All medieval society knows that women are weaker and more susceptible to temptation, especially to sins of the flesh. In secular society, a man’s infidelity is a sin often overlooked, especially with women of lower classes. A woman, however, can be utterly destroyed socially if she is caught (and worse if she is married and caught), yet the prevalence of courtly love literature in France and Germany makes it sound dangerously at- tractive.
The Church in the Dark Medieval is very prag- matic when it comes to sex and sin. It even issues books to parish priests that give standard penances for a wide range of specific sexual sins, and teaches them how to gently “encourage” their parishioners to confess inti- macies that do not meet the standards of St. Augustine and other church fathers. Church leaders know that if men and women are permitted to spend time with each other, they will eventually succumb to temptation. “...To be always with a woman and not to have sexual relations with her,” writes Bernard of Clairveaux, “is more difficult than to raise the dead.”
Men and women who have sworn their chastity to God are usually protected from their own weaknesses by high cloister walls, a strict regimen of work, prayer and study, and sleeping in a common dormitory. A monk who has joined the Inquisition must interact with women, even secular women, in the performance of his duty to God. He must be even more vigilant to guard against temptations of the flesh than his brothers safe behind convent walls.
The pressure on a holy sister is even greater. Should she falter, the scandal reflects on her order as well as breaking a vow to God. Whether it is fair or not, the stigma of breaking that vow has more devastating consequences for a nun than it does for her male counterparts. A male inquisitor in holy orders who breaks his vow of celibacy may find himself assigned severe penances and transferred to a cell hundreds of miles away from the site of his original sin under the strict observance of his superior. A Red Sister or Sister of St. John could theoretically find herself returned to the cloister indefinitely for the same sin.
In practice, however, the Inquisition walks a fine line between being firm in demanding blameless, chaste and godly behavior at all times from its celibate mem- bers. It realizes that men and women are not without flaw, and are all in their nature susceptible to sin. While the Marzonian Rule remains strict in its admo- nitions to prevent the occurrence of sin, dealing with those who have faltered is left up to the rector of a cell or the local Council of Faith. Whether the sinning inquisitor (or inquisitors) are discovered trying to hide their fault, or whether they confess it in a penitential manner also carries a good bit of weight in their judgment. Those who confess willingly may be split up and sent to different cells thereafter so as to avoid further temptation, but they remain part of the Inqui- sition. Those who seek to hide their sin, however, are dealt with more severely. If they would hide one sin, they might well hide even greater ones, which could endanger far more than their own souls.
This puts an inquisitor who finds himself harboring strong feelings (and carnal desires) for another in a difficult and unenviable position, when one or both of them are in holy orders. Can the Sister of St. John keep her feelings for a certain Red Brother a secret, save perhaps in the confes- sional — and dare she even confess? Can the Poor Knight continue to work alongside a noble lady of House Murnau but never feel anything but the chaste affection of a brother for his sister? Can the Eye of God blacksmith, who is not bound to chastity, continue to restrain himself in the close company of the Red Sister he has loved since childhood? If they succumb to their passions, do they attempt to keep it a secret and risk discovery — or can they face the shame of confession, penance and permanent
H
OMOSEXUALITY ANDTHEM
EDIEVALC
HURCHC
he segregation by gender practiced by the Church for its monastic brothers and sisters also attempted to prohibit homosexual liaisons (as there was clearly more opportunity), as well as hetero- sexual ones in more subtle ways (by requiring monks and nuns to sleep clothed, and in separate beds). Sexual sin was sexual sin, no matter what genders were involved. It is important to note, however, that in the Middle Ages, homosexuality was something you did, not something you were. It almost always applied only to men. Attitudes varied from culture to culture, of course; there were places where such behavior from the clergy was considered no more unusual than seeing a priest living openly with a mistress. In the confessional, however, the “sin of Sodom” was treated as an even more sinful and shameful act than adultery. Two inquisitors confess- ing or caught in such an act would likely receive even harsher penances, depending on the judgment of their rector and Council of Faith, than their hetero- sexually sinning colleagues.separation? Is this love they feel from God, the author of all love — or a carnal temptation from the Devil to weaken them in their fight against Hell’s minions?
The answers to such questions can only come from the inquisitor’s own heart. Thus far, no inquisitor under vows has asked to be released from them. Such a request would have to go to the Pope, and would only be granted under extraordinary circumstances. Cardi- nal Marzone and the Supreme Council of Faith do not intend such a request will ever be heard. Sins can be forgiven, but monastic vows are for life. Even breaking those vows does not absolve one from its perpetual requirements before God.
Family Values
Of course, not all inquisitors are bound to chastity, which creates an entirely different set of problems. Many members of the Oculi Dei and the House of Murnau are perfectly free to marry, have families, and indulge in a wide range of activities otherwise consid- ered sinful for their clerical comrades. Still, many non-monastic inquisitors are willing to accept living under semi-monastic rule (at least temporarily) in order to be part of the Inquisition, as such a lifestyle has always been considered a kind of Christian ideal and blessed by God. This allows them to acquire the ben- efits of a holy life without having to commit to it for the rest of their lives.
Inquisitors not under vows are expected to behave in a righteous and Christian manner. Marriage, even to another inquisitor who is free to do so, is far better than succumbing to sin. The average chapter-house does not have married quarters, however, nor does the Marzonian Rule address many questions faced by non- monastic Inquisitors. Should a married inquisitor live separately from his wife while serving together with a given cell? Should he live apart from the cell and so miss the communal Christian life in order to live with his wife? What if his services are needed by a cell a hundred miles away — does he leave his wife at home for months at a time (circumstances not unusual with merchants and knights in service to a distant lord), or bring her with him to a new city and risk her life as well as his own, should the Enemy learn of her?
With these unanswered concerns, it is no wonder that some inquisitors, particularly among the Oculi Dei, consider the imposition of the Marzonian Rule on non-monastic inquisitors to be discriminatory and unfair. Many Eyes of God do not even reveal their identities to other inquisitors, much less details about their personal lives and families. The inquisitor from House Murnau may already be married, or be expected to marry and raise a brood to perpetuate his family line. He may have feudal duties as well, to serve his secular overlord for so many days a year — an overlord that knows nothing of the Inquisition or its purposes. These individuals may have commitments outside the Inqui-
sition that conflict or interfere with their duties. This begs the question: where does their true loyalty lie, with their families or with God?