medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
> It would certainly explain why an unmarried parish priest was accused of
> adultery - he was breaking his vow of celibacy.
But this does not seem to have been what happened in practise:
The following cases are all taken from the record of the bishop of Lincoln's
court of audience (1445-9) - as was the previous case I cited although that,
unlike the following, has been published
Clerical misdemeanours:
1) a priest accused of having sexual relations with an unmarried woman was
not cited for adultery but for 'incontinencia & incestu spirituali' (1448)
[Lincoln Archives, Episcopal Records: Cj/0, f 2]; another rector 'notatur
super incontinencia cum Johanne serviente sua' (1449) [f 53]; priest with
another servant: 'incontinencie' (1449) [f 54]
2)a rector 'fornicatur' with a woman [f 33];
3) priestly relations with married women constituted adultery (1446 - 2
rectors and a vicar with the same woman!) [ibid f 3, also f 34]; a vicar
'notatur super incestu et adulterio cum Alicia ... coniugata' [f 29]; a
prior 'adulteratur et incestuatur cum Agnete uxore...' (1446) [f 44];another
vicar accused of adultery with a married woman (1447) [f 40]; another prior
[f 53]
4) it was incest when the priest was involved with a nun (1447) [f 10];
5) one priest was 'notatur cum Alicia uxore Johannis' and was allowed to
purge himself of any crime without the crime being defined (1447) [f22];
6) a priest 'adulteratur' with a woman of unknown marital status [f29];
7) a vicar 'notatur cum Katerina.. de qua procreavit 2 proles' [f 46];
other cases of being 'notatur' with women without crime being defined [f 47]
8) a monk 'adulteratur' with a woman [one case where her marital status not
stated (1448) [f 26];
9) an Augustinian canon 'fornicatur' with woman of unknown married status
(1449) [f 51]
Although cases 5-8 are not clear cut, I would suggest that it was not the
breaking of the celibacy vows of priest or monk that constituted the
adultery but the violation of the sacrament of matrimony.
Lay miscreants:
1) as one might expect a man described as 'coniugatus' was accused of
adultery with a woman who was 'coniugata' (1447) [f 13, similar cases f 24,
f 45, 48]; and
2) a married man was accused of adultery with an unmarried woman (1448) [f
21, also 2 cases f 30, f 37, f 39];
3) a married woman accused of adultery with man of unknown status [f 42];
married woman accused of adultery with a Dominican [f 46]
4) several people, where neither was described as married, were accused of
fornication (1447) [f 13, f 29, f 41] [f 55];
but
5) a man not described as married was accused of 'adulteratur cum uxore
Thome Waryn' (no record of her citation) [f 16];'Hugo Kenyngton [no evidence
he was married] .. adulteratur cum Agnete ... & Johanna... mulieribus
coniungatis' (1447) [ f23]; one lay man 'adulteratur & incestuatur [she was
his god-daughter] cum Alicia uxore...' (1448) [f39]; a man of unknown
marital status 'adulteratur' with a married woman (1444) [f 40];
6) William de la Hey 'solutus [i.e. a single man] adulteratur cum Agnete
Pope uxore...' [f 30];
7) one man who had tired to frighten a married woman into 'diversis vicibus'
denied adultery [presumably because his threats were unsuccessful!] but was
forced to abjure her (1446) [f 39];
8) one man was accused on incest (not adultery) with his brother's wife
(1446) [f 41]
9) a man of unknown marital status 'adulteratur' with a nun (1448) [f 26]; -
which may confirm Brenda Cook's view, BUT
10) a woman of unknown marital status accused of incest with a monk (1448)
[f47]
It's a long time since I transcribed this material - I'd forgotten how much
there was in it that Hamilton Thompson had not published - I really must
work on it further!
I have only had time to look at the first third of the court book and I know
that not all the cases cited above are clear cut. However, I think the
thrust of this evidence is that adultery was considered by these judges at
this time as constituting violating the sacrament of matrimony (not holy
orders or vows of celibacy) by either party. I do not think that the court
officials, who were all very well qualified in canon (and often civil) law
were generally careless with their terms. As we have discussed before,
marriages were made 'in the face of the Church'. Whether or not this meant
that they happened in church porches, it meant that marriage was a matter of
concern for all the Church, not just for the individuals concerned. Any
member of the church violating the sacred bond was an adulterer. Unless
there is canonical evidence to the contrary, I would also assume continuity
rather than discontinuity between the medieval and modern Catholic church in
such matters. If anyone has a copy of RH Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in
Medieval England (1974), they may be able to give us concrete answers.
best wishes to all
Rosemary Hayes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ms Brenda M. Cook" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 9:33 PM
Subject: [M-R] Adultery v Fornication
> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>
>>
>> But you might not know whether the person you were fornicating with was
>> married or not - thus you might commit adultery unconsciously - surely
>> the
>> meaning of the definitition.
>
>
> Haven't we all missed the point ? As I understand it, adultery involves
> breaking a vow, fornication does not. If you are married, you have vowed
> to
> God that you will be faithful to your spouse; if you are in any sort of
> Major Holy Orders or are a Religious, you have vowed to God to remain
> celibate. Thus if in this condition you have sex with someone other than
> your spouse (if married) or with anyone at all (if vowed to celibacy) then
> you are an adulterer. If you simply have sex with another person and both
> of you are free from restraining vows, then you have committed
> fornication.
> In this way I suppose that the same act could be described as either
> adultery or fornication depending which person was being accused and what
> their station in life was. Does anyone have a problem with this ?
>
> It would certainly explain why an unmarried parish priest was accused of
> adultery - he was breaking his vow of celibacy.
>
> Brenda M.C.
>
> **********************************************************************
> To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
> to: [log in to unmask]
> To send a message to the list, address it to:
> [log in to unmask]
> To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
> to: [log in to unmask]
> In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For further information, visit our web site:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
>
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|