POINT
OF VIEW
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
|
