{"collection":"Paganism & Neopaganism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/pag/mm/mm03_33a.htm","path":"pag/mm/mm03_33a.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/mm03_33a.htm","text":"Of the Method of passing Sentence upon one who has been Accused by another Witch, who has been or is to be Burned at the Stake\nThe fourteenth method of finally concluding a process on behalf\nof the Faith is used when the person accused of heresy, after a\ncareful discussion of the circumstances of the process with\nreference to the informant in consultation with learned lawyers,\nis found to be accused of that heresy only by another witch who\nhas been or is to be burned. And this can happen in thirteen ways\nin thirteen cases. For a person so accused is either found\ninnocent and is to be freely discharged; or she is found to be\ngenerally defamed for that heresy; or it is found that, in\naddition to her defamation, she is to be to some degree exposed\nto torture; or she is found to be strongly suspected of heresy;\nor she is found to be at the same time defamed and suspected; and\nso on up to thirteen different cases, as was shown in the\nTwentieth Question.\nThe first case is when she is accused only by a witch in custody,\nand is not convicted either by her own confession or by\nlegitimate witnesses, and there are no other indications found by\nreason of which she can truly be regarded as suspect. In such a\ncase she is to be entirely absolved, even by the secular Judge\nhimself who has either burned the deponent or is about to burn\nher either on his own authority or on that commissioned to him by\nthe Bishop and Judge of the Ordinary Court; and she shall be\nabsolved in the manner explained in the Twentieth Question.\nThe second case is when, in addition to being accused by a witch\nin custody, she is also publicly defamed throughout the whole\nvillage or city; so that she has always laboured under that\nparticular defamation, but, after the deposition of the witch, it\nhas become aggravated.\nIn such a case the following should be the procedure. The Judge\nshould consider that, apart from the general report, nothing\nparticular has been proved against her by other credible\nwitnesses in the village or town; and although, perhaps, that\nwitch has deposed some serious charges against her, yet, since\nhas lost her faith by denying it to the devil, Judges should give\nno ready credence to her words, unless there should be other\ncircumstances which aggravate that report; and then the case\nwould fall under the third and following case. Therefore she\nshould be enjoined a canonical purgation, and the sentence should\nbe pronounced as shown in the Twenty-first Question.\nAnd if the civil Judge orders this purgation to the be made\nbefore the Bishop, and ends with a solemn declaration that, if\nshe should fail, then, as an example to others, she should be\nmore severely sentenced by both the ecclesiastical and civil\nJudges, well and good. But if he wishes to conduct it himself,\nlet him command her to find ten or twenty compurgators of her own\nclass, and proceed in accordance with the second method of\nsentencing such: except that, if she has to be excommunicated,\nthen he must have recourse to the Ordinary; and this would be the\ncase if she refused to purge herself.\nThe third case, then, happens when the person so accused is not\nconvicted by her own confession, not by the evidence of the\nfacts, nor by credible witnesses, nor are there any other\nindications as to any fact in which she had ever been marked by\nthe other inhabitants of that town or village, except her general\nreputation among them. But the general report has become\nintensified by the detention of that witch in custody, as that\nit is said that she had been her companion in everything and had\nparticipated in her crimes. But even so, the accused firmly\ndenies all this, and nothing of it is known to other inhabitants,\nor of anything to save good behaviour on her part, though her\ncompanionship with the witch is admitted.\nIn such a case the following is the procedure. First they are to\nbe brought face to face, and their mutual answers and\nrecriminations noted, to see whether there is any inconsistency\nin their words by reason of which the Judge can decide from her\nadmissions and denials whether he ought to expose her to torture;\nand if so, he can proceed as in the third manner of pronouncing a\nsentence, explained in the Twenty-second Question, submitting her\nto light tortures: at the same time exercising every possible\nprecaution, as we explained at length towards the beginning of\nthis Third Part, to find out whether she is innocent or guilty.\nThe fourth case is when a person\naccused in this manner is found to be lightly suspected, either\nbecause of her own confession or because of the depositions of\nthe other witch in custody. There are some who include among\nthose who should be thus lightly suspected those who go and\nconsult witches for any purpose, or have procured for themselves\na lover by stirring up hatred between married folk, or have\nconsorted with witches in order to obtain some temporal\nadvantage. But such are to be excommunicated as followers of\nheretics, according to the Canon c. excommunicamus, where\nit says: Similarly we judge those to be heretics who believe in\ntheir errors. For the effect is presumed from the facts.\nTherefore it seems that such are to be more severely sentenced\nand punished than those who are under a light suspicion of heresy\nand are to be judged from light conjectures. For example, if they\nhad performed services for witches or carried their letters to\nthem, they need not on that account believe in their errors: yet\nthey have not laid information against them, and they have\nreceived wages and vails from them. But whether or not such\npeople are to be included in this case, according to the opinion\nof learned men the procedure must be as in the case of those\nunder light suspicion, and the Judge will act as follows. Such a\nperson will either abjure heresy or will purge herself\ncanonically, as was explained in the fourth method of pronouncing\nsentence in the Twenty-third Question.\nHowever, it seems that the better course is for such a person to\nbe ordered to abjure heresy, for this is more in accordance with\nthe meaning of the Canon c. excommunicamus, where it\nspeaks of those who are found to be only under some notable\nsuspicion. And if such should relapse, they should not incur the\npenalty for backsliders. The procedure will be as above explained\nin the fourth method of sentencing.\nThe fifth case is when such person is found to be under a strong\nsuspicion, by reason, as before, of her own confession or of the\ndepositions of the other witch in custody. In this class some\ninclude those who directly or indirectly obstruct the Court in\nthe process of trying a witch, provided that they do this\nwittingly.\nAlso they include all who give help, advice or protection to\nthose who cause such obstructions. Also those who instruct\nsummoned or captured heretics to conceal the truth or in some way\nfalsify it. Also all those who wittingly receive, or visit those\nwhom they know to be heretics, or associate with them, send them\ngifts, or show favour to them; for all such actions, when done\nwith full knowledge, bespeak favour felt towards the sin, and not\nto the person. And therefore they say that, when the accused is\nguilty of any of the above actions, and has been proved so after\ntrial, then she should be sentenced in the fifth method,\nexplained in the Twenty-fourth Question; so that she must abjure\nall heresy, under pain of being punished as a backslider.\nAs to these contentions we may say that the Judge must take into\nconsideration the household and family of each several witch who\nhas been burned or is detained; for these are generally found to\nbe infected.\nFor witches are instructed by devils to offer to them even their\nown children; therefore there can be no doubt that such children\nare instructed in all manner of crimes, as is shown in the First\nPart of this work.\nAgain, in a case of simple heresy it happens that, on account of\nthe familiarity between heretics who are akin to each other, when\none is convicted of heresy it follows that his kindred also are\nstrongly suspected; and the same is true of the heresy of\nwitches.\nBut this present case is made clear in the chapter of the Canon\ninter sollicitudines. For a certain Dean was, owing to his\nreputation as a heretic, enjoined a canonical purgation; on\naccount of his familiarity with heretics, he had to make a public\nabjuration; and through the scandal he was deprived of his\nbenefice, so that the scandal might be allayed.\nThe sixth case is when such a person is under a grave suspicion;\nbut no simple and bare deposition by another witch in custody can\ncause this, for there must be in addition some indication of the\nfacts, derived from certain words or deeds uttered or committed\nby the witch in custody, in which the accused is at least said to\nhave taken some part, and shared in the evil deeds of the\ndeponent.\nTo understand this, the reader should refer to what was written\nin the Nineteenth Question, especially concerning the grave\ndegree of suspicion, how it arise from grave and convincing\nconjectures; and how the Judge is forced to believe, on mere\nsuspicion, that a person is a heretic, although perhaps in his\nheart he is a true Catholic. The Canonists give an example of\nthis by the case, in simple heresy, of a man summoned to answer\nin the cause of the faith, and defiantly refusing to appear, on\nwhich account he is excommunicated, and if he persists in that\nstate for a year, becomes gravely suspected of heresy.\nAnd so likewise in the case of person accused in the way we are\nconsidering, the indications of the facts are to be examined by\nwhich she is rendered gravely suspect. Let us put the case that\nthe witch in custody has asserted that the accused has taken part\nin her evil works of witchcraft, but the accused firmly denies\nit. What then is to be done? It will be necessary to consider\nwhether there are any facts to engender a strong suspicion of\nher, and whether that strong suspicion can become a grave one.\nThus, if a man has been summoned to answer some charge, and has\nobstinately refused to appear, he would come under a light\nsuspicion of heresy, even if he had not been summoned in a cause\nconcerning the Faith. But if he then refused to appear in a cause\nconcerning the Faith and was excommunicated for his obstinacy,\nthen he would be strongly suspected; for the light suspicion\nwould become a strong one; and if then he remained obstinate in\nexcommunication for a year, the strong suspicion would become a\ngrave one. Therefore the Judge will consider whether, by reason\nof her familiarity with the witch in custody, the accused is\nunder a strong suspicion, in the manner shown in the fifth case\nabove; and then he must consider whether there is anything which\nmay turn that strong suspicion into a grave one. For it is\npresumed that it is possible for this to be the case, on account\nof the accused having perhaps shared in the crimes of the\ndetained witch, if she has had frequent intercourse with her.\nTherefore the Judge must proceed as in the sixth method of\nsentencing explained in the Twenty-fifth Question. But it may be\nasked what the Judge is to do if the person so accused by a witch\nin custody still altogether persists in her denials, in spite of\nall indications against her. We answer as follows:\nFirst the Judge must consider whether those denials do or do not\nproceed from the vice or witchcraft of taciturnity: and, as was\nshown in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Questions of this Third\npart, the Judge can know this from her ability or inability to\nshed tears, or from her insensibility under torture and quick\nrecovery of her strength afterwards. For then the grave suspicion\nwould be aggravated; and in such a case she is by no means to be\nfreely discharged, but, according to the sixth method of\nsentencing, she must be condemned to perpetual imprisonment and\npenance.\nBut if she is not infected with the taciturnity of witches, but\nfeels the keenest pains in her torture (whereas others, as has\nbeen said, become insensible to pain owing to the witchcraft of\ntaciturnity), then the Judge must fall back upon his last\nexpedient of a canonical purgation. And if this should be ordered\nby a secular Judge, it is called a lawful vulgar purgation, since\nit cannot be classed with other vulgar purgations. And if she\nshould fail in this purgation she will be judged guilty.\nThe seventh case is when the accused is not found guilty by his\nown confession, by the evidence of the facts, or by legitimate\nwitnesses, but is only found to be accused by a witch in custody,\nand there are also some indications found which bring him under\nlight or strong suspicion. As, for example, that he had had great\nfamiliarity with witches; in which case he would, according to\nthe Canon, have to undergo a canonical purgation on account of\nthe general report concerning him; and on account of the\nsuspicion against him he must abjure heresy, under pain of being\npunished as a backslider if it was a strong suspicion, but not if\nit was a light one.\nThe eighth case occurs when the person so accused is found to\nhave confessed that heresy, but to be penitent, and never to have\nrelapsed. But here it is to be noted that in this and the other\ncases, where it is a question of those who have or have not\nrelapsed, and who are or are not penitent, these distinctions are\nmade only for the benefit of Judges who are not concerned with\nthe infliction of the extreme penalty. Therefore the civil Judge\nmay proceed in accordance with the Civil and Imperial Laws, as\njustice shall demand, in the case of one who has confessed, no\nmatter whether or not she be penitent, or whether or not she have\nrelapsed. Only he may have recourse to those thirteen methods of\npronouncing sentence, and act in accordance with them, if any\ndoubtful question should arise.\nNext: Question XXXIV Of the Method of passing Sentence upon a Witch who Annuls Spells wrought by Witchcraft; and of Witch Midwives and Archer-Wizards","title":"Malleus Maleficarum Part 3 Question XXXIII","type":"page"}