The Soldier Of God, Joan Of Arc’s, Final Verdict
Here follow the deliberations and conclusions reached by the Holy Faculty of Theology in the University of Paris, in judgment of the articles already transcribed concerning the words and deeds of Jeanne commonly called The Maid: the entire deliberations and conclusions of the said Faculty and all which concerns this matter, the Faculty submits to the judgment of Our Holy Father the Pope and the Holy Council General: I. “And firstly regarding article the first, the Faculty declares doctrinally that in view of the end, manner and content of the revelations, the quality of her person, the place and other circumstances, these revelations are fictitious, pernicious and misleading lies, or that these are superstitions, proceeding from evil or diabolical spirits, such as Belial, Satan and Behemoth.” II. “Regarding article the second, its content appears less the truth than a presumptuous, misleading, pernicious, feigned lie, hostile to the dignity of angels.” III. “Regarding article the third, there is no sufficient sign, and the said Jeanne believes lightly and affirms rashly. Moreover, in the comparison she made her belief is evil and she wanders from the faith.” IV. “Regarding article the fourth, its content is nothing but superstition, divination, presumptuous affirmation and vain boasting.” V. “Regarding article the fifth, the said woman is blasphemous towards God, contemptuous of God in His sacraments, unmindful of divine and sacred law and the ecclesiastical sanctions, evil thinking and erring in the faith, foolishly. boastful, and must be suspected of idolatry, and of the execration of herself and her garments; she has imitated the rites of the heathen.” VI. Regarding article the sixth, the said woman is treacherous, cunning, cruel, athirst for the spilling of human blood, seditious, inciting to tyranny, and blasphemous of God in her commands and revelations.” VII. “Regarding article the seventh, the said woman is impious towards her parents, contemptuous of the commandment to honor her father and mother, scandalous, blasphemous towards God; she wanders from the faith and has made rash and presumptuous promises.” VIII. “Regarding article the eighth, we observe a pusillanimity verging on despair and by interpretation on suicide; a rash and presumptuous assertion concerning the remission of a sin; and an erroneous opinion in the said woman concerning man’s free will.” IX. “Regarding article the ninth, there appears a rash and presumptuous assertion, a pernicious falsehood. She contradicts herself in the preceding article, and holds evil opinions in matters of faith.” X. “Regarding article the tenth, we find rash and presumptuous affirmations, superstitious divination, blasphemy of St. Catherine and St. Margaret, transgression of the commandment to love her neighbor.” XI. “Regarding article the eleventh, this woman, supposing she has had the revelations and apparitions of which she boasts according to the circumstances of article one, is idolatrous, a caller up of evil spirits, a wanderer from the faith, and makes rash affirmations and unlawful oaths.” XII. “Regarding article the twelfth, the said woman is schismatic, erroneous in her opinions of the unity and authority of the Church, apostate: and still obstinately persists in her deviation from the faith.” “If this woman with a sane mind persisted in maintaining the propositions set forth in the twelve articles, and performed the things described therein, the opinion of the Faculty of Law, after a diligent examination, by way of counsel and doctrine, is in charitable speech: “Firstly, that this woman is schismatic, for schism is an unlawful separation, due to disobedience, from the unity of the Church, and that she separates herself from obedience to the Church Militant, as she has said, etc.” “That this woman deviates from the faith; contradicts the article of the faith contained in the symbol: Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam: and, as St. Jerome says, he who contradicts this article proves not only that he is ignorant, malicious and not Catholic, but heretical also.” “That this woman is apostate, for the hair which God gave her for a veil she has had untimely cut off, and also, with the same design has rejected woman’s dress and imitated the costume of men.” “That this woman is a liar and witch when she says she is sent from God, speaks with angels and saints, and yet justifies herself by no miracle or special evidence of the Scriptures. When the Lord wished to send Moses into Egypt to the sons of Israel he gave them a sign so that they might believe he was sent from God: he changed a rod into a serpent and a serpent into a rod. Likewise, when John the Baptist began his mission he brought a special testimony from the Scriptures when he said: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah had foretold.” “That this woman, in law and in presumption of law, deviates from the faith: for in the first place when she is anathema by the authority of the canon law she remains so long in this condition; in the second place, by declaring that she preferred not to receive the body of Christ, not to confess herself at the time ordained of the Church, rather than assume woman’s dress. She is, moreover, vehemently suspected of heresy and should be diligently examined on the articles of the faith.” “This woman sins also when she says she is as certain of being received into Paradise as if she were- already partaker of that blessed glory, seeing that on this earthly journey no pilgrim knows if he is worthy of glory or of punishment, which the sovereign judge alone can tell. Consequently if this woman being charitably exhorted and duly admonished by a competent judge, will not willingly return to the unity of the Catholic faith, publicly abjure her error to the good pleasure of this judge, and give fitting satisfaction, she must be abandoned to the discretion of the secular judge to receive the penalty proportionate to her crime. Given at Rouen, June 8th, 1431