expressly stated that they were not to be prosecuted if

they said that they did not intend to have their penitents confess.[213]

This covered assignations under pretext of confession, to deceive

onlookers, which we are told was a frequent custom and, as there were no

confessional stalls, and the churches were largely deserted, there was

little danger of interruption. It was argued that there was no

confession and no sacrament, so there could be no heresy, but the Roman

Inquisition, in 1614, decided it to be solicitation, and the brief of

Gregory XV, in 1622 settled the question, although it required another

brief of Urban VIII, in 1629, to render it authoritative in Spain.[214]

This involved the question as to the knowledge which either party might

have of the other's intention, opening the door to the endless

refinements of antecedent or consequent invincible ignorance, in which

the casuists disported themselves.[215]

Even more dubious and fruitful of discussion was the question as to what

constituted the solicitation itself. About torpezas or physical

indecencies, there could be no rational doubt, though even here the

laxity of Probabilism gave scope for arguing them away.[216] It is such

things that usually meet us in the trials, in a shape admitting of no

debate, but there was a wide range of less incriminating acts, such as

words of flattery and endearment, praising the penitent's beauty or

telling her that if he were a layman he would marry her. Theoretically,

what were known to the moralists as _parvitas materiæ_--trifles

insufficient for animadversion--were not admitted in solicitation.

Pressing the hand, touching the foot, foul expressions and the like were

admitted to be subjects for denunciation, but the gradations of such

advances are infinite, and the elaborate discussions in some of the

works on the subject are examples of perverted ingenuity, apparently

directed to teach libidinous priests how to gratify sensuality without

incurring risk.[217] The question of lewd and filthy talk was an

especially puzzling one, for the confidences of the confessional

presuppose a licence on subjects usually forbidden between the sexes,

which may readily be abused by a brutal or foul-minded priest, and it is

impossible to frame a definition which in practice shall rigidly

differentiate moral instruction from heedless pruriency or deliberate

corruption. How difficult it is to draw the line in such matters is

indicated by a case before the Valencia tribunal in 1786. A nun of the

convent of Santa Clara in Játiva complained of the indecent and

unnecessary questions repeatedly put to her in confession by the

Observantine Fray Vicente González. Under the advice of the definitor of

the Order she empowered him to denounce González to the Inquisition.

Then the regular confessor of the convent pronounced that the questions

were necessary and proper, and persuaded the definitor to write to the

tribunal to that effect.[218]

[Sidenote: _DOUBTFUL QUESTIONS_]

There were other intricate questions arising from human perversity. A

Cunha tells us that the more probable opinion affirms the guilt of a

confessor who acts as a pimp with his penitent for the benefit of

another, and also in the more frequent case in which he solicits the

penitent to serve as procuress for him with her daughter or a friend. De

Sousa, however draws a distinction and asserts positively that, in the

former case, he is liable under the papal briefs and, in the latter, he

is not, nor is he if he tries to seduce a woman who is confessing to

another priest.[219] Then there was a nice question as to priests

without faculties to hear confessions, or who were under suspension or

excommunication, on which the doctors were evenly divided.[220]

Distantly akin to this were cases in which laymen would secrete

themselves in confessionals and listen to confessions, whether from

prurient motives, or through jealousy, or to obtain opportunities for

seduction. If they carried deceit to the point of conferring absolution,

they incurred serious penalties, as we shall see hereafter; if they

merely solicited the penitent, the weight of authority is that there is

no sacrament and no liability to the papal briefs.[221]

There was another phase of the subject on which the doctors were

hopelessly divided--what was known as passive solicitation, where the

woman was the tempter. This case, we are told, was rare, and we can

readily believe it, although there are not wanting zealous defenders of

the cloth who assert that in the majority of cases the penitent is

really the guilty party. The earliest allusion to the matter is by

Páramo, in 1598, whose treatment of it shows that as yet there had been

no formal decision; if the confessor resists, he says, he should

denounce the woman; if he yields, he should denounce both her and

himself, though perhaps it would be best to consult the pope.[222] As

regards the confessor, the authorities differ irreconcileably, but they

are virtually unanimous in holding that, as the woman is not mentioned

in the papal briefs, she is not subject to the Inquisition.[223] Yet,

notwithstanding the absence of papal authority, we happen to find María

Izquierda prosecuted for this offence, in 1715, by the Valencia tribunal

and, in 1772 Antonia Coquis, wife of Bruno Vidal, by that of

Madrid.[224]

It will be seen that solicitation subject to inquisitorial action was so

purely technical an offence, and one so difficult of precise definition,

that it offered many doubtful points affording ample opportunity of

evasion by the adroit. Gregory XV had sought to be precise and explicit,

but the ingenuity of casuists and evildoers continued to find exceptions

and, in 1661, the Roman Inquisition rendered sixteen decisions on

disputed points, but its ingenuity was baffled by so intricate a

subject, and it was obliged to leave some matters rather darkened than

illuminated.[225] Then it was pointed out that the papal briefs were

silent as to handing love-letters to penitents during confession and, as

everything not specifically prohibited was held to be licit, this was

assumed to be allowable, until Alexander VII stamped the proposition as

erroneous.[226] After this the perverted ingenuity of the casuists had

free scope until, in 1741, Benedict XIV, in the solemn bull _Sacramentum

Poenitentiæ_, deplored that human wickedness was perverting to the

destruction of souls that which God had instituted for their salvation.

He renewed and confirmed the brief of Gregory XV, and added to its

definitions all attempts in the confessional to lead penitents astray by

signs, nods, touching, indecent words and writings, whether to be read

there or subsequently. In eloquent words he warned all those in

authority to see that the wandering sheep, endeavoring to re-enter the

fold, should not be abandoned to the cruel beasts seeking their

destruction, and he branded the sacrilegious seducers as ministers of

Satan, rather than of Christ.[227] Still, it was only the technical

heresy and not morality that was considered, and illicit relations

between spiritual father and daughter, outside of the confessional, were

left unpunished as before.

[Sidenote: _ABSOLUTION OF ACCOMPLICE_]

At the same time he endeavored to suppress the most flagrant abuse

connected with solicitation--an abuse which, more than anything else,

smoothed the path for the seducer--the absolution of the woman by her

partner in guilt. Alexander VII, in 1665, had only gone so far as to

condemn the proposition that this absolution relieved her from the

obligation of denouncing her seducer--a proposition which proves how

audacious were the laxer moralists of the period who asserted it.[228]

Benedict now formally prohibited the guilty confessor from hearing the

confession of his accomplice, except on the death-bed when no other

confessor could be had; he deprived him of the power of granting

absolution, which consequently was invalid, and the attempt to do so

imposed _ipso facto_ excommunication, strictly reserved to the Holy

See.[229] As this excommunication suspended all the functions of the

priest until removal, its observance would have gone far to check any

abuse that was not incurable, but neither priest nor penitent paid to it

the slightest attention. It is impossible to trace, in the business of

the Spanish Inquisition, any result from Benedict's well-meant

legislation. Trials for solicitation continued as numerous as ever, and

the only difference observable is that, in the second half of the

eighteenth century, the sentences almost invariably assume that the

culprit has incurred excommunication for absolving his accomplice; that,

until he obtains absolution from this, he must abstain from using his

functions, that he must consult his conscience as to his ministrations

hitherto while under this irregularity, and that his penitents must be

discreetly warned to repeat their confessions which, having been made to

him, were invalid. This continued to the end and is a feature in the

case of Fray Josef Montero, the last one sentenced by the Córdova

tribunal, April 24, 1819.[230]

[Sidenote: _MORALITY DISREGARDED_]

It is no wonder that confessors endeavored to evade the technical

definitions of the papal briefs for, if they could do so, no matter how

heinous was their guilt there was practically no penalty. Juan Sánchez

asserts that a priest who has commerce with his penitent is not obliged

to specify the fact when making confession, for it is not incest and

there is no papal prohibition of it.[231] All authorities, from that

time to this, tell us that he can obtain absolution from any confessor,

for it is not a reserved case, which shows the universal benignity of

the bishops and the popes, who have the power of reserving to themselves

the absolution of what sins they please.[232] It is easy to understand,

therefore, how, in the trials, the inquisitors bent their energies to

obtain definite evidence as to the exact location and time of the acts

of solicitation, and how the accused sought to prove, not his innocence,

but his dexterity in evading the definitions of the papal decrees. A

suggestive example is the case of Doctor Pedro Mendizabal, cura of the

parish of Santa Ana in the City of Mexico. He was denounced, June 21,

1809, by Doña María Guadalupe Rezeiro, by command of her confessor, when

she stated that, in January, 1807, she made to him a general confession,

too long to be finished in one day. On returning to his church to

complete it, she was told to go up to his room, when he said he was too

busy to listen to her. She retired but, on her way down stairs, his

servant recalled her and, on entering his apartment, he threw his arms

around her, professed ardent love and promised to support her if she

would become his mistress, which she refused. As he had thus eluded the

definitions of Benedict XIV, four calificadores out of six reported that

he was not technically guilty of solicitation. The denunciation was

filed away and, in 1817, there came another, of which he had warning in

order that he might spontaneously accuse himself, as he did. It was from

an attractive young girl of 17, and investigation developed four more

cases of girls of whom he was confessor. Abundant evidence showed

habitual indecent liberties--hugging, kissing, sitting in his lap, in

presence of their families or even in public resorts. He had been

ordered out of two houses and, on appeal to the archbishop, he had been

forbidden to confess one of the girls who was a boarder in a convent.

The distraction of the mother of the first accuser, endeavoring to save

her daughter from one whose authority as a priest overawed her, is very

touching and suggestive. Yet in all this there was no proof of anything

in the act of confession--as one of the calificadores piously remarked,

"God, in his goodness, preserved him from this." Two calificadores

argued at much length that he was not guilty of solicitation; then two

others proved that he was guilty, and finally two more laboriously

demonstrated that the first pair were correct. This is the last document

in the case. It is dated November 3, 1819, and, as the Inquisition was

suppressed in June, 1820, and as there is no endorsement on the record

showing that the case was concluded, Mendizabal undoubtedly escaped to

continue his corrupting career, especially as he had four out of six

calificadores in his favor.[233]

The technicalities, which eliminated morality from consideration,

resulted in curious contrasts. In November 1762, Fray Clemente de

Cartagena went to Toledo to assist in the profession of his neice

Gerónima, in the Bernardine convent, where he already had a sister. He

and his sister were in the confessional near the altar, when some duty

called her away and she told Gerónima to go to her uncle. She seated

herself in the confessional, while he occupied the penitent's place

outside and, in an affectionate talk, he asked her to kiss him. The next

day he said to her that he had forgotten at the moment that they were in

the confessional; this made no impression on her, until she heard the

nuns talking about the exceeding delicacy of such matters, and she

consulted Fray Fernando de San Josef, who ordered her to denounce her

uncle. This she did in writing, and Fray Fernando conveyed it to the

tribunal, which duly took up the case. We shall see that prosecutions

required two distinct and separate denunciations; inquiries, according

to custom, were made of all the other tribunals; fortunately for Fray

Clemente nothing was found against him and the case was suspended, but

if there had been, or if subsequently he chanced to draw upon himself a

denunciation, the innocent kiss to his neice would count as though he

had deliberately seduced a penitent.[234] It was the spot and not the

nature of the act that was decisive.

Against this may be set the case of Cristóbal Ximeno, parish priest of

Manzanera, a brute who was in the habit of violating the young girls of

his church, who came to his house for examination in the _Doctrina

Cristiana_, as a preparation for communion at marriage, until mothers

would not trust their daughters there alone. They were his penitents,

but the outrage was not in the confessional and he had nothing to fear

under the papal decrees. At length, however, he made himself liable to

the Inquisition by pretending to confess Pasquala Torres, at her

marriage, without absolving her and then, when administering communion

to her and her bridegroom, dropping the host into the ciborium--a

sacrilege for which he was duly punished by the Valencia tribunal.[235]

So complete, indeed, is the dissociation of morals and solicitation,

that some doctors hold that, when a priest is confessing a sick woman,

if she falls into delirium or stupor, he can violate her without

exposing himself to denunciation. It is satisfactory, however, to be

told that the weight of authority is opposed to this opinion.[236]

[Sidenote: _FLAGELLATION_]

Yet there was one species of abuse of the confessional, not contemplated

in the papal briefs, which the Spanish Inquisition, by a somewhat forced

construction, classed with solicitation. This, which was known as

flagellation, consisted in imposing penance of the discipline and

administering it on the spot, or letting the penitent administer it

herself, in either case requiring her to disrobe and expose herself to a

greater or less degree. Sometimes this was mingled with the debased

mystic ardor, of which we have seen examples above, leading both parties

to expose themselves and lash one another. The earliest case that I have

met of this occurred in 1606, at Nájera, when María Escudero, a widow

aged 40, testified that she had long confessed to the Franciscan Fray

Diego de Burgos. They exchanged vows of obedience to each other; he

would visit her in her house when they would discipline each other with

exposure almost complete, under agreement that their eyes should be kept

closed. Then he introduced a pious exercise still more indecent, but he

was always scrupulously correct in the confessional. She chanced to

make a general confession to another priest who refused absolution

unless she would denounce Fray Diego. The case was evidently novel and

dragged on until 1609, when it reached the Suprema, which submitted the

matter to two calificadores. One opined that the acts savored of the

heresy of the Adamites and Alumbrados; the other attributed it merely to

imprudent simplicity and ignorance. Apparently there was no precedent

for guidance and the case seems to have been suspended.[237] A parallel

case, with a different ending, was one in which there were a number of

women concerned and the practices were foul almost beyond belief. The

priest was an ignorant and simple man who, by the advice of another

confessor, came with the women to denounce themselves. He was sentenced

to rigid reclusion in a convent, where he died after giving a most

edifying example, and the women were not prosecuted, as they were mostly

barefooted Carmelites and Capuchins.[238]

The _flagelante_ soon came to be recognized as an offender akin to the

solicitor, and was held to be subject to the papal briefs. The old

inquisitor, who relates the last case, and writers like de Sousa and

Alberghini, all speak of stripping penitents and disciplining them as a

species of solicitation, to be visited with the same penalties.[239] As

a rule, in fact, it was regarded as rendering the offence more serious,

for it inferred more than the technical suspicion of heresy, especially

after Molinism had deepened the guilt of Illuminism, and we find

allusions to _hereges flagelantes_. Cases become frequent in the records

and we even, in 1730, find a Fray Domingo Calvo spontaneously denouncing

himself to the Madrid tribunal for having caused himself to be

flagellated, showing to what means perverted sexual instincts resorted

for gratification.[240]

The extent to which these practices were sometimes carried is indicated

in the trial, in 1795, of Padre Paulino Vicente Arevalo, priest of

Yepes, as "solicitante y flagelante." He confessed to the most flagrant

indecencies committed in this manner, with his female penitents, among

whom were nine pupils or sisters of the Bernardine convent. Sometimes he

made them discipline themselves in his presence and, as the scourge had

to be applied to the peccant parts, he had choice of such exposure as he

desired, an opportunity of which he admitted availing himself. The

record is discreetly mute as to worse excesses but, as six of his

penitents were required to repeat to another confessor all the

confessions specified in the evidence, it follows that sins must have

been committed for which he absolved them. For this perversion of so

many young lives he was only sentenced to a year's reclusion in a

monastery, thirty days' spiritual exercises, deprivation of the faculty

of confession, perpetual exile from Yepes and eight years' exile from

some other places--penalties which, although severe under the mild

inquisitorial standard, were wholly inadequate to his offences.[241]

A considerable portion of the cases in the later years of the

Inquisition are characterized as "solicitante y flagelante" and many of

them illustrate the easy transition from Illuminism to solicitation. As

early as 1651 we meet the case of the Dominican Fray Gerónimo de las

Herreras, condemned by the Toledo tribunal to deprivation of the faculty

of confession and three years' reclusion in a convent, as an "alumbrado

y solicitante," convicted of repeated practices of obscenity with many

women. When Molinism came to the front, those who taught it with its

debauching consequences were more severely dealt with, as in the case of

Buenaventura Frutos, cura of Mocejon, who, in 1722, was pronounced by

the Toledo tribunal to be a formal heretic and dogmatizer, a

contumacious solicitor and seducer. As such his sentence was read with

open doors, he appeared in a sanbenito _de dos aspas_, was reconciled,

verbally degraded and recluded irremissibly for life in a convent where,

for two years he was shut up in a cell, under instruction.[242] Similar

cases continued to occur occasionally, but more numerous in the later

period were those in which solicitation is conjoined with _mala

doctrina_, showing that the evil teaching was of a less dangerous

character than fully developed Molinism--a mere soothing of the

conscience of the penitent with assurances that what her confessor

desired was not mortal sin--but even this was regarded as increasing the

suspicion of heresy and requiring severer punishment.[243]

[Sidenote: _PROCEDURE_]

It is perhaps not without interest to note the advanced age to which

some of these soliciting confessors retained the ardor which impelled

them to the offence. Cases of septuagenarians are by no means rare. The

Dominican, Fray Antonio de Aragon, sentenced, July 24, 1734, at Toledo,

was 78 and the Observantine, Fray Miguel Granado, denounced, in 1786, to

the Cuenca tribunal, was 80. In the former case the punishment was

mitigated in consideration of his years, though a less sympathizing

court would have heightened its rigor, in view of the evil which such a

sinner must have wrought during so prolonged a career.[244]

* * * * *

When, in 1561, the Inquisition obtained jurisdiction over solicitation,

it had no precedents on which to frame its procedure or to regulate the

penalties. The episcopal courts had been inert and merciful, and the

fact that the offence had been transferred from them inferred that the

new jurisdiction was expected to be vigorous and rigorous. Its first

care, however, was to preserve secrecy and avert scandal, so that no

layman should be admitted to knowledge of clerical delinquencies. The

earliest utterance is a carta acordada of 1562, prescribing that, when

the denunciation affords conclusive evidence, it shall be considered by

the inquisitors and Ordinary, without calling in the usual consultors,

and the arrest shall be made with the utmost circumspection; the accused

is to be admitted to bail; when the case is concluded, if he is a fraile

he is to be confined in his convent with orders not to preach or hear

confessions, or to have active and passive voice; if he is a secular

priest, he is to be confined somewhere else than where the offence was

committed, he is not to exercise his functions and the final disposition

of the case is to rest with the Suprema.[245] In 1572, consultors were

admitted to examine the evidence before arrest, but they were to be

exclusively clerics, and the result was to be submitted to the Suprema

before action. It made little difference that the heinousness of the

offence was emphasized, and the necessity of exemplary punishment, when

the culprit was treated with this exceptional tenderness.[246] In 1600,

even the Ordinary was excluded from the preliminary deliberations and

the Suprema was to be consulted before any action was taken.[247] The

same precautions as to publicity were to be observed with regard to the

sentences, which were to be read in the audience-chamber with closed

doors, the only witnesses present being a prescribed number of the

brethren of the culprit--members of his Order if he was a fraile, or

curas and rectors, if a secular priest.[248] The care taken to avert

attention from these delinquencies is illustrated in the case of Fray

Antonio de la Portería, in 1818; he was resident in the convent of

Mondonedo, and the guardian was ordered to send him on some pretext to

the house of the Order at Santiago, where he was duly tried.[249]

[Sidenote: _PROCEDURE_]

Even greater favoritism was manifested in the matter of evidence. We

have seen that, in ordinary trials, while two witnesses were required as

to each fact yet, in practice, a single witness sufficed, not only for

arrest but for torture and that the testimony of the vilest persons was

welcomed without discrimination. In solicitation, it was self-evident

that there could be but one witness to each specific act, so that

perforce the tribunals were instructed that they must be content with

"singular" witnesses. A single denunciation however, did not suffice for

arrest, but in 1571, and again in 1576, they were allowed to deliberate

on it and consult the Suprema. Even this was thought to be too harsh

and, in 1577, the rule was adopted that there must be two separate and

independent denunciations before arrest and trial--a rule fraught, as we

shall see, with far-reaching consequences for, when it was so difficult

to induce women to accuse their seducers, innumerable culprits escaped

because two of their victims did not happen to act independently.[250]

Similar exceptional consideration was shown with regard to the character

of the witnesses, repeated instructions being issued that this was to be

carefully investigated, and the results be noted upon the record and

reported to the Suprema, so that due weight be given to it, both in

ordering arrest and apportioning penalties--precautions eminently

commendable, but deplorably lacking in trials for other offences.[251]

Justification for this solicitude was sought in the customary monkish

abuse of women in general. It was a misfortune that their evidence was

to be received at all but, from the nature of the crime, this was

unavoidable, and Páramo tells us that by nature they are lying,

deceitful, perjurers, crafty, changeable, frail, mutable and

corruptible--a daily curse, the gate of the devil, the tail of the

scorpion, a whitened sepulchre, an incurable sore, but they are the only

witnesses to be had and two of them, if of good character, must suffice

for full proof.[252] Such tirades show the different temper in which

inquisitors approached the consideration of these cases and those of

Jews or Protestants.

After arrest the culprit could be committed to the secret prison, but

this was exceptional, the custom being to remand regulars to houses of

their Order, and to admit seculars to bail, with the city as prison, in

a manner to attract as little attention as possible. The trial took the

usual course, interrogation being made as to intention and belief in the

sacrament of penitence, on which inquisitorial jurisdiction was based.

Of course all heretical tendencies were disclaimed, but, in the possible

case of error and pertinacity, there was provision for confinement in

the secret prison with sequestration of property and seizure of

papers.[253]

In the Spanish Inquisition, solicitation uncomplicated by Illuminism or

Molinism, inferred only light suspicion of heresy, requiring merely

abjuration _de levi_. Consequently the accused was not exposed to

torture. It is true that, academically speaking, though he could not be

tortured as to intention and belief, he might be subjected to it if he

denied facts, but in practice it was never employed, although the formal

accusation contained the _otrosi_ demanding it.[254] Yet, when there was

_mala doctrina_ or Illuminism torture was employed without scruple, as

in the case, in 1725, of Manuel Madrigal, in Toledo, accused as

"solicitante, Molinista y flagelante."[255] In the Roman Inquisition,

however, after the brief of Gregory XV, the suspicion of heresy was

vehement, the abjuration was _de vehementi_ and there was no exception

to the general rule of torturing on intention. The testimony of one

woman of good character, supported by indications such as the evil

repute of the confessor, or that of two women unsupported, sufficed. In

every way Rome treated the offence with less charity than did

Spain.[256]

The instructions as to the examination of accusers offer a strong

contrast to the negligence habitual in trials for formal heresy, of

which the penalties were so much more severe. Tribunals were warned that

it required special attention and the utmost exactitude; the woman must

declare precisely the spot and the time, whether confession was real or

simulated, and she must repeat in full detail the words and acts of the

confessor without omission. If any one was near enough to see or to

hear, she must state who it was; if she had spoken to any one, the name

must be given, and the inquisitor was urged to exercise his ingenuity

according to the circumstances of the case. If she had subsequently

confessed to the same priest, she must give her reasons and state

whether he had absolved her. Special inquiry was to be made as to any

cause of enmity on her part or that of her kindred; whether she had

heard of his doing the same with other women; what she thought or knew

as to his character, and whether any other confessor had told her that

she was not bound to denounce him.[257] All these were salutary

precautions which, if general and not exceptional, would have prevented

much injustice.

[Sidenote: _TWO DENUNCIATIONS REQUIRED_]

This instruction would appear to require that, in case of consent, the

witness should be forced to reveal her shame. Protection from this would

seem necessary to overcome reluctance to make denunciation, and the

Roman Inquisition, by decree of July 25, 1624, ruled that neither the

woman nor the accused was to be questioned as to this and, if the

information was volunteered, it was to be omitted from the record, while

confessors were ordered to assure penitents that no such inquiries would

be made.[258] If such a rule existed in Spain, it was not observed until

near the end, for the records of trials show that the examination was

pushed to the last point, and the results were fully set forth in the

proceedings. As late as the middle of the eighteenth century,

instructions to commissioners taking testimony in these cases require

them to obtain all details as to words and acts and to write them out

fully and distinctly, no matter how obscene they may be.[259] Soon

after this, however, occurs the first intimation as to reticence that I

have met, in instructions to a commissioner, January 27, 1759, as to

taking testimony from a nun, in which he is told to notify her that, if

she volunteers to relate her own ruin, this is not to be stated or

included in the testimony.[260] Subsequently this became the rule, as

appears by instructions in 1816 and 1819.[261]

The most important discrimination in favor of these delinquents was the

requirement of two independent denunciations to justify arrest and

trial. This was not reached without some hesitation. The earliest formal

instructions that we have on the subject are embodied in a letter to the

tribunal of Sardinia, in 1574, when forwarding to it the brief of Pius

IV. As the crime is understood to be very prevalent in the island, the

inquisitor is ordered to prosecute it with rigor, according to the

procedure in cases of heresy, no exception being alluded to as respects

single denunciations.[262] Instructions to the tribunal of Peru, about

the same time, specify that a single witness suffices for prosecution

and that Indian women can be admitted.[263] Then, as we have seen, there

is an inclination in favor of the accused, in a carta acordada of March

2, 1576, ordering single accusations to be received, but the Suprema is

to be consulted before taking action. This tendency increased, and

fuller instructions to Sardinia, in 1577, require two witnesses with

conclusive evidence as a condition precedent to arrest.[264] This was

repeated in general instructions issued in 1580 and, after some

variations, it remained an absolute rule until the end.[265] Even this

was regarded by churchmen as too harsh. A Cunha holds that, while two

witnesses may suffice for prosecution, there should be at least four for

conviction, and he grows eloquent in pointing out the dignity of the

priest, the scandal to the Church and the exultation of the heretic. De

Sousa likewise considers two witnesses insufficient for conviction,

though, if they are of exemplary character, their evidence may justify

some moderate penalty.[266]

It is probable that, for awhile, practice was not uniform in all

tribunals. In that of Valladolid, in 1621 and 1622, there are several

cases in which arrest was voted on the evidence of a single witness and

these votes were confirmed by the Suprema.[267] On the other hand, about

1640, an inquisitor tells us that, when the accused denies, conviction

requires the evidence of three witnesses whom he has been unable to

disable for enmity, low rank of life, or doubtful repute. Some authors,

he adds, insist that four are necessary, but he admits that, when there

are two whose characters stand thorough investigation and there are

supporting indications, conviction may follow.[268] It is impossible not

to recognize the charitable motives that prompted this reluctance to

punish.

The requirement thus established of two independent denunciations threw

serious impediments in the way of suppressing a crime in which it was so

notoriously difficult to find accusers. The routine gradually

established was, when a denunciation was received, to search the records

for a previous one. If none were found, letters were addressed to all

the other tribunals requesting a similar examination of their registers

and, if this was unsuccessful, the denunciation was filed away to await

the chances of another accuser presenting herself, thus giving the

accused, if guilty, the opportunity of continuing his profligate career,

and leading the woman to believe that the case was too trivial to

deserve the attention of the Inquisition. These long intervals of

impunity illustrate the difficulty of obtaining denunciations, and the

preponderant chances of escape, when prosecution was thus obstructed.

[Sidenote: _TWO DENUNCIATIONS REQUIRED_]

Numberless cases show how prolonged was often this period of immunity in

a career of crime, to say nothing of the yet more frequent instances

where the second denunciation never came. Thus at Valencia, on September

22, 1734, María Theresa Terrasa accused Fray Agustin Solves of having

taken her, after confession and communion, to a room back of the altar

and committed violence on her. This was laid aside for fourteen years

when, on November 12, 1748, Sor Vitoria Julian, of the convent of San

Julian, appeared and denounced him for having, some fifteen years

before, solicited her some twenty times in the confessional of the

convent of which he was the regular confessor, though she had not

understood until now the obligation of denunciation. He had meanwhile

been removed to the convent of Villajoiosa and had doubtless profited

fully by the interval thus afforded.[269] This is by no means an extreme

instance. In the list of soliciting confessors, kept by the Madrid

tribunal, there occurs, in 1772, the name of Fray Andrés Izquierdo as

accused in Valladolid, with a reference back to the years 1751 and 1752.

Fray Bartolomé de Montijo appears as denounced in 1740 and again in

1776. Fray Fernando López, ex-provincial of the _Escuelas pias_, was

denounced in 1780 for tampering with the children under his charge, and

again in 1795, when he was tried and exiled. The Jesuit Juan Francisco

Nieto, was denounced in Toledo in 1708 and again in 1731 in Madrid. Fray

Joseph de San Juan was accused in Toledo in 1732 and in Granada in 1772.

Fray Pedro de la Madre de Dios was denounced in Barcelona in 1722 and

again in 1744. Even two denunciations, in many cases, did not suffice to

put an end to these corrupting careers, and it required three or four.

Fray Alonso de Arroya was denounced in 1768, 1788 and 1803; Fray

Francisco de la Asuncion Torquemada in 1735, 1770 and 1776; Domingo

Galindo, rector of Nules, in 1790, 1792, and 1795; Fray Francisco

Escriva in 1769, 1775, 1786 and 1787; and Padre Feliciano Martínez, S.

J., in 1767, 1771, 1784 and 1800. It is scarce worth while to multiply

instances of which the records furnish an abundant supply.[270]

As the majority of offenders were frailes, who had no settled residence,

it became necessary, in order to meet the exceptional requirement of two

denunciations, to establish communication between the several tribunals.

This was felt as early as 1601, when each one was ordered to send to all

the rest, information as to _solicitantes_, whose cases had been

suspended without prosecution. This seems to have received scant

obedience, while cases of solicitation were constantly becoming a more

important portion of inquisitorial duty, leading to a more comprehensive

effort in 1647. The tribunals were required to search their records for

thirty years back and make out lists of those charged with solicitation

with all necessary details; copies of these lists were to be sent to the

Suprema and to all other tribunals, and every year the new cases were

to be similarly circulated. A complete alphabetical list of the whole

was to be compiled and copies were to be furnished to all tribunals

making application.[271] If this was obeyed at the time, it must soon

have fallen into desuetude, for the custom became universal, when a

denunciation was received, of addressing all the sister tribunals with

the inquiry as to whether the name of the accused appeared on their

records. To facilitate these frequent researches, in compiling the

_Libras Vocandorum_ and other registers, a separate volume was reserved

for solicitation.[272]

* * * * *

When all impediments were overcome and conviction was reached, the

penalties inflicted were singularly disproportionate to the gravity of

the offence, especially when compared with the severity exercised on

those whose guilt consisted in putting on clean linen on Saturdays and

avoiding the use of pork. The earliest definition as to punishment

occurs in the Sardinia instructions of 1577, where the prescriptions

embody the general features of the policy pursued to the end, including

the secrecy preserved by reading the sentence in the audience-chamber.

The penalties, it is stated, are customarily arbitrary, varying with the

character, degree and frequency of the offence but, in all cases, there

must be abjuration _de levi_ and perpetual deprivation of the faculty of

administering the sacrament of penitence; as to the other sacraments and

preaching, or reclusion or exile, it is discretional. For religious

there may be discipline in the chapters of their convents, while a

notary reads the sentence or, in atrocious cases, a discipline in the

audience-chamber; there may also be other penances, such as reclusion

and suspension or deprivation of sacerdotal functions, deprivation of

active and passive voice, being last in choir and refectory, and penance

for heavy sin, discipline, prayers etc. For secular priests, besides the

general penalties, there may be reclusion, deprivation or suspension of

functions and benefice, fines, secret disciplines, fasts and

prayers.[273]

[Sidenote: _PUNISHMENT_]

How these general rules were reduced to practice, at this period, may be

gathered from a few examples in Toledo, all of whom had of course the

regular abjuration de levi and reprimand. In 1578 the Carmelite, Fray

Agustin de Cervera, against whom there were ten witnesses, was

sentenced to perpetual deprivation of confession, reclusion for a year

in a convent of his Order, where he was to receive a discipline, and

Friday fasting on bread and water. The Dominican Fray Domingo de

Revisto, against whom there were forty-nine witnesses, besides others

who came after the conclusion of the case, was perpetually deprived of

confessing and recluded in a desert convent for ten years, during which,

for a year, he was deprived of active and passive voice, of preaching

and of saying mass. In 1581, Pedro de Villalobos, acting cura of Halía,

had many witnesses as to his acts in the confessional and an infinite

number as to his general licentiousness, for he kept a concubine, had

debauched two sisters and their aunt, and committed much else of the

same kind. These latter sins were outside of inquisitorial jurisdiction;

for the solicitation he was exiled from Halía for three years, of which

the first was to be passed in a monastery with suspension from

celebrating, he was perpetually suspended from confessing, and was fined

in fifteen thousand maravedís. Fray Juan Romero was accused by five

women; he admitted using words of endearment, but innocently, as he

claimed to be impotent. Either the claim or the fact seems to have been

regarded as an aggravation, for he was deprived of confessing and was

recluded for ten years, without active and passive voice, to be last in

choir and refectory, with a monthly discipline during the first year, a

discipline in the audience-chamber and one in the convent of San Pablo

while his sentence was read.[274]

These examples will suffice to show the spirit in which aggravated cases

were treated. Those of less gravity had concessions in the variable

factors, but the deprivation of confessing was perpetual. About 1600,

Miguel Calvo summarizes the practice, with a distinct inclination

towards greater severity, and adds that, when the culprit has solicited

men, the penalties are to be increased.[275] On the other hand, in 1611,

a Cunha pleads for moderation, and warns the inquisitor not to drive the

culprit to despair, while de Sousa endeavors to argue away the stern

penalties prescribed by Gregory XV, and repeats the warning as to

despair.[276]

It was wholly superfluous to plead for leniency. The Spanish Inquisition

paid no attention to Gregory's brief, although, in 1629, it ordered the

tribunals to follow its prescriptions, for it even began to show an

increased tendency towards benignity. The severest sentence I have met

at this period concerned a peculiarly scandalous case before the

tribunal of Valladolid where, in 1625, the Trinitarian Fray Juan de

Ramírez was accused by five youths and one woman, and besides he had

once celebrated mass without confessing. He was verbally degraded,

deprived perpetually of confessing and condemned to ten years of

reclusion, lifelong exile from Burgos and a circular discipline in his

convent. This was justice tempered with mercy, but there was much mercy

and little justice, in 1637, in the case of the Franciscan Fray Alonso

del Valle before the same tribunal. He was accused by two sisters of his

Order; there was a vote in discordia and the Suprema ordered suspension

of the case, but, before this could be done, there supervened two more

witnesses with evidence of the foulest character. The result was a

sentence April 14, 1638, of deprivation of confessing women, one year's

reclusion and four years of exile from Toro and Astorga. Equally

fortunate was the Dominican Fray Juan Gómez, accused by two women, with

one of whom, for fifteen years, he had illicit relations in the chapels

used for confession. Some sisters of his Order likewise denounced him

and, for all this he was sentenced, February 4, 1638, to be deprived of

confessing women and to Friday fasting for six months. Even greater was

the benignity shown, in 1642, to the Licenciate Morales, cura of

Robadillo, against whom there were two accusers. The vote of the

consulta de fe on the _sumaria_ was not unanimous, when the Suprema cut

the affair short by ordering suspension, with a private reprimand of the

accused in the apartments of the inquisitor.[277]

[Sidenote: _PUNISHMENT_]

Evidently the Inquisition was beginning to regard the offence with a

compassionate eye, and it would be superfluous to adduce more cases of

its tenderness. Still the regular scheme of punishments was nominally

held in force, and is duly recapitulated by an old inquisitor about

1640, who includes fines for secular priests and adds that the galleys

might be inflicted, and that those who relapsed deserved them.

Abjuration _de vehementi_ was never imposed and, although the papal

constitution permitted relaxation, this was never used, though it is

well that there is a faculty for it in extreme cases.[278] Even the

fines here alluded to were not heavy. Another authority of about the

same date says that, if the priest is rich, he may be mulcted in from

six to ten thousand maravedís.[279] The heaviest pecuniary penalty that

I have met was imposed, in 1744, on Fernández Puyalon, cura of

Ciempozuelos, who was fined in half his property, but here solicitation

was complicated with heretical propositions, which, as we have seen,

greatly enhanced guilt.[280]

As regards the galleys, I have met with but one case of their

employment--that of the Licentiate Lorenzo de Eldora, assistant cura in

Torre de Beleña, tried in Toledo in 1691. He had already been punished

for the same offence in Granada, and had relapsed, which explains the

severity of the sentence suspending him from orders and banishing him

from a number of places for ten years, of which the first five were to

be spent in the galleys.[281] That this punishment was reserved for

relapse may be inferred from a case which, about the same time, was

occupying the Barcelona tribunal and which certainly deserved it. The

Mercenarian Padre Estevan Ramoneda was accused in 1690, but it was not

until 1694 that a second denunciation enabled action to be taken. After

many evasions, in ignorance of the exact charge, he confessed to much

more than was required. Since entering a convent, in 1660, as a boy of

fifteen, his life had been one of sexual abominations, almost warranting

the belief that the monasteries of the time were outposts of Sodom. The

number of women whose testimony was obtained was only eight, but among

these were some with whom extraordinary obscenities were practised in

church. He had no defence to offer and, in his sentence, September 11,

1696, all reference to his unnatural crimes of all kinds was carefully

omitted. He was deprived of confession, had a circular discipline in his

convent, and was recluded for four years in the house of N. Señora del

Olivar, from which he was allowed to return in October 1700.[282] This

was considered sufficient punishment for a brute whose life had been

spent in corrupting men, women and beasts.

There is one feature in these cases which shows how great was the dread

of scandal. We frequently find details of the worst excesses committed

in the churches. According to the canon law (Cap. 5, Extra, v, xvi) a

church thus polluted required to be reconciled, but there is no trace in

any of the records of the observance of this rule. It was presumably for

the purpose of averting knowledge of such disgraceful occurrences that

casuists discovered that pollution occurred only when the act was public

and not occult.[283]

* * * * *

It was a favorite device, when a confessor had reason to fear that a

denunciation was impending, for him to denounce himself, in the

expectation of merciful treatment. Roman practice encouraged this by

conferring virtual immunity in such cases, as was experienced by the

Minim Hilario Caone of Besançon, who fled from Spain, in 1653, and

presented himself before the Roman Inquisition, stating that for ten

years he had heard confessions in the church of San Francisco de Paula

in Seville, and that he had come in post to confess that he had

solicited in confession some forty women, mostly with success. When

questioned as to belief and intention, he answered satisfactorily and

was only sentenced to abjure _de vehementi_, to visit the seven

privileged altars of St. Peter's, and for three years to recite weekly

the chaplet of the Virgin. This was not exceptional mercy for, in the

same year, an equivalent sentence was pronounced on Vincenzo Barzi, who

similarly denounced himself, and the existing rule is to impose only

spiritual penance on the self-accuser, with advice to avoid in future

those whom he has solicited.[284]

[Sidenote: _SELF-DENUNCIATION_]

The Spanish Inquisition, at least at first, was not so lenient and it

followed its rule with _espontaneados_ of examining for confirmation

those whom the delinquent named as the objects of his solicitations. In

the early cases there is little difference in the sentences between

those who denounced themselves and those who were accused. In 1582, the

Franciscan Fray Sebastian de Hontoria accused himself to the Toledo

tribunal for having, as vicar of a nunnery, corrupted several of the

nuns under peculiarly aggravating circumstances. On examination they

confirmed his confession, and he was sentenced to a circular discipline

in the convent of San Juan de los Reyes, to be deprived of confessing,

and reclusion in a convent for ten years, without active or passive

voice and being last in choir and refectory.[285] He had confessed fully

and freely. In another case, in 1589, before the same tribunal, the

Franciscan Fray Marcos de Latançon, in accusing himself, suppressed the

worst features of his offence. He confessed that, at Orche, he had

handled indecently some five or six unmarried and perhaps six or eight

married women, but averred that this was without any licentious feeling

or intention to induce them to sin. Five of the girls were examined,

whose concurrent testimony showed that the confessions were heard in a

chamber in which there was a bed. As each one entered he locked the

door; when the confession was half through he would interrupt it with

the foulest indecencies and violence, after which the confession was

resumed and absolution was granted. For this profanation of the

sacrament the sentence was the same as in the last case, except that the

reclusion was for only four years.[286]

So long as the practice of examining the woman was continued,

self-denunciation always had the advantage that they would very

frequently, in defence of their honor, deny everything. The result of

this, and the prevailing tendency towards leniency, are indicated in

rules expressed about 1640, which tell us that, if one witness has

already testified against the culprit, self-denunciation ensures a

lighter penalty; there is no imprisonment and it is customary to deprive

him of confessing women. If he accuses himself before there is any

evidence against him, and if the women are numerous and they confirm his

statements, the case proceeds to deprivation of confessing; if they

deny, the case is suspended, with a warning to him. If there is but one

and the case is not grave, he is merely reprimanded.[287]

The custom of examining the women compromised by the self-accuser

gradually grew obsolete, doubtless because they mostly protected

themselves from exposure by denial. Thus, in 1707, in the Madrid

tribunal, when Padre Pablo Delgado, provost of the Casa del Espiritu

Santo, accused himself, there seems to have been no examination of the

women and his case was promptly suspended, with a monition to abstain

for six months from confessing women.[288] So, in the case of the

Observantine Fray Gabriel Pantoja, who denounced himself, May 8, 1720,

to the Toledo tribunal, for offences committed during the previous ten

years, which show him to have lost no opportunity of seducing women, in

the confessional or out of it, and of promising absolution if they would

yield to his desires, the absence of his name from the record of _autos

particulares_ shows that none of the women were examined and that no

action was deemed necessary.[289] Indeed, what chiefly impresses one, in

a series of these cases, is the matter of fact way in which every

body--priests, penitents and inquisitors--seems to take it for granted

that such things were a matter of course and that the confessor should

be in pursuit of every woman who came before him. So, in a letter of the

Mexican tribunal, May 13, 1719, to its commissioner, in the case of Fray

Antonio Domínguez, who had denounced himself, the instructions are that

the culprit is to be exhorted to abstain in future and to sunder an

illicit connection with a daughter of confession; he is to be absolved

sacramentally which, as the rule in all cases of self-denunciation, is

to be made known to all confessors in the district "for the solace and

comfort of their souls"--thus assuming them to be all guilty of the same

offence.[290]

[Sidenote: _INDIFFERENCE_]

Still, practice as yet was not uniform. In 1740, the Recollect Fray

Joseph Rives accused himself before the Valencia tribunal, when the

evidence of two women was taken, showing the beastliness to which such

men resorted to inflame the passions of their penitents. A formal trial

resulted, ending in his deprivation of confession and three years' exile

from Valencia and the scenes of his excesses.[291] This was probably

one of the latest cases in which an _espontaneado_ suffered. A writer

shortly afterwards complains of the uncertainty of practice, as the

Suprema constantly issued varying decisions under conditions precisely

similar, but he states the rule to be that, when a priest accuses

himself, the registers are searched and, if nothing is found of record

against him, he is discharged with a charitable warning, and a

recommendation to abstain from the confessional save when necessary to

avert scandal.[292] Complete immunity soon followed for self-accusation.

In 1780 the Suprema seems to have desired to introduce uniformity, and

enquired of the tribunals whether they were accustomed to make

_espontaneados_ abjure and then absolve them, or whether they suspended

the cases, to which Valencia replied that the custom was to suspend,

without abjuration or absolution, unless there was complication of _mala

doctrina_.[293] When self-denunciation thus secured immunity it

naturally was frequent. In a list of a hundred and eight cases in

Madrid, between 1670 and 1772, thirty-two, or thirty per cent., are

_espontaneados_.[294]

In fact, during the later period, the whole matter seems to have excited

but a languid interest, and to have been treated commonly with

indifference. We meet with instances in which accusations are

pigeon-holed without even making the prescribed inquiries of other

tribunals, or cases are suspended without examining the accuser.[295] So

relaxed was discipline that when, in 1806, the Franciscan Fray Francisco

de Paula Lozano had been deprived by Córdova of the faculty of

confessing, and not only disregarded the inhibition but complicated his

offence by opening a letter from the tribunal of Granada to the cura of

Salar, he was tried by Granada and merely reprimanded with a warning of

what would happen to him if he persisted in his evil courses.[296]

* * * * *

It would be interesting sociologically if complete statistics could be

compiled, from the time when jurisdiction was conferred on the

Inquisition, but this is impossible, for there are only a few

fragmentary sources of the earlier period, although for the eighteenth

century there are satisfactory materials in the special registers kept

of this class of cases. In no case, however, do they furnish a standard

by which to estimate the frequency of the crime, for the difficulty of

inducing women to accuse left the great majority of cases buried in

secrecy, in addition to which a marked feature of the records is the

disproportion between the accusations and the trials, owing principally

to the impediment arising from the requirement of at least two

accusations, so that the trials and sentences are comparatively few in

number. The working of this is exhibited, as early as 1597, in a report

by Inquisitor Heredia of Barcelona of a visitation of part of his

district, in which ten cases of solicitation were brought before him. Of

these seven are noted as suspended in consequence of there being but one

witness, another is suspended because the offender had been already

tried and punished, leaving but two in which arrest and trial were

ordered. In the visitation the whole number of cases was eighty-eight

and the only offences more numerous than solicitation were unnatural

lusts, of which there were fifteen, propositions which furnished twelve,

the assertion that marriage is better than celibacy which furnished

eleven, while blasphemy was on an equality with ten. All, or nearly all,

of these latter classes doubtless led to prosecutions, while

solicitation resulted in only two trials.[297]

[Sidenote: _STATISTICS_]

Llorente explains the discrepancy between the accusations and the

convictions by misconstruction put on the interrogations of confessors,

leading simple-hearted nuns to imagine themselves solicited.[298] This

implies eagerness on the part of women to bring such accusations when,

as we have seen, the main difficulty was to induce them to denounce, by

threats of excommunication and refusal of absolution; in the majority of

cases it was done only by order of a subsequent confessor, and this

frequently five, ten, or more years after the occurrence. The fact is

that only a small portion of offenders were denounced, and of these but

a fraction were brought to trial. So far moreover from the evidence

being only the excited imaginations of young girls, it rarely happened

that a case reached trial without resulting in conviction--the

preliminaries were too carefully guarded, and the dread of scandal too

vivid, to permit the arrest of a priest against whom the evidence was

not conclusive.

The number of cases pushed to sentence was therefore not large. The

Toledo record, from 1575 to 1610, only furnishes fifty-two in a total of

eleven hundred and thirty-four of all kinds.[299] In the later period,

when the activity of the tribunals had greatly slackened, solicitation

formed a much larger proportion of their business.[300] We have a record

of all cases despatched in Toledo, from 1648 to 1794, in which those for

solicitation amount to only sixty-eight. This seems but few and yet,

when we compare this total with that of other offences, in which there

were no special impediments to prosecution, it becomes surprisingly

large, for there were but sixty-two cases of bigamy, thirty-seven of

blasphemy, seventy-four of propositions and one hundred of sorcery and

divination. Between 1705 and 1714, the whole number of sentences was but

twenty-six and of these eight were for solicitation, while between 1757

and 1763 it contributed six cases out of a total of eight.[301]

When we turn to the number of accusations we find them unexpectedly

large. The registers of solicitations, kept during the final century of

the Inquisition, afford trustworthy statistics showing that, from 1723

to the final suppression in 1820, the total number of cases entered

amounts to thirty-seven hundred and seventy-five. Of these, it is worthy

of note that the secular clergy only furnished nine hundred and

eighty-one, leaving for the regulars twenty-seven hundred and

ninety-four, or nearly three-quarters. Partly this is explicable by the

greater popularity of the regulars as confessors but, to a greater

extent, by the opportunities of the beneficed priests, who were usually

well off, to gratify their passions without incurring the dangers of

polluting the confessional.[302] One noteworthy fact is the large

proportion of those occupying prominent positions as Provincials,

Guardians, Ministers, Priors, Comendadores, Visitadores, Superiors,

Rectors, Lectors, and the like, whose titles appear in the registers

with a frequency greater than their mere numbers would seem to justify.

[Sidenote: _STATISTICS_]

In 1797, Tavira, then Bishop of Osma and subsequently of Salamanca,

assumed that the crime of solicitation had greatly increased and was

increasing, which he attributed partly to the influence of Illuminism

and Molinism, but still more to its cognizance having been taken from

the bishops and the requirement by the Inquisition of two denunciations

before prosecution.[303] That the latter provision conferred practical

immunity on many culprits is self-evident, but this was probably less

effective than would have been the habitual indifference and leniency of

the spiritual courts, their dread of scandal and the inevitable disgrace

which deterred women from appearing in their public proceedings. There

is practically no reason for supposing that the crime was either more

or less prevalent, at the close of the eighteenth century, than it had

been ever since, in the thirteenth, auricular confession was made

obligatory, or than it has been since the nineteenth century opened. The

strain of the confessional is too great for average human nature, and

the most that the Church can do, in its most recent regulations, is to

keep these lapses of the flesh from the knowledge of the faithful.[304]