Joan of
Arc

The truth is, since I was thirteen, I have been hearing
unknown voices very often; they are beautiful and melodious voices... Sweet as
it is, the nightingale's song is nothing compared to them.

—Thérèse of Lisieux

From The Plays of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux

“The Mission of Joan of Arc”

21 January 1894

Joan of Arc

and

Her Trial Transcripts

Cover Design:  Tanja Grubisic/bookcoverworld.com

Cover Photo: Mazirama/bigstock.com

Trial Transcripts and Epilogue are Copyright © 2015
Little Flower Publishing.

All rights reserved under International and
Pan-American copyright conventions.

No part of this book titled Trial Transcripts or
Epilogue may be reproduced in any manner without written permission, except in
the case of some brief quotations contained within critical articles or
publication reviews.

Published simultaneously in the United States of
America, France, and other countries worldwide.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by
permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Little Flower Publishing

Dallas, TX

June 2016

When asked why the angel came to her rather than to another person, she
answered, “It pleased God to drive back the king’s enemies through a simple
virgin.”

—Trial Transcripts

Contents

Trial
Transcripts: Edited and Translated by E.P. Sanguinetti

Pre-Trial Phase (January 9 - February
20)

Preparatory Trial (February 21 -
March 17)

Court Transcripts are Read in Joan’s
Presence (March 24)

Joan Says It Is Not “In Her” To Wear
Women’s Clothes (March 25)

Ordinary Trial; 70 Accusations
Presented (March 26 – 28)

Joan is Interviewed About Submitting
to the Church (March 31)

70 Accusations are Summarized into 12
Accusations (April 2 - April 4)

The Summary of Accusations is
Submitted to the Assessors (April 5)

Joan is Privately Admonished in Her
Prison Cell (April 18)

Joan is Publicly Admonished by the
Judges on Six Items (May 2)

Joan is Threatened with Torture at
the Rouen Castle (May 9)

Individual Assessors Declare Whether
Joan Should be Tortured (May 12)

Statements from the University of
Paris are Read (May 19)

Joan’s Faults are Explained to Her
and the Trial Ends (May 23)

Joan Renounces Heresy on a Scaffold
at the Rouen Cemetery (May 24)

Joan Abandons Men’s Clothes and Puts
on a Woman’s Dress (May 24)

Joan Resumes Wearing Men’s Clothes
and is Interviewed (May 28)

Judges Deliberate on Relapse of
Wearing Men’s Clothes (May 29)

Joan is Burned at the Stake in the
Old Market Place of Rouen (May 30)

Epilogue
by E.P. Sanguinetti

Joan of Arc: Transgender?

Science of Attraction and Repulsion

Generalizations about Homosexuality
in Key Biblical Texts

Was Joan of Arc a Lesbian?

Origin of Joan’s Voices

Joan of Arc: Icon of Christ and the
Blessed Virgin Mary?

Joan of Arc: Icon of Suppression of
Women in the Church?

Using Symbols and Typologies to
Interpret Patterns in Information

Trial
Transcripts: Edited and Translated by E.P. Sanguinetti

Pre-Trial Phase
(January 9 - February 20)

Preparatory Trial
(February 21 - March 17)

Court Transcripts are
Read in Joan’s Presence (March 24)

Joan Says It Is Not
“In Her” To Wear Women’s Clothes (March 25)

Ordinary Trial; 70
Accusations Presented (March 26 – 28)

Joan is Interviewed
About Submitting to the Church (March 31)

70 Accusations are
Summarized into 12 Accusations (April 2 - April 4)

The Summary of
Accusations is Submitted to the Assessors (April 5)

Joan is Privately
Admonished in Her Prison Cell (April 18)

Joan is Publicly
Admonished by the Judges on Six Items (May 2)

Joan is Threatened
with Torture at the Rouen Castle (May 9)

Individual Assessors
Declare Whether Joan Should be Tortured (May 12)

Statements from the
University of Paris are Read (May 19)

Joan’s Faults are
Explained to Her and the Trial Ends (May 23)

Joan Renounces Heresy
on a Scaffold at the Rouen Cemetery (May 24)

Joan Abandons Men’s
Clothes and Puts on a Woman’s Dress (May 24)

Joan Resumes Wearing
Men’s Clothes and is Interviewed (May 28)

Judges Deliberate on
Relapse of Wearing Men’s Clothes (May 29)

Joan is Burned at the
Stake in the Old Market Place of Rouen (May 30)

Sources

Guillaume Manchon, a notary, produced the original
transcripts in Medieval/Middle French, with oversight and assistance from two
other notaries, Guillaume Colles and Nicolas Taquel. Later, Manchon and one of
the trial judges, Thomas de Courcelles, translated the Middle French into Latin
and five handwritten copies were made. One copy was sent to Rome, three copies
are in Paris, and one copy was destroyed ceremoniously in 1456 at the
conclusion of a Rehabilitation Trial, which nullified the verdict of the
Condemnation Trial. The first unabridged translations of those original Latin
transcripts were published in modern French in 1841 by Jules Étienne Joseph
Quicherat and in English in 1932 by W.P. Barrett. This abridged version
produced by Emilia Philomena Sanguinetti was translated and edited using those
two unabridged translations and Pierre Champion’s Procès de Condamnation de
Jeanne d’Arc, Texte, Traduction et Notes, published in 1921. Sanguinetti’s
Trial Transcripts were edited solely for readability in modern English, and no
attempt was made to use language or the editing process as a means to support
or refute various opinions about the sexuality and gender identity of Joan of
Arc, the history of the Catholic Church, or the origin of Joan’s “Voices.”

Pre-Trial Phase (January 9 - February 20)

January 9, Experts Gather to Discuss Evidence

[Introductory statements are entered into the court’s records,
including the following.]

It has pleased divine Providence that a woman of the name
of Joan, commonly known as the Maid [the Virgin], should be apprehended by
military personnel within the boundaries and limits of our diocese and
jurisdiction. The reputation of this woman has already been spread across many
areas: how wholly forgetful of womanly honesty, and having thrown off the bonds
of shame, careless of all the modesty of womankind, she wore with an
astonishing and extreme brazenness immodest garments belonging to the male sex;
and her audacity increased until she was not afraid to behave, speak and spread
many ideas contrary to the Catholic faith and damaging to orthodox beliefs; and
by doing so, in our diocese and in several other areas, she is said to be
guilty of many offenses.

[A series of letters written by doctors and masters of
theology from the University of Paris is introduced for discussion; among those
letters is the following.]

Let this woman, commonly known as the Virgin, a prisoner,
be sent to the king to be delivered to the Church so that she may be tried in
court, being suspected of having committed numerous crimes such as sorcery,
idolatry, the calling-up of evil spirits and many other activities opposed to
our faith. Although she should not be considered a prisoner of war, nevertheless,
to reward those who captured her, the king is pleased to grant them up to the
sum of 6,000 francs, and to the individual who captured her, the king will
grant a pension of 200 or 300 pounds for the upkeep of his estate.

Because this woman was captured in his diocese and under
his spiritual jurisdiction, the Bishop requires that these individuals deliver
her to him so that he may appropriately try her in court. This he is ready to
do with the assistance of the Inquisitor of the Faith, and if need be, with the
assistance of doctors of theology and other notable persons who are experts in
judicial matters, as the legal case requires, in order that the trial may be
carried out in a thorough, holy and proper manner, to the exaltation of the
faith and to the instruction of many who have been deceived and abused through
this woman’s actions.

January 13, Reading the Evidence against Joan

In the city of Rouen, we, with the Bishop of Beauvais,
Pierre Cauchon, assembled a group of religious authorities and experts in canon
law. All evidence that had been previously gathered was reviewed and members of
the group asked each other for advice about the procedures that could be used
in the forthcoming trial. Included in the group were Gilles, abbot of St. Trinite
de Fecamp, Doctor of Theology; Nicolas de Venderes, licensed in canon law;
William Haiton and Nicolas Couppequesne, bachelors of theology; Jean de La
Fontaine, licensed in canon law; and Nicolas Loyseleur, Canon of the Cathedral
of Rouen.

We read the specific evidence, collected both in the
district where this woman was born and elsewhere, as well as documents prepared
on items indicated in earlier reports. When all had been seen and heard, the
lords and masters decided that specific articles should be prepared so that the
case might appear to be more specific and better organized, so that officials
could make decisions with greater certainty regarding whether there was
sufficient evidence for a summons and a trial in matters of the faith.

In accordance with their advice, we decided to proceed to
prepare the articles, and we appointed people who were known as authorities in
canon and civil law to assist the notaries who would produce the documentation;
and they, diligently complying with our command, proceeded to write the
articles on the following Sunday, Monday and Tuesday.

January 23, Decision on Preparatory Information

In the presence of the appointed experts the articles were
read aloud, and we asked them for their most prudent opinions on the articles
and the procedures that will be used in the forthcoming trial. We were advised
that the articles were produced competently and that it was appropriate to
proceed to interrogations corresponding to the articles. We declared that the
Bishop of Beauvais, Pierre Cauchon, could and should proceed to produce the
preparatory information regarding the behavior of the prisoner. Following this
advice, we decided and commanded that the preparatory information be organized,
but since we were otherwise engaged we appointed the esteemed and discreet
Master Jean de La Fontaine, who is licensed in canon law, to conduct this task.

February 13, Appointed Officers Take Oaths

Bishop Cauchon and other authorities required the court
officials and notaries to take an oath to fulfill their offices faithfully. In
obedience, they swore to fulfill and faithfully exercise their duties.

February 14-16, Preparatory Information is Produced

Jean de La Fontaine, with assistance from two notaries,
Guillaume Manchon and Guillaume Boisguillaume, produced the preparatory
information.

February 19, Decision to Summon the Inquisitor

Bishop Cauchon and other authorities informed the
assembled officials that they had ordered a preparatory investigation into the
words and behavior of this woman to discover if there was sufficient cause to
begin proceedings against her and summon her in matters of the faith.

In their presence we read the articles and depositions
contained in the preparatory evidence, which was followed by a lengthy and expert
discussion of the evidence. We concluded that we had sufficient evidence to
begin proceedings against this woman and summon her in matters of the faith,
and we ruled that she should be cited and summoned to answer specific questions
that would be addressed to her.

To benefit and facilitate carrying out the legal case, and
with our respect for the apostolic Holy See [authority of the Catholic Church
based in Rome], which has especially appointed lord Inquisitors of Heretical
Error to correct evils that arise against orthodox faith, we decided at the
advice of our experienced counselors to invite and summon the lord Inquisitor
of Heretics for the kingdom of France to collaborate with us in this trial if
it was his pleasure and interest. However, because the Inquisitor was then
absent from the city of Rouen we commanded that his deputy, who was present in
Rouen, be summoned and called in his place.

The same Monday at four in the afternoon we were visited
in our house by the esteemed and discreet Master Jean Le Maistre of the Order
of Preaching Brothers [Dominicans], deputy of the lord Inquisitor of the
kingdom of France and appointed by him to the city and Diocese of Rouen. We
summoned and required the deputy to join us so that we might proceed with the
trial, and we offered to acquaint him with everything that had already been
accomplished and what was being planned for the future.

The deputy answered that he was prepared to show us his
commission, or letters of appointment, given to him by the lord Inquisitor, and
he would gladly perform everything he was bound by duty to do on behalf of the
holy Inquisition. But because he was especially appointed for the diocese and
city of Rouen only, he doubted whether his commission could be interpreted to
include the present trial, although the territory had been ceded to us because
we had undertaken these proceedings in virtue of our jurisdiction in the
Diocese of Beauvais. We answered that he should return to us tomorrow when we
would be able to get additional counsel on the matter.

February 20, Deputy of the Inquisitor Declines to Act

Jean Le Maistre replied that to ensure the serenity of his
conscience and the safer conduct of the trial, he would not participate unless
he received special authorization. Nevertheless, he indicated that we should
proceed until he received additional counsel regarding the question of whether
he could, by virtue of his commission, participate in the conduct of the trial.
We then offered to acquaint him with our previous activities and future plans.

After receiving decisions by assessors of the evidence,
which were documented in written letters, we ruled that this woman should be
summoned to appear before us the following Wednesday.

Preparatory Trial (February 21 - March 17)

February 21, First Session in a Public Venue

On Wednesday, February 21, at eight o’clock in the
morning, Bishop Cauchon and others arrived at the royal chapel in the castle of
Rouen, where they summoned the woman to appear before us at that hour and day.

In the presence of authorities and officials the first
letters read were from the king regarding the surrender of this woman, and then
the letters from Rouen granting us territorial authority.

Then Master Jean d’Estivet, appointed as Promoter in the
trial, reported he had ordered Joan to be cited and summoned by our usher to
appear at this place, on the day and hour prescribed, to answer questions that
could be legally put to her, as is clearly shown in the usher’s report affixed
to our letters of citation:

Given at Rouen under our seal on Tuesday, February 20,
1431.

Pierre, by divine mercy the Bishop of Beauvais, being in
possession of territory in the city and Diocese of Rouen, by the authority of
the esteemed chapter of the cathedral of Rouen, in the vacancy of the
arch-episcopal seat and for the purpose of conducting and concluding this
matter, to the dean of the Christendom of Rouen, to all priests, whether
curates or not, of this city and diocese, who will see these letters, I say to
you, greetings in the name and consummator of our faith.

Because a woman commonly called Joan the Virgin was apprehended
and captured within our Diocese of Beauvais, and because she surrendered and
was dispatched, given and delivered to us by the most Christian and peaceful
prince, the lord king of France and England, as a person overwhelmingly
suspected of heresy so that we could begin proceedings against her in matters
of the faith, and in view of the fact that rumors of her behavior and her
words, which were wounding our faith, had notoriously spread not only
throughout the kingdom of France but also throughout all Christendom, we, who
desire to proceed authoritatively in these affairs, decided after a diligent
inquiry and consultation with educated men, that Joan should be summoned, cited
and heard to respond to the articles and questions that have been made against
her upon matters concerning the faith. Therefore, we require each and every one
of you not to wait for another person if he is summoned by us, nor to excuse
himself on account of another person.

Now, officially summon Joan, so overwhelmingly suspected
of heresy, to appear before us in the royal chapel of the castle of Rouen at
eight o’clock in the morning on Wednesday, February 21, to speak the truth about
the articles, questions and other matters, and to be dealt with as we think
just and reasonable, declaring to her that she will be excommunicated if she
fails to appear before us on that day; give us a faithful account in writing,
you who are to be present, to document the events.

Usher’s Statement

To the reverend father in Christ, the lord Pierre, by
divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, possessing territory in the city and Diocese
of Rouen, in the vacancy of the arch-episcopal seat for the purpose of conducting
and concluding this matter, and by the pleasure of the esteemed chapter of the
cathedral of Rouen, your humble priest, Jean Massieu, dean of the Christendom
of Rouen, offers prompt obedience to your orders in all reverence and honor.
Let it be known to you, reverend father, that in virtue of the summons you
addressed to me, I have authoritatively cited to appear before you at eight
o’clock in the morning on Wednesday, February 21, in the royal chapel of the
castle of Rouen, the woman commonly called the Virgin, whom I have imprisoned
within the limits of this castle and whom you overwhelmingly suspect of heresy,
to answer truthfully to the articles and questions that will be addressed to
her upon matters of the faith and on other points which you consider her to be
suspect, and to be dealt with according to law and reason, and the intention of
your letters.

Joan replied that she would willingly appear before you
and answer truthfully regarding the questions to which she will be subjected.
Nevertheless, she requested for this trial that you summon clerics of the
French side equal in number to those of the English side. Furthermore, she
humbly begs you, reverend father, to permit her to attend Mass before she
appears before you, and she asked that I inform you of these requests, which I
have done. By these present letters sealed with my seal and signed with my signature,
I testify to you, reverend father, that all this has been done by me. Given in
the year of our Lord, 1431, on Tuesday, February 20.

After reading the letters submitted by the officials, the
Promoter immediately requested that this woman be commanded to appear before us
in judgment in accordance with the summons, to be examined upon certain
articles concerning the faith.

But since this woman had requested to be allowed to attend
Mass, we informed the assessors that we had consulted with notable lords and
masters on this question; and in view of the crimes with which this woman has
been accused, especially the impropriety of the men’s clothing that she
continues to wear, it was their opinion that we should properly defer
permission for her to attend Mass and the Divine Office prayers.

Joan is led in to the Courtroom

While we were saying these things this woman was brought
in by our usher. Since she was appearing in judgment before us, we began to
explain how this Joan had been taken and apprehended within the boundaries and
limits of our Diocese of Beauvais; how many of her actions, not only in our
diocese but in many other regions, had harmed the orthodox faith, and how
reports of her behavior had spread throughout all of Christendom; and how
recently the most serene and Christian prince, our lord the king, had given and
delivered this woman to us to be tried in matters of the faith according to law
and reason.

Therefore, considering the public rumors and reports, and
after expert consultation with men educated in canon and civil law, we ruled
that Joan should be summoned and cited by letter to truthfully answer these
questions in matters of the faith and other items, according to law and reason,
as documented in the letters shown by the Promoter.

As it is our office to keep and exalt the Catholic faith,
we first, with the gentle comfort of Jesus Christ whose issue this is,
charitably admonished and required Joan, who is seated before us, that to
quickly end this trial and unburden her own conscience, she should answer the
whole truth regarding the questions to be put to her on these matters of faith,
avoiding deception and other ploys that would hinder truthful confession.

Furthermore, in our official capacity, we lawfully
required Joan to take the proper oath, with her hands on the holy Gospels, to
speak the truth when answering the questions put to her.

Joan replied, “I do not know what you wish to examine me
on. Perhaps you might ask me things that I would not be willing to discuss.”

Then we said, “Will you swear to speak the truth about
those things which are asked of you concerning the faith, which you know?”

Joan replied that concerning her father and her mother and
what she had done since she had traveled through France, she would gladly
swear; but concerning the revelations from God, these she had never told nor
revealed to anyone, except only to King Charles; she said she would not discuss
the revelations, even to save her life, because she had them in visions or by
her secret counsel; however, she said that within a week she would know with
certainty whether she might reveal them at a future date.

Then, repeatedly, we, with Bishop Cauchon, admonished and
required her to take an oath to speak the truth in those things that concerned
our faith.

Joan, kneeling, and with her two hands upon the book,
namely the Catholic Missal, swore to answer truthfully whatever would be asked
of her, which she knew, concerning matters of the faith, but she was silent
regarding whether she would discuss or reveal to any person the content of the revelations
made to her.

After she took the oath Joan was questioned by us about
her name and her surname. She replied that in her own territory she was called
Joanette, and after she came to France she was called Joan. Regarding her
surname she said she didn’t know it. As a result, she was questioned about the
district from which she came. She replied that she was born in the village of
Domremy, which is contiguous with the village of Greux.

Asked about the names of her father and mother, she
replied that her father’s name was Jacques d’Arc and her mother’s Isabelle. Asked
where she was baptized, she replied it was in the church of Domremy.

Asked who were her godfathers and godmothers, she said one
of her godmothers was named Agnes, another was named Joan and another Sibylle;
regarding her godfathers, one was named Jean Lingue and another was named Jean
Barrey. She said she had several other godmothers according to what she had
heard from her mother.

We asked her what priest had baptized her and she said it
was Jean Minet. Asked if he was still living, she said she believed he was.

Asked how old she was, she said she thought she was
nineteen years old.

She added that her mother taught her the Our Father
prayer, the Hail Mary and the Creed, and that no one but her mother had taught
her the Creed.

When we asked her to say the Our Father she said that if
we would hear her in Confession then she would gladly say it for us. As we
repeatedly demanded that she say the Our Father prayer for us, she replied that
she would not say it unless we would hear her say it in the Sacrament of
Confession. Then we told her that we would gladly send one or two distinguished
men who spoke French to hear her say the Our Father prayer, to which Joan
replied she would not say it to them, except in Confession.

At this point we forbade Joan to leave the prison cell
assigned to her in the castle of Rouen without our authorization, under penalty
of conviction of the crime of heresy. She answered that she did not accept this
prohibition, adding that if she escaped nobody could accuse her of breaking or
violating her oath because she had given this oath [of not escaping] to nobody.

She then complained that she was imprisoned with chains
and restraints made of iron. We told her that she had tried elsewhere and on
several occasions to escape from prison, and therefore, so that she might be
more safely and securely guarded, an order had been given to bind her with iron
chains.

She replied, “It is true that I wished, and I still wish,
to escape, as is lawful for any captive or prisoner.”

To safely guard Joan, we then commissioned John Grey,
Squire of the bodyguard of our lord the king, and with him Jean Berwoit and
William Talbot, directing them to guard her well and faithfully, and to permit
nobody to speak with her without our consent. Then, with their hands on the
Gospels, they solemnly swore to do so.

Finally, having completed all the preliminaries of the
trial, we commanded Joan to appear before us the following day, Thursday, at
eight o’clock in the morning, in the Robing Room at the end of the great hall
of the castle of Rouen.

February 22, Second Session

On Thursday, February 22, we entered the Robing Room at
the end of the great hall of the castle of Rouen, where there were assembled
the reverend fathers, lords and masters.

In their presence we saw Jean Le Maistre, deputy of the
lord Inquisitor, who had been summoned and required by us to take part in the
proceedings. We offered to discuss with him all that had been so far
accomplished and what was being planned.

But the deputy said that he had been appointed and commissioned
by the lord Inquisitor for the city and Diocese of Rouen only, whereas we were
holding the trial, by reason of our jurisdiction in Beauvais, on ceded
territory. Therefore, to avoid nullification of the trial and for the peace of
his conscience, he put off his participation until he could receive further
counsel and a more extended power or commission from the lord Inquisitor. In
the meantime, the deputy said he would be pleased to have us continue our
proceedings without interruption. When he heard our understanding of the
situation, the deputy replied, “What you have said is true. I have been, and I
am, as far as my capability allows me, satisfied that you should continue the
trial.”

Joan was then brought before us and we admonished and
required her, under penalty of law, to take the oath she had taken the day
before, and to swear to speak the truth, absolutely and simply, on everything
which she was asked regarding the matters of which she was accused.

Her reply was that she had already taken an oath yesterday
and that should be sufficient.

Then we required her to swear, because nobody, not even a
prince, could refuse to take an oath when required in matters of the faith. She
answered again, saying, “I swore yesterday and that should be quite enough. You
overburden me.”

Finally she swore to speak the truth regarding that which
concerned the faith. Then the distinguished professor of sacred theology,
Master Jean Beaupere, at our order and command, questioned Joan as follows.

He first insisted that she answer truthfully, as she had
sworn, to whatever he should ask her.

She replied, “You may well ask me some things that to some
I shall answer truthfully and to others I shall not; if you were well informed
about me, you would wish me to be out of your hands. I have done nothing except
by revelation.”

Asked how old she was when she left her father’s house,
she said she could not say with certainty.

Asked if in her youth she had learned any craft, she said
yes, to sew and to spin, and in sewing and spinning she feared no woman in
Rouen.

She admitted it was because of fear of the Burgundians
[inhabitants of the region of Burgundy who were allied with the English against
the French in the Hundred Years War] that she left her father’s house and went
to the town of Neufchateau, in Lorraine, to the house of a woman named La
Rousse, where she stayed for about two weeks.

She said that as long as she was at home with her father
she did ordinary domestic tasks and did not go into the fields to look after
the sheep and other animals.

Asked if she confessed her sins once a year, she said yes,
to her local priest, and when he wasn’t available she confessed to another
priest, with his permission. Sometimes, maybe two or three times, she said she
confessed to mendicant friars, but that was in the town of Neufchateau. She
said she received the Sacrament of the Eucharist at Easter.

When asked if, at feasts other than Easter, she received
the Sacrament of the Eucharist, she said, “Go to the next question.”

She said that at the age of 13 she first heard a Voice
from God, to help her and to guide her. She said the first time she heard the
Voice she was very frightened.

The first time the Voice came it occurred during the
summer, around noon, when she was in her father’s garden. She heard the Voice
on her right side, coming from the direction of the church.

Whenever she heard the Voice it was almost always
accompanied by a visible light, and the light came from the same side as the
Voice, and generally the light was a very bright light.

Asked how she could see the light since it was at her side
and not in front of her, she didn’t reply and went on to describe other things.
She said that if she was in a forest or a wooded area she easily heard the
Voices coming to her.

She said that a characteristic of the Voice was that it
was admirable, and she believed it was sent from God. When she heard the Voice
for the third time she said she knew that it was the Voice of an angel; she
also said this Voice always protected her well, and that she understood it
well.

Asked what instructions this Voice gave to her regarding
the salvation of her soul, she said it taught her to be good and to go to
church often. The Voice also told her that she must travel to France. Joan added
that Beaupere, the questioner, would not learn from her at this time in what
form that Voice appeared to her.

She said this Voice told her once or twice a week that she
should leave her house and come to France, and that her father wasn’t aware
that she was planning to leave. She said the Voice told her to come, and that she
could no longer stay where she was.

The Voice told her that she should use military force to
retake the city of Orleans [which was occupied by English soldiers]. To do this
she said the Voice told her that she, Joan, should go to see Robert de
Baudricourt in the town of Vaucouleurs, of which he was captain, and that he
would provide an escort for her. Joan replied to the Voice saying she was a
poor maid, and that she knew nothing about riding horses or fighting in
military campaigns. After this conversation with her Voice she said she went to
an uncle of hers and told him that she wanted to stay with him for some time.
She stayed there about eight days and told her uncle that she must go to the
town of Vaucouleurs, and so her uncle took her there.

When she reached Vaucouleurs she said she easily
recognized Robert de Baudricourt even though she had never seen him before. She
said she knew who he was through her Voice, because the Voice told her it was
Robert de Baudricourt. Joan told Robert that she must go to France, but twice
he refused to listen to her and disregarded her. The third time she spoke he
listened to her and gave her an escort, and the Voice had told her that this
would occur.

Then she said the Duke of Lorraine ordered that she should
be taken to him, and she went to him and told him she wanted to go to France.
The duke questioned her about the recovery of his health, but she replied she
knew nothing about his illness and she spoke very little to him about her
journey. Nevertheless, she told the duke to send his son and some men to escort
her to France, and that she would pray to God for his health. She then returned
to the town of Vaucouleurs.

She said when she departed from Vaucouleurs she wore men’s
clothes, and she carried a sword that Robert de Baudricourt had given her, but
no other weapons. She was accompanied by a knight, a squire and four servants,
and when she reached the town of Saint Urbain she slept there in an abbey.

She said that on her journey she passed through Auxerre
and she attended Mass in the principal church there. From that time forward she
said she frequently heard her Voices, including the one already mentioned.

When we required her to say by what counsel she decided to
wear men’s clothes, several times she refused to answer. Finally, she answered
she could not say that anyone gave her the counsel to wear men’s clothes, but
several times she answered this question in various ways.

Regarding the men who accompanied her on her journey, she
said that Robert de Baudricourt had made the men swear an oath that they would
accompany her in a safe manner. Robert said to Joan, “Go,” and as she departed,
he said, “Go, and come what may.”

Joan said she knows very well that God loves the Duke of
Orleans, and because of this love, she has had more revelations concerning the
Duke of Orleans than any man alive except King Charles. She also said that it
was altogether necessary to exchange her women’s clothes for men’s clothes; she
believed that her counsel instructed her well.

She said that she sent letters to the English military
occupational force at Orleans telling them to depart. In the copies of these
letters, which we read to her here in Rouen, she indicated there were
discrepancies between these copies and the originals. In one copy, it reads “surrender
to the Virgin,” whereas she indicated it should read, “surrender to the King.”
There are also the words “body for body” and “commander-in-chief [Joan],” which
she said were not in the original letters.

After this, Joan said she traveled to see the king without
any interference or difficulties. She arrived at the town of St. Catherine de
Fierbois and then reached Chinon around noon, where she lodged at an inn; after
dinner she went to see the king, who was at the castle.

She said that when she entered a room at the castle, which
was full of people, she was able to recognize the king [who was in disguise and
mingling among the people] because her Voice told her which man was the king.
She told the king she wanted to make war on the English.

Asked whether, when the Voice showed her the king, there
was a light, she answered, “Go to the next question.”

Asked if she saw an angel above the king, she answered,
“Spare me that. Continue on.”

She said that before the king put her to work he had
experienced several apparitions and beautiful revelations. Asked what
revelations and apparitions the king had, she answered, “I will not tell you.
It is not now the time to tell you; but go to the king and he will tell you.”

Joan said that her Voice had promised her that the king
would receive her. She also said that other people accompanying her knew very
well that the Voice was sent to Joan from God, and that they saw and knew this
Voice. She further said that the king and several others heard and saw the
Voices that came to Joan; among those were Charles de Bourbon and two or three
others.

Then Joan said that there is not a day that goes by when
she does not hear this Voice; and that she needs the Voice very much. She said
she never asked the Voice for any final reward except only the salvation of her
soul.

Her Voice told her to remain at the town of Saint-Denis in
France, and although Joan wished to remain there, the lords took her away
against her will. She added, however, that if she had not been wounded she
would not have left Saint-Denis; she was wounded in the trenches on her way to
Paris, but she recovered in five days.

She admitted that she was responsible for planning a
military assault that was to be carried out on Paris; and when she was asked if
that day was a Catholic feast day, she answered that she knew it certainly was.
Asked if she thought it was a good thing to do, to attack Paris on a Catholic feast
day, she answered, “Go to the next question.”

At this point in the proceedings it appeared to us that we
had covered sufficient ground for one day, so we postponed additional
questioning until the following Saturday, at eight o’clock in the morning.

February 24, Third Session

On the following Saturday, February 24, we gathered in the
same room in the castle of Rouen, where Joan appeared in judgment before us in
the presence of many reverend fathers, doctors and masters. We first required
Joan to speak the simple and absolute truth on the questions put to her, and to
express no reservations regarding taking her oath; three times we admonished
her to take the oath. Joan replied, “Just let me speak,” and then said, “By my
faith, you could ask me things that I would not answer.”

She added, “Perhaps I shall not answer you truthfully in
many things that you ask me concerning the revelations; and perhaps you would
constrain me to tell you things that I have sworn not to speak about, and so I
would be perjured, and you would not want that.”

She added, “I tell you, be careful about what you say,
because you are my judges and you assume a great responsibility, and you truly
overburden me.” She said that she thought it should be enough to have taken the
oath twice already.

Then, when we asked if she would swear, simply and
absolutely, she replied, “You may well do without it! I have sworn enough,
twice!”

She added that all the clergy of Rouen and Paris could not
condemn her except by law. She said that regarding her travels in France she
would willingly speak the truth, but not the whole truth; and a week would not
be enough for that.

But we, including the Bishop, told her to take the advice
of the assessors regarding whether or not she should swear. To that she replied
she would speak the truth about her coming to France, but nothing else, and
that we must not speak to her about this anymore.

We said that she made herself open to suspicion if she
would not swear to speak the truth. She replied in the same way as before.

Again, we required her to swear, precisely and absolutely.
Then she replied that she would willingly say what she knew, but not
everything. She also said that she came from God, and that there is nothing for
her to do here, and she asked to be sent back to God, from whom she came.

Required and admonished to swear under threat of being
accused of what was attributed to her, she answered, “Continue on.”

A last time we required her to swear, and urgently
admonished her to speak the truth in matters concerning the trial, telling her
that she exposed herself to great danger by her refusal. She answered, “I am
ready to swear to speak the truth of what I know concerning the trial,” and it
was in this manner that she took the oath.

Then, at our order, she was questioned by the
distinguished Doctor Jean Beaupere, who first asked her when she last had
anything to eat or drink. She answered that since yesterday noon she had not
had anything to eat or drink.

Asked when she last heard the Voice come to her, she said,
“I heard it yesterday and today.”

Asked at what hour yesterday she heard the Voice, she said
she heard it three times: once in the morning, once at Vespers [early evening
prayers] and once when the Hail Mary [church bells] rung in the evening. Often
she heard the Voice more frequently than that.

Asked what she was doing yesterday morning when the Voice
came to her, she said she was sleeping and the Voice woke her up.

We asked if the Voice woke her up by touching her on the
arm and she answered that it was without touching her.

We asked if the Voice was actually in her room and she
replied that she didn’t know, but that it was certainly in the castle.

When we asked if she thanked the Voice and knelt down, she
answered that she did thank it, but she was sitting on the bed, and she put her
hands together in prayer. Afterward she asked the Voice for advice and the
Voice told her to answer our questions boldly.

We asked her what the Voice said when she was awakened.
She said she asked the Voice to guide her in her replies to our questions, and
she told the Voice to ask for the counsel of our Lord; the Voice told her to
answer our questions boldly and that God would comfort her.

When we asked if the Voice had spoken to her before she
questioned it, she replied that the Voice spoke certain words but she did not
understand them all. However, when she was awakened from her sleep, the Voice
told her to answer boldly.

Then she said to us and the Bishop, “You say that you are
my judge; be very careful what you do, because in truth I am sent by God, and
you put yourself in great danger.”

Asked if the Voice sometimes varied in its advice, she
answered that it never provided two contrary opinions. She also said that last
night she heard the Voice tell her to answer our questions boldly.

We asked her whether the Voice had forbidden her to answer
everything she was asked, and she said, “I will not answer you about that. I
have revelations concerning the king which I shall not tell you.”

Asked if the Voice had forbidden her to speak of the
revelations, she replied, “I have not been advised about that, but give me two
weeks and I will answer you.”

She again asked us to delay our demands regarding the
revelations and she added, “If the Voice forbids me, what would you say?”

We asked again if the Voice had forbidden her to speak
about the revelations and she replied, “Believe me, it was not men who have
forbidden me.”

She said that she would not answer us today, and she does
not know if she will reply or not until it has been revealed to her whether to
do so. She said she firmly believes—as firmly as she believes in the Christian
faith and that the Lord redeemed us from the pains of Hell—that the Voice comes
from God and by His command.

Asked whether this Voice, which she says appears to her,
comes as an angel or directly from God, or whether it is the Voice of one of
the saints, she answered, “This Voice comes from God; I believe I will not tell
you everything about it; and I am more afraid of failing the Voices by saying
what is displeasing to them than of answering you. On this question, I beg you
to grant me a delay.”

Asked if she believed that God didn’t like her to tell the
truth, she answered, “My Voices told me to say certain things to the king, and
not to you.” That night she said the Voice told her many things that were good
for the king, and that she would like the king to know these things even if it
meant she had to go without drinking any wine until Easter! She said the king
would be more comfortable at dinner if he knew these things.

We asked her if she could influence the Voice so that it
would obey her and take the news to the king; she answered that she did not
know whether the Voice would obey her unless it was God’s will and God consented
to it. She said, “And if it pleases God, He will be able to send the
revelations to the king, and with this I shall be very well pleased.”

Asked why this Voice no longer speaks with the king as it
did when Joan was in the king’s presence, she answered that she did not know if
it was not the will of God. She added that, except for the will of God, she
could do nothing.

When we asked if her Voice revealed to her that she would
escape from prison, she answered, “Must I tell you that?” Then we asked whether
the Voice had not counseled and advised her on how she should reply to this
question, and she said that if the Voice revealed such things she did not
understand them.

Asked whether during the last two days when she heard the
Voices she had seen a light, she answered that “the light comes in the name of
the Voice.”

Asked if she saw anything else with the Voices, she
replied, “I will not tell you everything, I do not have permission, nor does my
oath touch on that. This Voice is good and worthy, and I am not required to
answer you.” She asked us to provide in writing any questions that she did not
answer immediately.

When we asked whether the Voice could see and whether the
Voice had eyes, she answered, “You will not learn that yet,” and she added that
there was a saying among little children that “men are sometimes hanged for
telling the truth.”

Asked if she knows whether she is in God’s grace, she
answered, “If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God keep me
there. I would be the saddest creature in the world if I knew I was not in His
grace.”

She said if she was in a state of sin she did not think
the Voice would come to her. She said she wished everyone could hear the Voice
as well as she did.

She thought she was about 13 years old when the Voice came
to her for the first time. We asked her if in her youth she played in the
fields with other children, and she answered that she certainly went to play
sometimes but she did not know at what age.

Asked if the people of Domremy sided with the Burgundians
or the other party, she answered that she knew only one Burgundian, and that she
would have been quite willing for him to have his head cut off, that is, if it
pleased God.

Asked if at the town of Maxey the people were Burgundians
or enemies of the Burgundians, she answered they were Burgundians. We then
asked her if the Voice told her in her youth to hate the Burgundians. She
answered that since she knew the Voices were for the king of France, she did
not like the Burgundians.

She said the Burgundians will continue to endure war
unless they do as they should, and she knows it because of her Voice. Asked if
it was revealed to her in her early years that the English would come to
France, she answered that the English were already in France when the Voices
began to come to her.

We asked her if she was ever with children who fought for
her party, she answered no, as far as she remembered, but she sometimes saw
certain children from Domremy who had fought against those from Maxey, and some
returned wounded and bleeding.

Asked whether in her youth she had any great intention of
defeating the Burgundians, she answered that she had a great desire and will
for her king to have his kingdom.

Asked if she had wanted to be a man when it was necessary
for her to travel to France, she said she had answered this question elsewhere
[at Poitiers, where she was examined prior to being put in charge of the French
army].

We asked if she took farm animals to the fields, and she
said that she had answered this question elsewhere, but since she had grown up
and had reached the age of understanding, she did not generally look after the
animals, but she did help take them to the meadows and to a castle called the
Island, out of fear of the soldiers; however, she said she does not recall
whether she tended to the animals in her youth.

Then we questioned her about a specific tree growing near
her village. She answered that near Domremy there was a certain tree called the
Ladies’ Tree, and other people called it the Spirits’ Tree, and that nearby the
tree is a fountain spring. She said she heard that people who were sick of the
fever would come to drink the water of this fountain and seek its water to
restore their health, and that she has seen these people herself, but she does
not know whether they are cured or not. She said she heard that the sick, when
they can walk, go to the tree and walk around it; it is a large tree and it
belongs, it is said, to a knight, Pierre de Bourlemont.

She said sometimes she would go playing with other young
girls at the tree, making garlands for Our Lady of Domremy there. Often she
heard the elderly people say, although not those of her family, that spirits
frequently appeared near this tree. She heard a certain Joan—the wife of mayor
Aubery of Domremy, her godmother—say that she had seen the spirits, but she herself
doesn’t know whether it is true or not. As far as she knew, she said, she never
saw spirits at the tree. Asked if she saw them elsewhere, she said she does not
know at all. She had seen young girls putting garlands on the branches of the
tree, and she herself sometimes hung garlands there with the other girls;
sometimes they took them away, and sometimes they left them there.

She said that since the time she learned that she must
travel to France she had taken as little part as possible in playing games or
dancing. She did not know whether she had danced near the tree since she had
grown to the age of understanding; she said on occasions she may well have
danced there with the children, although she more often sang than danced.

There is also a wooded area called the Oak-Wood, which can
be seen from her father’s door, less than two miles away. She does not know nor
has she ever heard that spirits appear there, but she heard from her brother
that it was in that area that she received her message at a tree; but she says
she did not and she told him quite the contrary.

She added that when she came to see the king, several
people had asked her if there was not in her part of the country a wooded area
called the Oak-Wood, because there was a prophecy that a young girl would come
out of this wooded area and perform miracles. Joan said that she put no faith
in that.

We asked if she wanted a woman’s dress and she said, “Give
me one, I will take it and go, otherwise I will not have it, and I am content
with this because it pleases God that I wear it.”

At this point we ended questioning for the day and
scheduled the next session for the following Tuesday at the same hour and in the
same place, where we would continue the questioning.

February 27, Fourth Session

On Tuesday, February 27, we assembled as on the previous
days in a room in the castle of Rouen, where the trial has been taking place.

In the presence of all, we first required Joan to take an
oath to speak the truth on whatever questions we asked during the trial, to
which she replied that she would willingly swear to answer truthfully
everything concerning her trial, but not everything she knows.

Then we required her to swear to answer truthfully everything
she would be asked, and her reply was, “You should be satisfied, because I have
sworn enough.”

Then at our instruction, Master Jean Beaupere began to
question her. He first asked how her health was since the preceding Saturday.
She answered, “You see well enough how I have been as well as possible.”

Asked if she would fast every day during this Lent, she
answered us by stating a question, “Is that part your legal case?” Then she
added, “Yes, truly, I have fasted the whole of Lent.”

We asked her if since Saturday she heard her Voice, and
she answered, “Yes, truly, many times.”

We asked if on Saturday she had heard it in this room
where she was being questioned, and she answered, “That is not in your legal
case,” but then she said she had heard the Voice.

Asked what the Voice said on Saturday, she answered, “I
did not completely understand it until I went back to my room, and what I
understood I could not repeat to you.”

Asked what the Voice said to her in her room when she went
back, she answered, “It told me to answer you boldly.”

She said that she asked her Voice for advice regarding the
questions we would be asking her, and then she said to us that she will gladly
answer whatever she has our Lord’s permission to reveal, but concerning
revelations about the king of France, she will not say anything without
permission from her Voice.

Asked if the Voice had forbidden her to tell everything,
she answered she did not quite understand that was the case. Asked what the
Voice said to her the last time she heard it, she said she asked the Voice to
provide advice regarding specific points on our questioning.

We asked if the Voice had given her advice regarding these
points, and she answered that on some she had received advice, and on others we
might question her and she would not reply without permission. She added that
if she replied without getting permission from the Voice, then perhaps she
would not have a guarantee of support from the Voice; and that when she had
permission from our Lord she would not be afraid to speak, because then she
would have a good guarantee of support.

Asked whether the Voice that spoke to her was that of an
angel or a saint, a male or a female, or straight from God, she replied that
the Voices included the Voice of St. Catherine [of Alexandria] and the Voice of
St. Margaret [of Antioch], and that their heads were crowned in a rich and
precious fashion with beautiful crowns. She added, “I have God’s permission to
tell you this, and if you doubt it, then send someone to Poitiers where I was
questioned before.”

Asked how she knew that they were these two saints, and
how she could distinguish between St. Catherine and St. Margaret, she said she
knew very well who each one was, and that she could easily distinguish one from
the other.

We asked how she knew one from the other and she answered
she knew them by the greeting they gave her, that it had been seven years since
they first began to guide her, and because the saints tell her their names.

Asked if the saints are dressed in the same clothes, she
said, “I will tell you no more now; I do not have permission to reveal it. If
you do not believe me, then send someone to Poitiers!”

She said there were some revelations made directly for the
king of France, and not to us, those who question her.

Asked if the saints were the same age, she answered that
she did not have permission to say.

Asked if the saints spoke at the same time, or one after
another, she said, “I do not have permission to tell you, however, I have
always received advice from both.”

When we asked which saint appeared first, she said, “I did
not recognize them immediately; I knew well enough once, but I have since
forgotten; if I had permission I would gladly tell you; it is written down in
the register at Poitiers.” She added that she also received comfort from St.
Michael [the archangel].

Asked which of the apparitions came to her first, she replied
that St. Michael came first.

We asked her whether it was a long time ago that she first
heard the Voice of St. Michael, and she said, “I do not speak of St. Michael’s
Voice, but of his great comfort.”

We asked her which Voice came first to her when she was
about 13 years old, and she said it was St. Michael who she first saw with her
eyes, and that he was not alone, but was accompanied by many angels from
Heaven. She added that she traveled to France only by way of instruction from
God.

Asked if she saw St. Michael and these angels physically,
in bodily form and in reality, she said, “I saw them with my bodily eyes as
well as I see you, and when they left me I cried because I wanted them to take
me with them too.”

Asked in what form St. Michael appeared to her, she said,
“There is, as yet, no reply for that because I do not have permission to
answer.”

When we asked what St. Michael said to her the first time,
she said, “You will get no additional information today.” She said the Voices
instructed her to answer our questions boldly.

She said she once told the king everything that had been
revealed to her because it concerned him; however, she did not yet have
permission to reveal what St. Michael said. She said she wished her questioner
had a copy of the record at Poitiers, provided that God desired it.

Asked if the Voices told her not to discuss her
revelations without their permission, she said, “I will not answer you anymore
about that; what I have permission to tell you, I will gladly answer. If the
Voices prohibited me, I did not understand that.”

Asked what sign she has that this revelation comes from
God, and that it is St. Catherine and St. Margaret who speak to her, she said,
“I have told you often enough already that it is St. Catherine and St.
Margaret; believe me if you want to.”

Asked if it is forbidden for her to say, she said, “I have
not quite understood whether that is permitted or not.”

We asked how she can distinguish between the points she
will answer and the points she will not, and she said that on some points she
had asked permission, and on some points she had received it. She added that
she would rather be torn apart by wild horses than to have travelled to France
without God’s permission.

When we asked if God commanded her to wear men’s clothes,
she said that clothes are a trivial thing, the least thing. She said she did
not wear men’s clothes because of the advice of any man whatsoever, but that
she put on men’s clothes only by the command of God and the angels.

Asked whether it seemed to her that this command to wear
men’s clothes was lawful, she said, “Everything I have done is at God’s
command, and if He had ordered me to wear different clothes then I would have
done it because it would have been His command.”

Asked if she wore men’s clothes at the order of Robert de
Baudricourt, she said no.

We then asked if she thought she had done well to begin
wearing men’s clothes, and she answered that everything she did at God’s
command she thought was done well, and she hoped for good support and comfort
in wearing men’s clothes.

Asked if, in this particular case, by wearing men’s
clothes she thought she had done well, she said that she had done nothing in
the world except according to God’s commands.

We then asked whether, when she saw the Voice coming to
her, there was a light. She answered that there was a great deal of light on
all sides, as was most appropriate. She added, speaking to the questioner, not
all the light came to him alone!

Asked whether there was an angel over the king’s head when
she saw the king for the first time, she said, “By Our Lady! If there was, I do
not know and did not see it.”

Asked if there was a light, she said, “There were three
hundred knights and fifty torches [in the room], without counting the spiritual
light; I rarely have revelations that are not accompanied by a visible light.”

We asked how the king gave credibility to her words, and she
answered that he received good signs and he knew through the clergy.

Asked what revelations the king had, she said, “You will
not learn them from me this year.”

She said that she was questioned by the clergy for three
weeks at Chinon and Poitiers; and the king received a sign regarding her
mission before he believed in her. The clergy of her party said that there was
nothing except good in her mission.

Asked if she had been to the town of St. Catherine de
Fierbois, she said yes; and there she attended Mass three times on the same
day; and then she went to the town of Chinon. She said she sent letters to the
king to ask if she should enter the town where the king was, that she had travelled
more than 500 miles to come to his aid, and that she knew many things that
would be to his advantage.

She said she had a sword which she took from the town of
Vaucouleurs. She added that when she was at Tours or Chinon, she sent someone
to get a sword that was hidden underground behind the altar in the church at
St. Catherine de Fierbois. Upon arriving at the church the sword was
immediately found but it was full of rust.

Asked how she knew the sword was there, she said she knew
through her Voices that the sword was hidden in the ground, rusted over, and on
it were five crosses. She said she had never seen the man who fetched it.

She had a letter taken to the clergy of St. Catherine de
Fierbois asking if they would approve of her having the sword, and they sent
the sword to her. She said it wasn’t buried deep behind the altar, but she
believed the letter indicated it would be behind the altar. She said that as
soon as the sword was found the priests cleaned it and the rust fell off
immediately, without effort. The man who fetched the sword was a merchant, a
maker of armor from the town of Tours. Local priests gave her two scabbards
[sheaths for holding a sword]; one was made of crimson velvet and the other a
cloth of gold. She herself had another scabbard made out of very strong
leather.

She said that when she was captured she did not have the
sword with her, but that she carried it continuously from the time she received
it until her departure from Saint-Denis, after the military assault on Paris.

Asked what blessing she said, or asked to be said, over
the sword, she said that she neither blessed it herself nor had it blessed, and
that she did not know how to do it. She said she loved that sword because it
was found in the church of St. Catherine, whom she loved.

Asked if she had been to the area of Coulanges-la-Vineuse,
she said she did not know.

We asked if she ever put her sword on the altar, and if
she did, whether it was to bring the sword better fortune; she said no, as far
as she knew.

Asked if she ever prayed for her sword to have better
fortune, she said, “It is very good to know that I could have wished for my
armor to have good fortune.”

Asked if she had that sword when she was captured, she
said no, but she had a different sword that had been taken from a Burgundian.

When we asked her where this sword was, and in what town,
she said that she left a sword and armor at the church of St. Denis, but not
this sword. She said she had this sword at Lagny, and from Lagny to Compiegne
she had carried the Burgundian’s sword, which was a good weapon for fighting,
excellent for giving hard hits and blows to enemy fighters. But she added, to
say where she had lost it was irrelevant to these legal proceedings and that
she would not answer now. She added that her brothers have her belongings, her
horses and swords, as far as she knows, and other things worth more than 12,000
crowns.

We asked her if, when she went to the battle of the city
of Orleans, she had a military banner [a cloth flag with emblems or insignia],
and what color it was. She replied she did have a banner, and it depicted the
world with two angels, one angel on each side, on a background of a field sown
with lilies; the cloth was made of white linen, fringed with silk, and on the
banner were written, she thought, the names Jesus and Mary.

Asked if these names, Jesus and Mary, were written above,
below, or at the side, she said at the side, she believed.

Asked which she preferred, her military banner or her
sword, she said she much preferred her banner to her sword.

Asked who persuaded her to have these images on her
banner, she replied, “I have told you often enough that I have done nothing
except by God’s command.”

She said that she herself carried the banner when
attacking the enemy so as not to kill anyone; she said she has never killed
anyone.

When asked what military force the king gave to her when
he sent her into battle, she said that he gave her 10,000 or 12,000 men, and
that she first went to Orleans, then to the fortress of Saint-Loup, and then to
the fortress of the Bridge.

Asked to which fortress she ordered her men to go, she
said she does not remember. She added that she was confident of retaking
Orleans [from English forces] because it had been revealed to her, and she had
told the king about this revelation before going there.

We asked her if, when the assault was to be made, she told
her men that she would receive arrows, crossbolts and stones hurled by
catapults or cannons, she answered no, but that there were at least one hundred
soldiers who were wounded. However, she had indeed told her men not to fear
because they would successfully retake the city.

She said during the assault on the fortress of the Bridge
she was wounded in the neck by an arrow or crossbolt, but that she received
great comfort from St. Margaret and was better within two weeks. However, she
did not give up her riding or military activities as a result of her injury.

Asked if she knew beforehand that she would be wounded,
she said that she definitely did know in advance, and that she had told the
king it would be so; however, regardless of the injury, she would not give up
her work. She said the advance knowledge of her injury was revealed to her by
the Voices of the two saints, blessed Catherine and Margaret. She said that she
herself was the first to plant the ladder against the fortress of the Bridge,
and as she was climbing the ladder she was wounded in the neck with a
crossbolt.

Asked why she did not negotiate a treaty with the captain
of Jargeau, she answered that the lords of her party replied to the English
that they would not get the delay of two weeks that they had asked for, but
that they must leave immediately with their horses, without delay. She added
that for her own part, she told the people of Jargeau to leave if they wished,
with their coats or tunics and their lives safe; otherwise they would then be
taken by assault.

We asked if she had any conversation with her Voices
regarding whether or not to grant the delay of two weeks, and she said she did
not remember.

At this point the questioning was postponed to a later
date; we scheduled the following Thursday to continue the inquiry and
subsequent interrogations.

March 1, Fifth Session

On Thursday, March 1, we gathered in the castle of Rouen
where Joan appeared before us in the presence of the reverend fathers, lords
and masters. In their presence we summoned and required Joan to swear to speak
the truth, the simple and absolute truth, in response to what she was asked. She
answered that she was ready to swear to answer truthfully everything she knew
related to the trial, as she said before. However, she said she knows many
things which do not concern the trial and there is no need to discuss them.
Then she said, “Everything I know regarding the trial I will truthfully and
gladly tell.”

When asked again to swear, she said, “What I can answer
truthfully I will willingly say regarding the trial.” It was in this manner
that she took the oath with her hands on the holy Gospels; she said, “Of what I
know regarding the trial I will willingly tell the truth, and I will completely
tell you as much as if I was before the Pope of Rome.”

Asked about what she said regarding our lord the Pope, and
whom she believed to be the true Pope, she answered by asking us if there were
two Popes.

[Pope Martin V died several days earlier, on February 20,
and previously there had been ongoing disputes about the office of the Papacy,
with arguments about whether “the true Pope” resided in Rome or in Avignon,
France. As an example of the complexity of the 40-year period known as the
Western Schism, Pope Martin V (legitimate Pope from 1417 to 1431) previously
had deserted Gregory XII (legitimate Pope from 1406 to 1415). At one point,
three individuals claimed to be Pope.]

We asked Joan if she had received letters from count
d’Armagnac asking her which of the three pontiffs he should obey. She said that
count d’Armagnac did write a certain letter to this effect, to which she
replied, among other things, that she would give him an answer when she was in
Paris or anywhere else she could be at rest; she was mounting her horse when
she gave this answer [to a scribe, the count’s messenger].

At this time we read in court a copy of the letters from
the count and from Joan. We asked whether this was a copy of her actual reply.
She said that she thought she had made this reply in part, but not all of it.

Asked if she had professed to know, on the advice of the
King of Kings, what the count should believe in this matter, she answered that
she knew nothing about it.

Asked if she had any doubts about which of the pontiffs
the count should obey, she answered that she did not know how to instruct him
to obey, since the count asked whom God wanted him to obey; but as for herself,
Joan thought we should obey our Holy Father the Pope at Rome.

She added that she said other things to the count’s
messenger that are not in the copy of the letter. She also said that if the
messenger had not departed at once he would have been thrown into the water,
but not because of her. Regarding the count’s inquiry about whom God wanted him
to obey, she said that she did not know, but she sent him several verbal
messages that were not put into writing. As for herself, she said she believed
in our Holy Father the Pope at Rome.

Asked why she had a scribe write that she would give an
answer at some other time if she believed in the Pope at Rome, she said that
her answer was in reference to another matter, other than the matter involving the
three pontiffs.

We asked if she said that she would have some advice on
the question of the three pontiffs, and she answered that she had never written
or caused to be written anything concerning the three pontiffs. This, she swore
by her oath, that she had never written or caused to be written.

Asked if she was in the habit of putting in her letters
the names of Jesus and Mary with a cross, she answered that in some letters she
did and in others she did not. She added that sometimes she put a cross to warn
someone of her party not to do as her letters said.

We then read letters that Joan addressed to our lord the
king, to the Duke of Bedford and to others.

We asked if she recognized these letters and she answered
yes, except for three words; where it was written “surrender to the Virgin” it
should read “surrender to the King.” Also, she said the words
“commander-in-chief” [referring to Joan] and “body for body” were not in the
letters she sent. She added that none of the lords ever dictated these letters,
but that she herself dictated the letters before they were sent; however, she
said that they were definitely shown to certain people of her party.

She said within the next seven years the English would
lose a greater claim of French territory than they did at Orleans because they
will lose everything in France. She added that the English would suffer greater
losses than they ever did in France, and that it will be a great victory that
God will give to the French.

Asked how she knew this, she said, “I know by a revelation
made to me that within seven years it will happen, and I am very displeased
that it would be postponed for so long.” She said she knew this by revelation
as clearly as she saw us standing in front of her at this moment.

Asked when it will happen, she said she knew neither the
day nor the hour. Asked in what year it will happen, she answered, “You will
not learn that from me; however, I wholeheartedly wish it would be before St.
John’s Day.”

Asked whether she said it would happen before Martinmas in
winter [Feast of St. Martin of Tours, which celebrates the end of the farming
year and the beginning of the harvest], she answered that many things would be
seen before Martinmas in winter, and it might be that the English would be overthrown.

We asked her what she told John Grey, her guard, about
Martinmas, and she answered, “I have already told you.”

We asked through which Voice she knew that this would come
to pass, and she answered that she knew it through St. Catherine and St. Margaret.

Asked if St. Gabriel [the archangel] was with St. Michael
when he came to her, she answered she did not remember.

We asked her if since last Tuesday she had spoken with St.
Catherine and St. Margaret, and she answered yes, but she does not remember at
what time. Asked on what day, she said, yesterday and today, adding, “I hear
them every day.”

We asked her if she always saw them in the same clothing,
and she said she always sees them in the same form, and their heads are richly
crowned. Regarding their other clothing she doesn’t say; regarding their robes
she knows nothing.

Asked how she knew whether her apparition was a man or a
woman, she said she knew for certain because she recognized them by their
Voices and they revealed themselves to her. She added that she did not know
anything except by revelation and God’s command.

When asked what part of them she saw, she said the face.
Asked if the saints that appear to her have hair, she said, “Yes, it is very
good to know that they have hair.”

Asked if there was anything between their crowns and their
hair, she answered no.

We asked whether their hair was long and flowing down, and
she answered, “I do not know.” She added that she didn’t know whether they
appeared to have arms or other body parts. She said that they spoke very well
and beautifully, and she understood them very well.

Then we asked how they spoke if they had no other body
parts, and she answered, “I leave that to God.” She added that the Voice was
gentle, soft and low, and spoke in French.

When asked if St. Margaret spoke in the English language,
she answered, “Why would she speak English when she is not on the English
side?”

When asked whether on their crowned heads there were rings
of gold or other materials, she said, “I do not know.”

We then asked if she had some rings, and she replied, to
the Bishop, “You have one of my rings; give it back to me.”

She said the Burgundians have another ring, and she asked
us if we had her ring, to show it to her.

Asked who gave her the ring that the Burgundians had, she
answered her father or her mother; and she thought the names Jesus and Mary
were inscribed on the rings, but she did not know who inscribed Jesus and Mary
on the rings. She did not think there were any gemstones in the rings, and she
said she was given a ring at Domremy. She said her brother gave her the other
ring that we had, and she told us to give it to the Church.

She said she never cured anyone with any of her rings.

We asked if St. Catherine and St. Margaret spoke to her
under the tree she described earlier and she answered, “I do not know.”

Asked if the saints spoke to her at the fountain spring
near the tree, she answered yes, she heard them there, but what they said to
her there she did not remember.

Asked what the saints promised her, there or elsewhere,
she answered that they made no promises to her except by God’s permission.

We asked her what promises they made, and she answered,
“That is not in your legal case at all.” However, among other things, the saints
said how the king would be reestablished in his kingdom regardless of whether
his enemies wished it or not. She then said the saints also promised they would
accompany her to Heaven, and that she had asked the saints to do so. Asked if
she had received any other promises, she answered that she had, but she will
not tell us because it does not concern the trial. She added that in three
months she will reveal another promise.

Asked if the Voices had told her that within three months
she would be delivered from prison, she said, “That is not relevant to your
legal case, however, I do not know when I shall be delivered.” She added that
those who wish to get her out of the world might well precede her.

We asked if her Voices told her whether she would be delivered
out of the prison where she currently is, and she replied, “Ask me in three
months’ time, then I will tell you.” She added, “Ask the assessors, on their
oath, if that question is related to my trial.”

After the assessors had deliberated and unanimously
concurred that the question was relevant to the trial, she said, “I have
already told you that you cannot know everything. One day I must be delivered,
but I want to get permission before I can tell you; that is why I ask for a
delay.”

Asked if the Voices had forbidden her to speak the truth,
she said, “Do you want me to tell you what is the sole concern of the king of
France? There are many things that are not relevant to this trial.”

She said she knows for certain the king will regain the
kingdom of France as certainly as she knows that we are seated before her in
judgment. She added, except for the revelations she receives, which comfort her
daily, she would be dead.

Asked what she had done with her mandrake, she answered
that she has no mandrake and she never had one; however, she had heard that
near her village there was one, although she never saw it. She said she had
heard that mandrake was a dangerous and evil thing to keep, and she does not
know its purpose or how to use it.

[Mandrake is a plant that was perceived to have magical
powers. It is also an ancient folk remedy used to help infertile women conceive
a child. Except for the fruit, the plant is poisonous, and it contains
chemicals that are hallucinogenic. Mandrake plants have large roots that appear
to have a human-like form. Mandrakes are referenced in witchcraft as well as in
the Bible. In Genesis 30:14-16, Jacob’s infertile second wife, Rachel, barters
with her sister Leah for mandrake; in Song of Songs 7:13, mandrake is
referenced for its fragrance.]

We asked Joan where the mandrake grows, the mandrake she
mentioned, and she said it grows in the ground near the tree, but she does not
know the exact spot. She said she heard that a hazel plant grows over the
mandrake.

Asked what she has heard about the mandrake, she replied
that she heard it attracts wealth but she does not believe it. She added that
the Voices have never told her anything about this.

Asked in what form St. Michael appeared, she answered that
she did not see his crown and she knows nothing of his clothing. Asked if St.
Michael was naked, she answered, “Do you think God has not the ability to
clothe him?”

Asked if he has any hair, she said, “Why would it be cut
off?” She added that she had not seen St. Michael since she left the castle in
the town of Crotoy, and she does not often see him, and she does not know
whether he has any hair.

We asked Joan whether St. Michael had his scales, and she
answered, “I do not know.”

[St. Michael the Archangel is often depicted carrying a
set of measuring scales and a sword to vanquish Satan.]

She said she was filled with great joy when she saw St.
Michael, and she felt when she saw him that she was not in mortal sin. She said
that St. Catherine and St. Margaret gladly heard her in confession from time to
time, and each heard her in confession at alternate times. She said that if she
was in mortal sin she was not aware of it.

Asked if, when she made her confession, she felt she was
in a state of mortal sin, she said that she did not know whether she was in
mortal sin, but she believed that she had not committed such sins. She added,
“May it please God, I never was in mortal sin, and if it pleases Him, I shall never
commit, nor have I committed, such sins that burden my soul.”

Asked what sign she gave the king to indicate she came
from God, she said, “I have always told you that you will not drag this from my
lips. Go and ask him.”

We asked if she had sworn not to reveal what was asked
regarding the trial, and she answered, “I have already said that I will not
tell you what concerns or involves our king; what concerns our king, I shall
not tell you.”

Asked if she did not know the sign she gave the king, she
said, “You will not learn it from me.” We told her this matter was relevant to
the trial, but she answered, “What I have promised to keep secret I shall not
tell you; I promised, and I cannot tell you without perjury.”

Asked to whom she made this promise, she said she made the
promise to St. Catherine and St. Margaret, and it was shown to the king. She said
she promised it without their asking, and she did so at her own desire because she
thought too many people might be questioning her had she not made this promise
to the saints.

Asked if anyone else was with them when she revealed the
sign to the king, she answered that she thought there were not, although there
were many people nearby.

We asked if she saw the crown on the king’s head when she
revealed the sign to him, and she answered, “I cannot tell you without
perjury.”

Asked whether the king had a crown when he was at the city
of Reims, she answered that she thought the king accepted with pleasure the
crown he found at Reims, although a much richer crown was brought later; and he
did so in order to quickly complete his coronation at the request of the people
of Reims and to avoid burdening the men-at-arms. She said if the king would
have waited he would have had a crown a thousand times richer.

Asked if she saw this richer crown, she said, “I cannot
tell you without committing perjury; and if I have not seen it myself, I have
heard that it is very rich and precious.”

At this point we ended the proceedings for the day and
scheduled the next session to begin on Saturday at eight o’clock in the
morning, requiring those present to assemble together in the same place at that
hour and day.

Saturday, March 3, Sixth Session

On the following Saturday, March 3, Joan appeared before
us in the presence of the reverend fathers, lords and masters; and in their
presence we required Joan to answer the simple and absolute truth to the
questions we asked her, to which she replied, “As I did before, I am ready to
swear,” and she swore saying this with her hands on the holy Gospels.

Because she had said that St. Michael had wings but said nothing
else about his body or the bodies of St. Catherine and St. Margaret, we asked
her what else she wanted to say about their bodies. She replied, “I have told
you what I know, and I will not answer you further.” She said that she had seen
St. Michael and the saints so clearly that she certainly knew they were saints
from Heaven.

Asked if she saw anything of them besides their faces, she
said, “I have told you all that I know about that, and I would rather have you
cut my throat than tell you all I know.” She said that she would willingly
discuss everything she knew concerning her trial.

We asked her if St. Michael and St. Gabriel had natural
heads, and she replied, “I saw them with my two eyes, and I believe it was St.
Michael and St. Gabriel that I saw as firmly as I believe in the existence of
God.”

Asked if she believed that God created them in the form
and fashion that she saw, she answered, “Yes.”

We asked her if she believed that God, from the very
beginning, created them in that form and fashion, and she replied, “At this
time you will learn nothing more from me other than what I have already told
you.”

Asked if she had known by revelation whether she would
escape from prison, she answered, “That is not part of your legal case. Do you
want me to speak against myself?”

We asked if her Voices told her anything about escaping
and she replied, “That is not relevant to your legal case. If you ask me about
matters related to the legal case, and if everything concerns the case, then I
will tell you everything.” She added that, by her faith, she does not know at
what hour or day she will escape.

Asked if the Voices had told her anything about escaping
in a general way, she answered, “Yes, definitely, they told me that I shall be
delivered, but I do not know the day or the hour, and I must boldly show a
cheerful expression in front of you.”

We asked her, regarding the first time she spoke with the
king, whether the king asked her if it was by revelation that she had changed
her attire from wearing women’s clothes to men’s clothes. She replied, “I have
answered this before; I do not recall whether I was asked this specific
question, but my reply was written down at Poitiers.”

Asked whether officials of her own party who examined
her—some over the course of a month and others over the course of three
weeks—had questioned her about changing her attire from wearing women’s clothes
to men’s clothes, she replied, “I do not recall, but they asked me where it was
that I began to wear men’s clothes and I told them it was at Vaucouleurs.”

We asked if the officials of her own party who examined
her had asked her whether it was because of her Voices that she began to wear
men’s clothes, and she answered, “I do not recall.”

Asked if, during her first visit with the queen, whether
the queen asked her about wearing men’s clothes, she answered, “I do not
recall.”

Asked if the king or queen or other people of her party
did not sometimes ask her to stop wearing men’s clothes, she replied, “That is
not relevant to your legal case.”

We asked her whether she was requested to stop wearing
men’s clothes at the castle of Beaurevoir, and she replied, “Yes, that is true,
and I answered I would not stop wearing men’s clothes without getting God’s
permission.”

She said the Demoiselle of Luxembourg and the Lady of
Beaurevoir offered her a woman’s dress, or the cloth to make one, and they told
her to wear it, however, Joan replied that she did not have God’s permission
and it was not yet time.

When asked if Messire Jean de Pressy and others at Arras
did not offer her women’s clothes, she said that he and many others had often
asked her to wear a woman’s dress.

Asked if she believed she would have done wrong or
committed a mortal sin by wearing women’s clothes, she replied that she did
better to obey and serve her sovereign Lord, namely God. However, she said that
if she had to wear a woman’s dress, she would rather have done so at the
request of those two ladies than of any other ladies in France, except the
queen.

We asked her whether—when God revealed to her that she
should change from wearing women’s clothes to men’s clothes—it was by the Voice
of St. Michael, or by the Voice of St. Catherine or St. Margaret. She replied,
“You will learn no more at the present time.”

We asked her whether—when the king first sent her to do
battle and she had her military banner made—the men-at-arms and others had
flags made in the style of her military banner, and she answered, “It is good
to know that the lords kept their own arms; some of my companions in arms had
flags made at their pleasure, while others did not.”

Asked what kind of material the flags were made of, linen
or other cloth, she said, “It was white satin, and on some there were
fleurs-de-lis.” She had only two or three lances in her company, but her
companions-at-arms sometimes had flags made like hers, and did so merely to
distinguish their men from others. Asked if the flags were often repaired, she
said, “I do not know; when the lances were broken, new ones were made.”

Asked whether sometimes she said that flags made like hers
resulted in greater success, she said that sometimes she said to her followers,
“Go boldly among the English,” as she herself would do.

Asked if she told them to fly the flags boldly and then
they would have greater success, she said that she had indeed told them that
what had happened in the past would happen again.

We asked if she sprinkled Holy Water on the flags or
requested others to sprinkle Holy Water on the flags when the flags were first
taken into battle, and she answered “I do not know anything about that, and if
it was done, it was not at my instruction.”

When asked if she ever saw Holy Water sprinkled on the
flags, she replied, “That is not in your legal case, and if I had seen it done
I am not now advised to answer you.”

When asked if her companions-at-arms did not have written
on their flags the names Jesus and Mary, she answered, “By my faith, I do not
know.”

Asked if she herself had carried, or whether she made
others to carry in procession around an altar or a church, cloth that was to be
made into flags, she answered no, nor had she ever seen it done.

We asked her what she wore at the back of her helmet when
she went to the town of Jargeau, and if it was something round, she answered,
“By my faith, there was nothing.”

When asked if she knew Brother Richard, she replied, “I
had never seen him before I came to Troyes.”

We asked her about the manner in which Brother Richard
greeted her. She said that the people of Troyes, she thought, sent Brother
Richard to her because the townspeople were afraid she was not a thing sent
from God; so as he came close to her, he made the Sign of the Cross and
sprinkled Holy Water at her, and she said to him, “Come boldly, I shall not fly
away.”

Asked if she had seen, or had made any images or pictures
of herself, or in her likeness, she replied that at Arras she saw a painting in
the hands of a Scot and she was depicted in full armor presenting letters to
the king with one knee on the ground. She said she had never seen nor had made
any other image or picture in her likeness.

Asked whether at her host’s residence in Orleans there was
a painting of three women with these words, Justice, Peace and Union, and she
replied that she knew nothing about that.

Asked whether she knew that certain people of her party
had religious services, Mass or prayers offered in her honor, she answered that
she knew nothing about it, and if any such services were held it was not at her
instruction; however, if they prayed for her, she felt that they had not done
poorly.

We asked her whether people of her own party firmly
believed she was sent from God, and she replied, “I do not know whether they
do, and I refer you to their own opinions; but if they do not, nevertheless I am
sent from God.”

Asked whether she believed that by deeming her to be sent
from God they believed correctly, she said, “If they believe I am sent from God
they are not deceived.”

We asked if she knew the feelings of members of her party
when they kissed her feet, her hands and her garments, and she answered that
many people were happy when they came to see her, but they kissed her hands as
little as she could prevent them from doing so. She said the poor people were
happy to see her because they knew she helped them as much as she could and did
nothing unkind to them.

Asked what honor the people of Troyes gave to her when she
entered the town, she said they gave her none. She added that she thought
Brother Richard may have had entered Troyes with her, but she does not remember
seeing him enter the town with her.

Asked if Brother Richard preached a sermon when she
arrived, she said that she only briefly stopped in the town and did not sleep
there at all; and she knew nothing about the sermon.

Asked if she spent many days at Reims, she said, “I think
we were there four or five days.”

When we asked if she acted as godmother to a child at
Reims, she answered that at Troyes she did, to one child, but at Reims she does
not recall doing so, nor at Chateau-Thierry, but at Saint-Denis she was twice a
godmother. She added that she gladly gave the name of Charles to the boys, in
honor of her king, and to the girls she gave the name Joan, but at other times
she named them as the parents wished.

Asked whether the good wives of the town did not touch her
ring with their own rings, she said, “Many women touched my hands and my rings,
but I do not know their thoughts or intentions for doing so.”

Asked who it was in her company who caught butterflies in
her military banner before arriving at Chateau-Thierry, she said that nobody in
her party had ever done that, and the other side invented it.

We asked her what she did at Reims with the gloves with
which the king was consecrated. She said that the gloves were given as a
present to the knights and nobles who were there; and regarding the person who
lost his gloves, she did not say she would find them. She added that her
military banner was in the church at Reims, and she thought that during the
consecration of the king the banner was fairly close to the altar, and that she
herself held the banner for a short time. She does not know whether Brother
Richard held the banner.

We asked whether, when she was going through the country,
she often received the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession when she was
in the good towns, and she said yes, from time to time. Asked whether she
received the Sacraments while wearing men’s clothes, she answered yes, but she
does not remember receiving the Sacraments when she was wearing armor.

Asked why she took the horse belonging to the Bishop of
Senlis, she said it was bought for two hundred saluts, but whether he received
the payment or not, she does not know. She said there was an arrangement that
he was to be paid. She also wrote to him stating that he could have the horse
back if he wanted because she herself did not want it, because it was no good
for carrying a load.

Asked how old the child was whom she raised from the dead
at the town of Lagny, she replied that the child was three days old and was
brought to Lagny with an image of Our Lady. Maidens of the town who were
accompanying the image of Our Lady informed Joan so that she might pray to God
and to the Blessed Virgin Mary to restore life to the baby. So Joan went and
prayed with the other maidens, and finally the child came back to life, yawning
three times. The baby was then baptized but immediately died and was buried in
consecrated ground. Before praying for the baby three days had passed, they
said, with no sign of life in the child, which was as black as her coat. While
Joan was with the maidens who were on their knees praying in front of the image
of Our Lady, the child then yawned and the color began to return to the baby’s
skin.

Asked whether it was said in the town that Joan had
brought about the resurrection of the child and that it was due to her prayers,
she answered that she did not ask about it.

We asked her whether she knew or had seen Catherine de La
Rochelle, and she answered yes, at Jargeau and Montfaucon in Berry.

Asked whether this Catherine showed her a woman robed in
white who Catherine said appeared to her, Joan answered no.

Asked what Catherine de La Rochelle said to her, Joan said
Catherine told her that a certain lady-in-white came to her arrayed in golden
clothes, telling her to go through the good towns with messengers and trumpets
that the king would give to her, to proclaim that whoever possessed gold,
silver or hidden money should immediately bring it forth; and that she would
immediately know those who were hiding their money and did not bring it forth,
and that she would be able to easily find what was being hidden; and that this
gold, silver or hidden money should be used to pay for Joan’s soldiers.

After hearing Catherine’s story, Joan said to Catherine
that she should go back to her husband, tend to her household and care for her
children.

To be certain about Catherine de La Rochelle, Joan spoke
about her to St. Catherine or St. Margaret, who said that Catherine’s story was
mere folly and amounted to nothing. Joan sent a message telling the king what
he should do, and when Joan came to see the king she told the king that this
question about Catherine was folly and nothing more. However, Brother Richard
wanted to get Joan’s approval to carry out this work, so Brother Richard and
Catherine were both unhappy with Joan’s response.

When asked if she spoke to Catherine about going to La
Charité-sur-Loire, Joan said Catherine did not advise her to go, and that the
weather was too cold and she should not go.

Joan told Catherine, who wanted to go to the Duke of
Burgundy and make peace, that peace, it seemed to her, would not be found
except at the lance’s point.

Joan asked this Catherine if the lady-in-white who
appeared to her came every night, saying that she would, to see her, sleep in
the same bed with Catherine; and she went to bed with her and stayed up until
midnight, but saw nothing, and then went to sleep.

In the morning, Joan asked Catherine whether the
lady-in-white had come to her.  Catherine replied that she had, while Joan was
sleeping, but that she had not been able to awaken Joan.

Then Joan asked if the lady might not come another night,
and Catherine answered yes; so Joan slept during the day, so that she might
stay awake the whole night.

That night she stayed in the bed with Catherine and
watched all night, but saw nothing. Throughout the night Joan often asked
Catherine whether the lady-in-white would come, and Catherine answered, “Yes,
soon!”

We then asked Joan what she did in the trenches of La
Charité, and she replied that she had ordered a military assault but that she
neither threw nor sprinkled Holy Water.

Asked why she did not enter the town of La Charité since
she had been commanded by God to do so, she replied, “Who told you I was
commanded to enter the town of La Charité?”

Asked if she was advised by her Voice, she replied that
she wanted to come to France but that the soldiers told her it was better to go
first to La Charité.

We asked if she was held prisoner a long time in the tower
at Beaurevoir, and she answered that she was there about four months. She said
that when she learned the English were going to arrive and take her she was
very angry. She said that even though her Voices had forbidden her to jump from
the tower, after a lengthy period and because she feared the English, she
jumped from the tower and commended herself to God and Our Lady. She said she
was wounded as a result of her fall from the tower. However, she said when she
jumped from the tower the Voice of St. Catherine told her not to worry because
the people at Compiegne would come to her aid. She said she always prayed with
her Voices for the people of Compiegne.

Asked what she said when she jumped from the tower, she
replied that some people said she was dead; but as soon as the Burgundians saw
that she was alive, they told her she had tried to escape.

Asked whether she said she would rather die than fall into
the hands of the English, she said she would rather surrender her soul to God
than fall into the hands of the English.

We asked whether she was very distraught about her
situation, and whether she blasphemed [cursed] the name of God because of her
circumstances. She replied that she never blasphemed the saints, and that it
was not her custom to swear.

We asked her about Soissons and the captain who had
surrendered the town, and whether she disobeyed God and said that she would
have the captain drawn and quartered if she captured him. She replied that she
never disobeyed the saints, and that those who said or reported that she had
disobeyed the saints were mistaken.

[To be drawn and quartered was a punishment implemented in
England during the 1300s for crimes of high treason or disloyalty to the state.
Men convicted of high treason were dragged by horse to a place of execution,
hanged but not to the point of death, then had their penis and testicles cut
off, had their abdomen cut open to remove their intestines, and finally had
their head chopped off; then their body parts were displayed in prominent
places such as on the London Bridge. Women convicted of high treason were
instead burned at the stake. During the early 1800s the penalty was changed so
that only after death by hanging was the body cut into pieces and then the body
parts displayed; the punishment was abolished in 1870.]

At this point in the questioning Joan was taken back to
the place that had been assigned as her prison cell. Then we, with the Bishop,
declared that we would continue the trial without interruption and that we
would call certain doctors and men who were experts in canon law and civil law.
Since Joan’s answers had been set down in writing we would ask the experts to
review her admissions, and then after their review inform us regarding any
points upon which Joan should be questioned at greater length. She would then
be interrogated by deputies appointed by us, but without changing the entire
number of assessors. Furthermore, everything would be set down in writing so
that whenever it was necessary, the officials could deliberate on certain
points to provide their opinions and advice.

We then instructed the experts to carefully review and
study in their homes the trial transcripts and the parts of the proceedings
they had already heard to identify what, in their opinion, should occur next.
After a complete review and thorough deliberation, we asked the officials to
submit their conclusions either to us or our deputies, or to reserve their
conclusions in order to present them to us at an appropriate time and place. Additionally,
each and every assessor was forbidden to leave the city of Rouen before the end
of the trial unless they received our permission.

End of the first phase of the public sessions.

Sunday-Friday, March 4-9, Analysis of the Evidence

On Sunday, the fourth day of March, and on the following
days, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, in our residence at
Rouen, we, including the Bishop, gathered together with many esteemed doctors
and masters knowledgeable in divine and canon law. We collected all of the
information that had been admitted to and answered by Joan during our
questioning, and we made notes of the points where she had insufficiently
answered our questions and where it appeared that she should be questioned
further.

From these points, so diligently analyzed and noted, and
on the advice and deliberation of these educated men, we concluded that we must
proceed to further question Joan. However, because of our numerous occupations
we cannot always attend the questioning sessions in person, and so we appointed
the esteemed and discreet person, Jean de La Fontaine, Master of Arts and
licensed in canon law, to pursue the legal questioning for us, and we appointed
him to do this on Friday, March 9, in the presence of the doctors and masters,
Jean Beaupere, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midi, Pierre Maurice, Thomas de
Courcelles, Nicolas Loyseleur and Guillaume Manchon.

Saturday, March 10, First Session Held in the Prison

On the following Saturday, the tenth day of March, we went
to the room in the castle of Rouen that had been assigned as a prison cell for
Joan. There, with the Master Jean de La Fontaine, our Commissary and Deputy,
and the esteemed Doctors of Sacred Theology, Masters Nicolas Midi and Gerard
Feuillet, and in the presence of the witnesses, Jean Secard, advocate, and
Master Jean Massieu, priest, we summoned Joan to swear and to take an oath to
answer truthfully in response to our questions. She answered, “I promise to
answer you truthfully that which concerns your legal case, but the more you
constrain me to swear, the longer I shall take to tell you.”

Then Master Jean de La Fontaine, specifically appointed
and deputized by us in this matter, began to question Joan. He asked her, by
the oath she had taken, from where she had travelled when she last went to
Compiegne. She answered that she had come from the town of Crespy-en-Valois.

Asked whether she spent several days at Compiegne before
she made any incursion or military attack from that area, she answered that she
arrived there secretly in the morning, and she thought she had entered the town
unbeknownst to the enemy; and on that same day, toward evening, she led the
military assault during which she was captured.

Asked whether the bells were rung when she started the
attack, she said that if the bells were rung it was not at her order or with
her knowledge. She did not think, or remember saying, the bells were rung.

Asked whether she made the military assault because she
was instructed by her Voices, she said that during the last week of Easter, when
she was in the trenches at Melun, she was told by her Voices, namely by St.
Catherine and

St. Margaret, that she would be captured before St. John’s
Day. Her Voices said this had to happen, but that she should not be distressed,
that she should see it as a good thing, and that God would assist her.

We asked her if, since her time in Melun, she had been
told by her Voices that she would be captured, and she said yes, that several
times her Voices said this to her, nearly every day.

Joan asked her Voices that she might die quickly when she
was captured so that she would not suffer a long time in prison. Her Voices
told her to be resigned to everything and that these events must happen; but
they did not tell her when these things would happen because if she had known
the hour, she would not have gone. She said she often asked her Voices at what
hour she would be captured but they did not tell her.

Asked if her Voices had ordered her to make the military
assault on Compiegne and had told her that during the assault she would be
captured, would she have gone anyway, she answered that if she had known when
she was going to be captured she would not have willingly gone. However, she
said, in the end, she would have obeyed the requests of her Voices whatever it
cost her.

Asked whether, when she made this attack on Compiegne she
received any Voice or revelation to go forward with the assault, she answered
that on that day she did not know she was going to be captured, and she received
no other orders from her Voices to go forward with the assault. However, she
said she had always been told by her Voices that she must be taken prisoner.

We asked her whether she crossed over the bridge of
Compiegne during the military maneuvers. She answered that she went over the
bridge and onto the boulevard accompanied by her soldiers, and that she
attacked the followers of Jean de Luxembourg, and twice drove them as far as
the camp of the Burgundians, and the third time to the middle of the highway.

Then the English blocked the road from her and her
soldiers, and she was captured while she was retreating to some fields located
on the Picardy side near the boulevard. She said between the place where she
was captured and Compiegne, there was nothing but the river and the boulevard
with its ditch.

We asked her about her military banner, whether the world
was painted on the banner she carried, with two angels and other insignia, and
she answered yes, she had only one banner. We then asked her what it signified
to paint God holding the world, with two angels, and she answered that St.
Catherine and St. Margaret told her to make the banner, to carry it boldly, and
to have the King of Heaven painted on the banner. She told the king this, much
against her will, and she said she knew nothing more regarding what this
signified.

Asked whether she had a shield and arms, she answered that
she never did, but that the king granted arms to her brothers, namely a blue
shield that depicted two fleurs-de-lis and a sword in between. She said she
described these arms—with two fleurs-de-lis and a sword in between—to a painter
because he asked her what arms she bore. She said the king gave them to her
brothers without her request and without any revelation.

We asked whether she had a horse when she was captured,
either a charger or a hackney, and she answered that she was riding a
half-charger.

[Chargers were all-around war horses; hackneys were bred
beginning in the 1300s because the King of England wanted powerful running
horses that were also attractive.]

When we asked Joan who had given her this horse, she replied
the king, or the king’s people using the king’s money. She said she personally had
five chargers from the king’s money, not counting her hackneys, of which she
had more than seven.

We asked her whether she had any other assets from the
king besides these horses. She said that she asked the king for nothing except
good arms, good horses and money to pay her people.

Asked whether she had any money, she replied that the ten
or twelve thousand worth she had was not much to carry on a war with, very
little indeed; however, she thought, her brothers did have other assets. She
said what she has is from the king’s own money.

Asked what sign she gave the king when she went to see
him, she replied it was attractive and honorable, most credible, good, and the
richest sign in the world.

We asked her why she refused to reveal and show us this
sign, since she herself wanted to see the sign of Catherine de La Rochelle. She
answered that she would not have asked to see the sign of Catherine de La
Rochelle if it had been as clearly visible as her sign was to the notable
ecclesiastics and others, archbishops and bishops, including the archbishop of
Reims and others whose names she doesn’t know; among those who saw her sign
were Charles de Bourbon, the Sire de la Tremouille, the Duke d’Alencon and many
other knights who saw her sign and heard it as distinctly as she saw those
speaking and standing before her there. She said she already knew through St.
Catherine and St. Margaret that the activities of this Catherine de La Rochelle
amounted to nothing.

We asked whether the sign still exists, and she replied
yes, certainly, and she said the sign will last for a thousand years and more.
She said the sign is with the king’s treasure.

Asked whether the sign was gold, silver, a precious stone
or a crown, she answered, “I will not tell you; no man can describe a thing as
rich as this sign; the sign you need is for God to deliver me out of your
hands, and most certainly this is a sign He can show you.”

Then she added that when she had to travel to see the king
she was told by her Voices, “Go boldly; when you stand in front of the king he
will receive a good sign to accept you and believe in you.”

We asked her what reverence she showed the sign when it
was revealed to the king and whether the sign came from God. She replied that
she thanked our Lord for her deliverance from the trouble that was arising from
the opposition of the clergy of her party; and she knelt down many times in
reverence of the sign. She said that an angel from God, and from none other but
Him, revealed the sign to the king, and she thanked God many times for this.
She said the clergy stopped opposing her when they had recognized the sign.

Asked whether the clergy of her party saw the sign, she
answered that when the king and those of his company had seen the sign and also
the angel that revealed the sign, she asked the king if he was satisfied, and
he replied yes. Then she left and went to a little chapel, and she heard that
after her departure more than three hundred people saw the sign. She added that,
for her sake, and to stop men from preaching to her, God willed that those of
her party who were there would see the sign.

We asked whether she and the king expressed reverence to
the angel when the angel brought the sign. She answered that she did; she knelt
down and uncovered her head.

Monday, March 12

On the following Monday, March 12, those gathered in our
residence at Rouen included the religious and discreet Brother Jean Le Maistre
of the Order of Preaching Brothers; the deputy of the lord Inquisitor of
Heretical Error in the kingdom of France; the esteemed and discreet lords and
masters Thomas Fiesvet and Pasquier de Vaulx, Doctors of Canon Law; Nicolas de
Hubent, Apostolic Secretary; and Brother Isambard de La Pierre of the Order of
Preaching Brothers.

We, with the Bishop, reminded the deputy that at the
beginning of these proceedings, which we had instituted in matters of faith
against this woman commonly called the Virgin, we had required and summoned him
to collaborate with us, and we offered to communicate to him all of the
processes, testimonies and other things related to this matter and the trial;
but that he had raised certain difficulties that prevented his collaboration in
the trial because he was appointed for the city and Diocese of Rouen alone,
whereas the trial was being held, by reason of our jurisdiction of Beauvais, in
ceded territory. Therefore, to ensure greater certainty regarding these proceedings
and to exercise extreme caution, we, on the advice of educated men, resolved to
write to the lord Inquisitor himself, urging him to return to his city of Rouen
or at least appoint his deputy to attend to this task, and to entrust the
deputy with complete authority from the lord Inquisitor himself to undertake
and conclude this trial as set forth according to all of the evidence and
materials that have been gathered.

Now the lord Inquisitor, upon receipt of our letters, in
benevolent compliance with our demand and for the honor and exaltation of the
orthodox faith, has specifically appointed and deputized Brother Jean Le
Maistre to conduct and conclude this trial according to his secured letters and
confirmed by his seal.

This same Monday morning we went with the bishop to the room
assigned as a prison cell for Joan, where there were assembled at the same time
the esteemed and discreet lords and masters Jean de La Fontaine, our appointed
commissary; Nicolas Midi and Gerard Feuillet, Doctors of Sacred Theology;
witnesses Thomas Fiesvet and Pasquier de Vaulx, Doctors of Canon Law; and
Nicolas de Hubent, Apostolic Secretary.

In their presence we required Joan to swear to answer
truthfully in response to whatever questions we would ask her. She replied, as
she said before, she would willingly speak the truth “on what pertains to your
legal case,” and in this manner she took the oath.

Then she was questioned at our command by Master Jean de La
Fontaine.

First, he asked her whether the angel that brought the
sign to the king spoke any words, and she replied, “Yes, he told the king to
put me to work so that the country might be freed without further delay.”

Asked whether the angel that brought the sign to the king
was the same angel that first appeared to her or whether it was another angel,
she answered, “It is always the same one, and he never fails me.”

When asked whether the angel did not fail her regarding
things of good fortune when she was captured, she said she thought that since
it pleased God it was better for her to be taken prisoner.

Asked whether the angel did not fail her regarding good
things of grace, she answered, “How could he fail me when he comforts me every
day?” She added that she believes this comfort is from St. Catherine and St.
Margaret.

Asked whether she calls St. Catherine or St. Margaret, or
whether they come to her without being called, she said, “They often come
without my calling.” She added that sometimes, if they did not come, she would
pray to God to send them to her.

Asked if she sometimes called them without their coming,
she answered that she had never needed them without having them.

We asked her if St. Denis sometimes appeared to her and
she answered no, as far as she knew.

We asked whether she spoke to our Lord when she promised
Him to keep her virginity, and she answered that it was quite enough to promise
her virginity to those who were sent from Him, namely St. Catherine and St.
Margaret.

Asked what persuaded her to summon a man from the town of
Toul for breaking a promise of marriage, she answered, “I did not have him
summoned, it was he who summoned me; and I swore before the judge to tell the
truth.” Moreover, she said, she had made no promise of marriage to this man.
She added that the first time she heard her Voice she vowed to keep her
virginity as long as it would please God, and that she was 13 years old or
about 13 years old at the time. She said her Voices assured her that she would
win her legal case at Toul.

Asked if she had spoken to her priest or any other
churchman regarding the visions that she claimed to have, she answered no,
except to Robert de Baudricourt and to the king. She added that her Voices did
not require her to conceal them, but that she was afraid of revealing them,
afraid that the Burgundians might hinder her journey, and in particular she
feared that her father would stop her from leaving.

We asked if she believed it was right to leave her father
and mother without permission when she should honor her father and mother; she
answered that in all other things she was obedient to them except in this
journey to France, but afterwards she wrote to them and they forgave her.

Asked whether she thought she had committed a sin when she
left her father and mother, she answered that since God commanded her to leave
it was the right thing to do. She added that since God commanded it, even if
she had a hundred parents or had been the king’s daughter, she would have gone
anyway.

We asked her whether she asked her Voices if she should
tell her father and mother about leaving, and she answered, regarding her
father and mother, the Voices were very well pleased that she should tell her
parents except for the difficulties that would have resulted if she had done
so. She added that, as for herself, she would not have told her parents
anything. She said the Voices left it to her whether to tell her father and
mother or to be silent on the matter.

Asked whether she showed reverence to St. Michael and the
angels when she saw them, she replied that she did, and she kissed the ground
where they had stood after they had gone.

Asked whether the angels were with her for a long time,
she said that angels often came when she was among other Christians but the angels
were not seen, and that she often saw angels among Christian people.

We asked whether she had letters from St. Michael or from
her Voices, and she replied, “I do not have permission to tell you; within a
week from now I will gladly tell you what I know.”

Asked if her Voices called her daughter of God, daughter
of the Church, or daughter great-hearted, she said that prior to the military
assault on the city of Orleans and every day since, when they have spoken to
her, they have often called her “Joan the Virgin, Daughter of God.”

Asked why, since she calls herself daughter of God, she
will not willingly say the Our Father prayer for us, she answered that she
would willingly do so, and that on other occasions, when she refused, it was with
the intention that the Bishop would hear her in Confession.

Afternoon Session in Prison

On this day, Monday, in the afternoon, there were present
in Joan’s prison cell the lords and masters mentioned above, including Jean de
La Fontaine, Nicolas Midi and Gerard Feuillet, Doctors of Sacred Theology;
Thomas Fiesvet and Pasquier de Vaulx, Doctors of Canon Law; and Nicolas de
Hubent, Apostolic Secretary.

First, Joan was questioned about the dreams she said her
father had before she left his house. She said that while she was still with
her father and mother, she was often told by her mother that her father spoke
of having dreamed that Joan would go off with soldiers, so her father and
mother took great care to keep her safe and were overly protective. She said
she was obedient to her parents in all things except in the incident at Toul
regarding the action for marriage. She said she heard her mother say how her
father once said to her brothers, “In truth, if I thought this would happen
which I have dreamed about my daughter, I would want you to drown her; and if
you would not, I would drown her myself.” She added that her father and mother
almost lost their senses when she left to go to Vaucouleurs.

Asked whether these thoughts and dreams came to her father
after she had her visions, she said yes, more than two years after she first
heard the Voices.

Asked whether it was at the request of Robert de
Baudricourt that she first started wearing men’s clothes, she answered that it
was by her own decision and not because of the request of any man alive.

We asked whether the Voice ordered her to wear men’s
clothes, and she answered, “Everything I have done I have done at the
instruction of my Voices, and regarding my clothes, I will answer that another
time; at the present time I am not advised, but tomorrow I will answer.”

Asked whether she thought she was doing something wrong
when she wore men’s clothes, she answered no; and even at this moment, if she
were back with her own party, it seemed to her that it would be to the great
good of France for her to do as she did before her capture.

We asked her how she would have rescued the Duke of
Orleans [who was being held prisoner in England]. She answered that she would
have taken enough English prisoners to ransom him; but if she had not taken
enough prisoners on this side of the sea, she would have crossed the sea and then
rescued him from England by force.

We asked her whether St. Margaret and St. Catherine had
told her absolutely and unconditionally that she would take enough prisoners to
ransom the Duke of Orleans, or whether she would have to cross the sea to
rescue him. She answered yes, and she told the king to let her have her way
with the English lords who were their prisoners. She added that if she had been
able to continue military operations for three years without being hindered,
she would have rescued the Duke of Orleans from England. She said three years
would have been more than enough time, but that one year would have been too
little. However, she said that she does not remember if St. Margaret and St.
Catherine told her absolutely and unconditionally that she would take enough
prisoners to ransom the Duke of Orleans, or if she would have to cross the sea
to rescue him.

We asked her what sign she gave to the king, and she
answered that she would ask advice from St. Catherine regarding this question.

Tuesday, March 13

The following Tuesday, the thirteenth day of March, we
gathered at the same hour in the prison cell with the esteemed and discreet
Brother Jean Le Maistre and other esteemed and discreet lords and masters. We
charitably informed Joan, exhorting her and warning her for the salvation of
her soul, to speak the truth in response to everything she was asked.

First, at our command, Joan was questioned about the sign
she gave to the king, to which she replied, “Would you be satisfied if I
perjured myself?”

Asked whether she had sworn and promised to St. Catherine
that she would not tell us about this sign, she answered, “I have sworn and promised
not to discuss this sign by my own decision because I have been pressured too
much to discuss it.” She promised to herself not to speak of the sign further
to any man; she said the sign was that an angel gave assurance to the king by
bringing him the crown and saying he would possess the entire kingdom of France
by the help of God and the work of Joan, and that the king was to put Joan to
work by giving her soldiers or else he would not be so soon crowned and
consecrated.

We asked her whether she had spoken with St. Catherine
since yesterday, and she said she had heard St. Catherine since yesterday and
was told many times to answer the judges boldly in response to what they would
ask her concerning the legal case.

Asked how the angel brought the crown and whether he
placed it on the king’s head, she said it seemed to her that the crown was
given to an archbishop, namely the archbishop of Reims, in the presence of the
king. She said the archbishop received it and gave it to the king, and Joan
herself was present, and the crown was put in the king’s treasury.

Asked about the place where this crown was taken, she
answered that it was taken to the king’s chamber in the castle of Chinon. Asked
on what day and at what hour, she answered that she did not remember the day,
and as for the hour, it was late, and beyond that she could not recall the
hour. She added that it was in the month of April or March, she thought. She
said that in the present month of March or the following April, it would be two
years ago, and it was after Easter.

We asked whether the first day she saw the sign, the king
also saw it, and she answered yes, and he himself received it.

Asked what the crown was made of, she said it was good to
know it was made of pure gold, and the crown was so rich and precious that she
did not know how to describe or appreciate its riches; she said it signified
that the king would gain the kingdom of France.

Asked whether there were precious stones in it, she said,
“I have told you what I know about it.”

Asked whether she had held or kissed the crown, she
answered no.

We asked her whether the angel who had brought this crown
had come from Heaven or from Earth. She replied, “He came from Heaven,” and she
understood that he came by our Lord’s command, and he entered the room through
the door.

Asked again if the angel who brought the crown came from the
Earth, she answered that when the angel came to the king, he expressed
reverence to the king by bowing before the king and pronouncing the words of
the sign that Joan said previously, and that the angel recalled to the king the
sweet patience that the king had shown throughout the many great tribulations
that had befallen him.

She said the angel entered through the doorway, stepped
and walked upon the ground and moved towards the king. Asked how much space
there was between the door and the place where the king was standing, she
answered that as far as she knew there was the space of a good lance’s length.
She added that the angel went out of the room the same way he had come in.

She said that when the angel came, she accompanied him and
went with the angel up the stairs to the king’s chamber; the angel went in first
and then she herself went in, and Joan said to the king, “Sire, here is your
sign, take it.”

We asked her in what place this angel appeared to her, and
she answered, “I was almost always praying that God would send the king’s sign,
and I was in my lodging, in the house of a good woman near the castle of Chinon,
when the angel came to me; and afterwards we went together to the king; and the
angel was accompanied by many other angels whom no one saw.”

She said that out of love for her, and to unburden her
from the distress she was experiencing as a result of people who were opposing
her, she thought that many people present saw the angel, people who would not
have otherwise seen the angel.

Asked if all who were there with the king saw the angel,
she answered she thought the archbishop of Reims, and the Lords d’Alencon, de
la Tremouille and Charles de Bourbon saw the angel, and many clerics and others
saw the crown but did not see the angel.

Asked of what appearance and size the angel was, she said
she did not have permission to tell us that, but that she would answer
tomorrow.

We asked her if all the angels who were in the company of
this angel were of the same appearance. She said that some of the other angels
were similar to one another while others were not, as far as she could see. She
said some of the angels had wings and some were crowned while others were not.
She added that St. Catherine and St. Margaret were with the angels during the
time when she went with the angels up the stairs to the king’s chamber.

Asked how the angel left her, she said that he left her when
she was in a little chapel, and she was very upset when he left her; she cried
and would have gladly gone with him, that is, her soul would have gone with
him.

Asked whether, at the angel’s departure, she was happy or
upset, she answered that she was not fearful or trembling because the angel
left her, but that she was very upset when he left her.

We asked whether it was because of any merit on her part
that God sent His angel to her. She answered that the angel came for a great
purpose, in the hope that the king would believe the sign, that men would stop
opposing her, and to help the good people of Orleans. She added that the angel
also came because of the merits of the king and the good Duke of Orleans.

When asked why the angel came to her rather than to another
person, she answered it pleased God to drive back the king’s enemies through a
simple virgin.

Asked whether she had been told where the angel had
acquired the crown, she answered that the crown was brought from God, and that
no goldsmith on Earth could have made a crown so rich and beautiful; regarding
where or how the angel acquired the crown, she referred us to God and said she
knew nothing else about it. Asked if the crown had a good color and if it
sparkled, she said she did not recall but would try to remember; then she said
that it had a good color and would always be that way, as long as it was well
and dutifully guarded and it was in the form of a crown. Asked whether the
angel had written her letters, she answered no.

When asked what persuaded the king and the people who were
with him that it was an angel who brought the crown, she said the king believed
it was an angel because of what he was instructed by the clergy who were there
and witnessed it, and by the sign of the crown itself.

Asked how the clergy knew it was an angel, she said they
knew it because of their high level of education and because they were
officials of the Church.

Asked about a married priest and a lost cup that she was
said to have pointed out, she replied that she knew nothing about it, nor had
she ever heard anyone talk about it.

Asked whether, when she travelled to Paris, she had a
revelation from her Voices requesting her to go there, she answered no, but
that she went at the request of nobles who wanted to make a military assault on
Paris. She added that she intended to go beyond Paris and cross the trenches of
Paris.

We asked her whether she had any revelation about her
travels to the town of La Charité, and she answered no, that she went at the
request of the soldiers, as she had answered previously.

Asked whether she had any revelation about going to Pont
l’Eveque, she answered that after it had been revealed to her in the trenches
of Melun that she would be captured, she usually deferred to the captains
regarding questions of war; however, she added, she did not tell them that it
had been revealed to her that she would be captured.

Asked whether it was right to attack Paris on the Feast
Day of the Birth of the Blessed Mary, she answered that it was good to observe
the Feast Days of the Blessed Mary, and in her conscience she felt it was right
to observe the Feast Days of the Blessed Mary from beginning to end.

Asked whether, from the outer edge of Paris, she said,
“Surrender this town in Jesus’ name!” She answered no, and that she said,
“Surrender it to the king of France.”

Wednesday, March 14

In the prison cell where Joan is kept in the castle of
Rouen, we questioned her in the presence of Master Jean de La Fontaine, the
commissary appointed by us and the Bishop; Brother Jean Le Maistre; the
assessors, the esteemed and discreet lords and masters Nicolas Midi and Gerard
Feuillet, Doctors of Theology; Nicolas de Hubent, Apostolic Secretary; Isambard
de La Pierre; and other witnesses.

We first asked her why she jumped from the tower at
Beaurevoir. She answered that she had heard that the people of Compiegne, all
of them to the age of seven years, were to be put to fire and the sword, and
she would have rather died than live after such a slaughter of good people. She
said another reason she jumped from the tower was she knew that she had been
sold to the English, and she would have rather died than fall into the hands of
her enemies the English.

Asked whether she decided to jump from the tower because
of advice she received from her Voices, she answered that St. Catherine had
told her almost every day not to jump, and that God would help her and the
people of Compiegne. But Joan told St. Catherine that since God was going to
help the people of Compiegne, she wanted to be there. Then St. Catherine said,
“You must be resigned and not falter; you will not be delivered until you have
seen the king of the English.” Joan answered, “Truly, I do not want to see the
king of the English, and I would rather die than fall into the hands of the
English.”

We asked her whether she said to St. Catherine and St.
Margaret these words: “Will God let the good people of Compiegne die so
wretchedly?” Joan answered that she did not say “so wretchedly,” but, “How can
God let these good people of Compiegne die, these people who have been and who
are so faithful to their Lord?”

She said that after falling from the tower she was without
food for two or three days, and she was so injured by the leap that she could
not eat or drink; however, she was comforted by St. Catherine who told her to
confess and ask God to forgive her for having jumped out of the tower, and that
the people of Compiegne would get relief before St. Martin’s Day in winter,
without a doubt. Then she began to get well and started to eat, and soon
afterward she recovered.

Asked whether, when she jumped from the tower, she
expected to kill herself, she answered no, because as she jumped she trusted
herself to God and she hoped that by the leap she would escape and not be
delivered to the English.

Asked whether, when she regained her speech after falling,
she denied God and His saints, since this is stated in the evidence; she
answered that she did not remember that she had ever denied God and His saints,
blasphemed or cursed, there or anywhere.

Asked whether she wished to stand by the evidence, she
answered, “I leave it to God and nobody else, and a good confession.”

We asked if her Voices sometimes requested a delay before
providing her with answers, and she said that St. Catherine sometimes answered
her but that she, Joan, failed to understand because of the noise in the prison
and the commotion made by her guards. She added that when she makes a request
to St. Catherine, then St. Catherine and St. Margaret take the request to God and
then by God’s order they give the answer to Joan.

We asked if, when the saints come to her, they are
accompanied by a visible light, and whether she sees the light when she hears
the Voice in the castle prison, and whether she knows it is in her room. She
answered that there is not a day that goes by when the Voices do not come to
the castle, and they always come with a light; and regarding the Voice, she
does not remember whether she sees St. Catherine. She says she asks three
things of her Voices: first, for her deliverance; second, that God would help
the French and keep the towns that are under French control; and third, for the
salvation of her soul.

Joan requested that if she is taken to Paris she would
like to have a copy of the records that show our questions and her answers, so
that she may give them to the people at Paris and say to them, “Here is how I
was questioned at Rouen and here are my replies,” so that she will not have to
worry again about having to answer so many questions.

Because she said that we and the Bishop were exposing
ourselves to great danger by bringing her to trial, she was asked what that
meant, and to what peril or danger we exposed ourselves, we and the others. She
replied, “You say that you are my judge, I do not know if you are, but be very
careful not to judge me poorly because you will put yourself in great danger; I
warn you so that if God punishes you for it, I shall have done my duty in
telling you.”

Asked what the danger or peril was, she answered that St.
Catherine told her she would get assistance, but she does not know whether this
will be her deliverance from prison, or if, while she is being tried, some
commotion might occur through which she can be delivered. She thinks it will be
one or the other, and beyond this, the Voices told her she will be delivered by
a great victory; and then the Voices told her, “Take everything peacefully; do
not be concerned about your martyrdom; in the end you will enter Heaven.” She
said her Voices gave her this message simply and absolutely, that is, without
any uncertainty. She calls the pain and adversity she suffers in prison her
martyrdom, but she also said she does not know whether she will suffer greater
adversity, but if that is the case, she commits herself to God.

Because her Voices told her that in the end she would go
to Heaven, we asked her whether she felt assured of her salvation and of not
being damned to Hell. She answered that she firmly believed what the Voices
told her, namely that she will be saved, and she believes it as firmly as if
she were already in Heaven. Asked whether after this revelation she believed
that she could not commit a mortal sin, she said, “I do not know, but in
everything I commit myself to God.” When we told Joan that her answer to this
question was perilous, she said she believed that knowing she would go to
Heaven was a great treasure.

Wednesday Afternoon Session in the Prison

Joan’s first words were related to the immediately
preceding matter concerning the certainty that she felt regarding her
salvation, upon which she had been questioned in the morning session; she said
that she intended to reply this way: provided she kept her oath and promise to
our Lord, that is, to keep safe her virginity, of body and of soul.

Asked whether she needed to confess her sins since she
believed by the revelation of her Voices that she will be saved, she answered
that she does not know of having committed mortal sin, but if she were in
mortal sin, she thinks St. Catherine and St. Margaret would abandon her
immediately. She added that she believes, with regard to the preceding
statement, that one cannot cleanse one’s conscience too much.

We asked her since the time she has been in this prison
whether or not she denied God, blasphemed or cursed God. She said no, but
sometimes when she said, “Good God’s will!” or “Saint Joan!” or “Our Lady!” the
people who reported her words may have misunderstood.

Asked whether it was a mortal sin to take a prisoner for
use as ransom and then put him to death, she answered that she had not done
that.

We cited the case to her about a person who was put to
death at Lagny, a certain Franquet d’Arras. She replied that she agreed to his
execution since he deserved it, because he had confessed himself to be a
murderer, a thief and a traitor. She said his trial lasted two weeks, and that
he had as his judges the Bailly de Senlis and a jury of the people of Lagny.
She said that she asked to have the prisoner Franquet exchanged for a man from
Paris, the landlord of the Bear Inn; but when she heard of the death of the
landlord, and when the Bailly had told her she would be doing a great injustice
by freeing Franquet, she said to the Bailly, “Since the man I wanted is dead,
do with Franquet as justice demands.”

Asked if she sent money, or had money sent, to the person
who captured Franquet as a prisoner, she answered that she is not “Master of
the Mint” or “Treasurer of France” that she would be in a position to pay out
money.

We reminded Joan of the following: she attacked Paris on a
Catholic feast day; she was in possession of the horse of the Bishop of Senlis;
she jumped from the tower at Beaurevoir on her own accord; she wore men’s
clothes; and she consented to the execution of Franquet d’Arras. We then asked
her whether she believed she had committed mortal sin.

She replied first concerning the attack on Paris, saying,
“I do not think I am in mortal sin.” She added that if she was in mortal sin,
then it was a matter only for God and for the priest in confession to know
about it.

Secondly, concerning the horse, she answered that she
firmly believes she did not commit mortal sin against God because the horse was
valued at 200 gold saluts and the Bishop of Senlis was supposed to receive that
payment in exchange for the horse. Nevertheless, she said the horse was sent
back to the Sire de la Tremouille to give it back to the Bishop of Senlis. She
added that the horse was of no use to her for riding. Moreover, she said it was
not she who took the horse from the bishop; and she added, for another thing,
she did not wish to keep the horse since she heard that the bishop was
displeased that his horse had been taken, and besides that, the horse was
useless to soldiers. Finally, and in conclusion, Joan said she did not know
whether the bishop was paid the money that was due to him, nor did she know
whether his horse was returned to him; she thought not.

Thirdly, regarding her leap from the tower at Beaurevoir,
she said, “I jumped from the tower not out of despair, but in the hope of saving
my body and going to the aid of the many good people who were in need of
assistance.” She added that after she jumped from the tower she confessed
herself and asked God to forgive her. She said she received this forgiveness
from God, and that it was not good to have made the jump from the tower and it
was wrong to do so. She added that she knew she had been forgiven because of a
revelation from St. Catherine during her confession, on whose advice she
confessed herself.

Asked whether she received any great penance as a result
of her confession, she answered that a large part of her penance was the injury
she suffered in falling.

Asked whether she thought jumping from the tower to be a
mortal sin, she answered that she knows nothing about this and defers to God.

Fourthly, concerning wearing men’s clothes, she said,
“Because I do it by God’s command and in His service, I do not think I am doing
wrong; and as soon as it shall please God to command it, I will stop wearing
men’s clothes.”

Thursday, March 15

Joan was charitably urged, admonished and required to be
willing to accept the decision of our Holy Mother the Church, as she ought, in
the event of her having done anything contrary to our faith. She answered that
her replies should be seen and examined by the clergy, and then she should be
told if there was anything contrary to the Christian faith. She said she will
be able to tell us with certainty what is contrary to the faith, and she will
tell us whatever she learns from the counsel of her Voices. Moreover, she said
if there was any evil advanced against the Christian faith, advanced against
our Lord, she would not want to tolerate it and she would be grieved to be in
opposition.

Then the distinction between the Church Triumphant
[members of the Church in Heaven] and the Church Militant [members of the
Church on Earth] was explained to her, what the Church Triumphant was and what
the Church Militant was, and she was required to submit to the decision of the
Church Militant regarding whatever she had said or done was either good or
evil. She replied, “I will not give you any answer at the present time.”

Joan was required, upon the oath she had sworn, to say how
she expected to escape from the castle of Beaulieu using two pieces of wood.
She replied that she would gladly escape from being a prisoner in any place,
and that while in the castle of Beaulieu she would have successfully restrained
her jailers in the tower had not the porter seen and prevented her from doing
so. She said apparently it did not please God to allow her to escape on that
occasion, and that she must see the English king, as her Voices had told her.

Asked if she had permission from God or from her Voices to
escape from prisons whenever it pleased her, she answered, “I have often asked
for it, but so far I have not received it.”

Asked whether she would escape now if she saw the
opportunity, she said that if she saw the door open she would go, and it would
be by God’s permission. She said she firmly believes that if she saw the door
open and her jailers and the other Englishmen were unable to restrain her, she
would interpret it as her permission to escape and that God had given her the
assistance. She added that without permission she would not escape, but she
would make a firm effort to discern whether God would be pleased by it
according to the French proverb, “Aide toy, Dieu te aidera.” [“Help
yourself, and God will help you.”]; and by this she said that if she escaped
nobody could say that she did not have permission.

We asked her, since she wanted to attend Mass, whether it
seemed to her more appropriate to be wearing women’s clothes, and which would
she prefer, to wear a woman’s dress and be at Mass, or to wear men’s clothes
and not attend Mass. She answered, “If you promise me that I may attend Mass if
I wear a woman’s dress, then I will answer you.”

Then the questioner said to her, “I promise that you may
attend Mass if you are in a woman’s dress.”

She replied, “And what is your answer if I have sworn and
promised to our King not to stop wearing men’s clothes? However, I will tell
you this: give me a long dress reaching down to the ground, but without a
train, and give it to me so I can go to Mass, and then, after Mass, I will put
on once again these other clothes.”

Asked, once and for all, whether she would wear women’s
clothes and go to Mass, she replied, “I will get counsel from my Voices on this
and then I will answer you.” Moreover, she urged us, that for the honor of God
and Our Lady, she be permitted to attend Mass in this good town.

Then she was told by the questioner she should accept
wearing women’s clothes, simply and absolutely. She then replied, “Give me a
dress like the daughters of your officials wear, a long houppelande, and I will
wear it to go attend Mass.”

[A houppelande was an outer garment worn by both men and
women in Europe during the late Middle Ages; it was typically worn by the professional
classes and featured a long, full body covering with flared sleeves.]

As urgently as she could, she implored us to allow her to
attend Mass in the clothes she wore, without any change.

Asked if, regarding all that she has said and done, she
will submit and commit herself to the decision of the Church, she answered,
“Everything I have said or done is in the hand of God, and I commit myself to
Him. I certify to you that I would do or say nothing against the Christian
faith; and if I have said or done anything, or if anything is discovered about
me that the clergy would declare to be against the Christian faith established
by our Lord, then I would not uphold it, but would cast it out.”

Asked if she would submit herself to the decree of the
Church, she replied, “I will not answer you now, but on Saturday send me a
priest if you do not wish to come, and I will answer to the priest, with God’s
help, and it shall be set down in writing.”

We asked her, when her Voices came to her, whether she
bowed down to them fully, as if bowing down to a saint, and she said yes. We
asked if sometimes she had failed to bow down and then afterward asked for
forgiveness; she said that she was unable to honor them with proper reverence
because she firmly believes they are St. Catherine, St. Margaret and St.
Michael.

We asked her, since candles are commonly offered to the
saints in Heaven, whether she has lit candles or other things, in church or
elsewhere, or had Masses said, to the saints who visit her. She answered no,
except at Mass and in the priest’s hand, and in honor of St. Catherine. She
believes it to be St. Catherine and St. Margaret who appear to her. She added
she has not lit as many candles to St. Catherine and St. Margaret as she would
gladly like to do, firmly believing it is they who come to her.

Asked whether, when she puts candles in front of an image
of St. Catherine, she does it in honor of her who appears to her, she said, “I
do it in honor of God, of Our Lady, and of St. Catherine who is in Heaven, and
I do not differentiate between St. Catherine who is in Heaven and St. Catherine
who appears to me.”

Asked if she always did or accomplished what her Voices
instructed her to do, she replied that with all her might she accomplished the
requests our Lord spoke through her Voices, as far as she could understand. She
added, the Voices gave her no instructions without having the good pleasure of
our Lord.

We asked if in battle she had done anything without the
permission of her Voices. She replied, “You already have my answer to this
question. Read your notes carefully and you will find the answer.”

However, she said at the request of soldiers, she made an
attack on Paris, and also at La Charité at the king’s request. She said these
attacks were neither against nor according to the command of her Voices. Asked
if she ever did anything contrary to the command and will of her Voices, she
said that she did what she could and she knew to the best of her abilities.

She added, regarding her leap from the tower at
Beaurevoir, she did it against the request of her Voices, but she could not
help herself; and when her Voices saw her need and that Joan could in no way
hold herself back, they provided assistance to protect her life and prevented
her from being killed. Moreover, she said whatever she did in her extraordinary
endeavors, they comforted her, and that this is a sign they are good spirits.

Asked if she had any other sign that they were good
spirits, she said, “St. Michael certified it before they came to me.”

Asked how she knew it was St. Michael, she said, “By the
angel’s speech and language.” She said she firmly believes they are angels.

Asked how she recognized that they were angels, she said
she believed it quickly and had the desire to believe it; she said that St.
Michael, when he came to her, told her that St. Catherine and St. Margaret
would also come to her, that she should follow their advice, and that they were
instructed to lead her and advise her regarding what she had to do; and that
she should believe what they said because it was at our Lord’s command.

We asked how she could tell if he was a good or a bad
spirit if the Enemy put himself in the form and disguise of a Holy Angel. She
replied that she would certainly know whether it was St. Michael or a
counterfeit appearing in his likeness.

At first she said she had serious doubts about whether it
was St. Michael, and that the first time she saw the angel she was afraid, and
that she saw him many times before she knew it was St. Michael.

Asked how she knew then, rather than on the first
occasion, that it was St. Michael who had appeared to her, she answered that
the first time she saw St. Michael she was a young girl and was afraid; but
since then, St. Michael taught her and showed her so many things that she
firmly believed it was him.

Asked what doctrine he taught her, she answered that in
all things he told her to be a good child and God would help her; and, among
other things, he told her she should go to the aid of the king of France. She
said a large part of what the angel taught her is in the book of sacred
scriptures; and the angel told her about the pitiful state of the kingdom of
France.

When we asked about the height and stature of this angel,
she said she would reply on Saturday with the other matter, namely what shall
please God.

We asked if she believes it to be a great sin to anger St.
Catherine and St. Margaret who appear to her, and to do things contrary to
their requests. She replied yes, but she knows how to atone for it. She added
that she believed what angered them most of all was her leap from the tower at Beaurevoir,
but she said she asked for their forgiveness for that as well as for other
offenses she had committed against them.

Asked if St. Catherine and St. Margaret would take bodily
vengeance for this offense, she answered that she does not know, and she has
not asked them.

We asked her why she previously said that people are
sometimes hanged for telling the truth, and if she knew of any crime or fault
in her through which she might or ought to die if she were to confess. She
answered no.

Saturday, March 17

We asked her about the appearance of St. Michael,
including his shape, his size and the clothes he wore. She said that when St.
Michael came to her, “He had the appearance of a very honorable man,” but
regarding his clothes and the other things we asked, she would not answer.
Regarding the angels, she said she saw them with her own eyes, but she said we
would not get any additional information from her other than that.

She said that she believes in what St. Michael says and
does as firmly as she believes that our Lord Jesus Christ suffered death and
passion for us; and she said she was led to believe it because of the good
advice, comfort and good teaching that St. Michael gave to her.

Asked if she wished to submit to the decision of Our
Mother the Church regarding whether her words and deeds were either good or
evil, she answered that she loved the Church and would support the Church with
all her might for the Christian faith, but that she was not a person to be
forbidden to go to church or attend Mass.

Regarding the good works she did and her military
activities, she said she must commit herself to the King of Heaven, who sent
her to Charles, son of King Charles of France, who would be king of France. She
said, “And you will see that the people of France will soon win a great victory
that God will provide, and which will shake almost the entire kingdom of
France.” She added that she said this to us so that when it did happen, that
men would remember that she had foretold it. When required to give the date of
this event, she said, “I defer to our Lord.”

Asked if she would submit to the decision of the Church,
she said, “I commit myself to our Lord, who sent me, to Our Lady, and to all
the blessed Saints of Heaven.” She added that she thought that our Lord and the
Church were all one, and so we ought not to create difficulties for her; she
said, “Why do you create difficulties when it is all one?”

Then she was told there is the Church Triumphant, where
God is with the saints and the souls who are already saved, and also the Church
Militant, which includes our Holy Father the Pope, Vicar of God on Earth, the
Cardinals, Bishops of the Church, the Clergy, and all good Christians and
Catholics, and that this Church, in good assembly, cannot err and is governed
by the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, she was asked if she would submit to the Church
Militant, namely the Church on Earth. She answered that she traveled to see the
king of France in God’s name, and in the names of the Blessed Virgin and of all
the blessed saints of Heaven and the Church Triumphant above, and she is at
their command; and it is to that Church which she has submitted all her good
deeds and all that she has done or would do. But regarding her submission to
the Church Militant, she would not answer.

Asked about the woman’s dress that was offered to her so
that she might attend Mass, she said that she would not put it on until it
pleased our Lord. She added that if she must be brought to judgment and
executed, she requests the lords of the Church to grant her the mercy of
wearing a woman’s dress and a hood for her head. She said she would rather die
than turn her back on what our Lord has commanded her to do. She firmly
believes that God would not let her be brought so low, or be at this time
without His help or a miracle.

We asked why she requested women’s clothes in the event of
her execution if it is God who commands her to wear men’s clothes. She
answered, “It is enough for me that the clothing is long.”

Asked if her godmother, who saw the spirits at the Spirits’
Tree, was known to be a wise woman, she answered that her godmother was known
to be an honest woman, and not a witch or a sorceress.

Then she said she would put on women’s clothes if we let
her go. So we asked her if wearing women’s clothes under those circumstances
would please God, since God commanded her to wear men’s clothes. She answered
that if we permitted her to go because she wore women’s clothes, she would do
so, but then would immediately put on men’s clothes and do what our Lord asked
her to do. She said to accomplish God’s will nothing would make her swear not
to take up arms or wear men’s clothes.

When asked about the clothing worn by St. Catherine and
St. Margaret, she answered, “You already have my answer on this matter, and you
will get nothing else from me. I have answered you as best as I can.”

Asked if she believes the spirits at the Spirits’ Tree
were evil spirits, she answered she did not know anything about that.

We asked her how she knew that St. Catherine and St.
Margaret hated the English. She said, “They love those whom God loves, and hate
those whom He hates.”

Asked if God hated the English, she replied that regarding
God’s love or His hatred for the English, or of what He would do to their
souls, she knew nothing; but she was certain that, except for those English who
had already died on French territory, the English would be driven out of
France, and God would send victory to the French.

Asked if God was for the English when they were prospering
in France, she said she didn’t know, but she believed it was His will to allow
people to be chastised for their sins if they were in a state of sin.

We asked her what permission she received from God and
what help she expected to have from God because she wore men’s clothes. She
replied that in this matter, as in other things, she only sought the salvation
of her soul.

Asked about the military armor she offered in the church
at the town of Saint-Denis, she answered that she offered a whole suit of white
armor, fitting for a soldier, with the sword she won at Paris.

When asked why she offered these arms, she said it was out
of devotion and it was according to the custom of soldiers when they were
wounded. She said because she had been wounded at Paris she offered the
military armor to St. Denis, because his name was the battle-cry of France.

[French armies began to use “St. Denis!" as a
battle-cry in the 1100s. St. Denis, Bishop of Paris, was beheaded as a martyr
in 258 at Montmartre (Mount of Martyrs) in Paris. The site of his grave north
of Paris became a burial place for the kings of France (all but three French
kings are buried there). A church built on the site in the 1100s is recognized
as the first major structure designed using Gothic architecture.]

We asked Joan if she offered the suit of armor and sword
at the church of St. Denis so that the armor and sword might be worshiped
there. She said no.

We asked her what the purpose was of the five crosses on
the sword she found at St. Catherine de Fierbois, and she answered she knew
nothing about it.

Regarding her military banner, we asked who persuaded her
to have angels with their arms, feet, legs and robes painted on it. She said,
“You already have my answer.” Again regarding her military banner, we asked if
the angels depicted on the banner were the angels who came to her. She said she
had them painted in the fashion in which they are painted in churches.

Asked if she ever saw angels in the manner in which they
were painted on the banner, she answered, “I will not tell you anymore.”

We asked why the light that accompanied the angels or her
Voices was not painted on the banner, and she answered that it was not
commanded to her to do so.

Afternoon Session in Prison

Joan was questioned if the two angels who were painted on
her military banner were St. Michael and St. Gabriel. She said the
representation of the two angels was there solely for the honor of our Lord,
who was also painted on the banner holding the world.

Asked if the two angels on her banner were the two angels
who guard the world, and why there were not more, seeing that she was requested
to carry this military banner in the name of our Lord. She answered that the
design of the entire banner was commanded by our Lord and by the Voices of St.
Catherine and St. Margaret, who said to her, “Carry the banner in the name of
the King of Heaven.” She added that because they told her, “Carry the banner in
the name of the King of Heaven,” she had the image of our Lord and the angels
painted in color on the banner, and she did all of this at God’s command.

Asked if she questioned her saints whether, due to this
banner, she would win all the military battles she fought and emerge
victorious; she said they told her to carry the banner boldly and God would
help her.

We asked her whether she was more helpful to the banner,
or whether the banner was more helpful to her. She replied that regardless of
whether the victory was hers or the banner’s, it was all for our Lord. Asked if
the hope of victory was based on the banner or on her, she answered, “It was
based on our Lord, and nothing else.”

We asked whether, if anyone else had carried the banner,
he would have been as successful as she was herself. She answered, “I do not
know, and I leave it to our Lord.”

Asked if one of her party had sent her his banner to
carry, and particularly if she had been sent the king’s banner, and she had
carried it, would she have had as firm a hope in that banner as in her own,
which was given to her in God’s name. She answered, “I more gladly carried that
which was requested of me in God’s name, however, in everything I commit myself
to God.”

We asked her what the purpose was of the symbol she put on
her letters, and the names Jesus and Mary. She said that the clerics who wrote
her letters put them there, and some clerics said it was proper to put the two
words Jesus and Mary.

Asked whether it had been revealed to her that she would
lose her good fortune if she lost her virginity, and that her Voices would no
longer come to her if she lost her virginity, she said, “That has not been
revealed to me.”

Asked if she believed her Voices would come to her if she
were married, she answered, “I do not know, and I commit myself to our Lord.”

We asked if she thought and firmly believed that the king
did the right thing to kill, or cause to be killed, the Duke of Burgundy. She
answered that it was a great pity for the kingdom of France, however, whatever
there had been between those two men, God had sent her to the aid of the king
of France.

We asked her to explain her comment that she would provide
answers to us, the Bishop and our government officials, in the same manner as
she would provide answers to our Holy Father the Pope, but that there were
several questions to which she would not reply, and whether she would not
answer more fully for the Pope than she answered for us. She said that she has
answered everything as faithfully as she could, and if she knew anything that
came to her mind that she had not already said, she would willingly tell us.

When we asked whether it seemed to her that she was
required to answer the whole truth to the Pope, the Vicar of God, concerning
all that she would be asked on matters of faith and the state of her
conscience, her reply was that she demanded to be taken to the Pope and then
she would answer for him everything that was required.

We asked her what material one of her rings was made of,
the ring on which the words Jesus and Mary were written. She answered that she
did not properly know, but if it was made of gold it was not fine gold; and she
did not know whether it was gold or brass; she thought there were three
crosses, and to her knowledge, there were no other signs on the ring except the
words Jesus and Mary.

Asked why she so happily looked at this ring when she was
going into battle, she answered that it was out of pleasure and in honor of her
father and mother, and because, having her ring on her finger and in her hand,
she touched St. Catherine who appeared before her.

Asked what part of St. Catherine she had touched, she
said, “You will get no answer from me.”

Asked if she had ever kissed or touched St. Catherine or
St. Margaret, she answered she had touched them both.

We asked if St. Catherine or St. Margaret had a fine fragrance,
and she answered that it is good to know that they did.

Asked whether, when embracing St. Catherine or St.
Margaret, she felt heat or anything else, she said that she could not embrace
them without feeling and touching them.

Asked where she embraced them, whether at their head or
their feet, she said, “It is more fitting to embrace their feet.”

Asked if she had given St. Catherine or St. Margaret
chaplets of flowers, she said that many times in their honor, in front of their
images and pictures in churches, she had given them chaplets of flowers, but
regarding when they appeared to her in person, she does not remember giving
them flowers.

We asked whether, when she hung garlands on the Spirits’
Tree, she put them there in honor of those who appeared to her. She answered
no.

We asked whether she showed reverence to the saints when
they came to her, by kneeling or by bowing down. She answered yes; she
expressed reverence for them as often as she could because she knew very well
that they were from the Kingdom of Heaven.

We asked if she knew anything about the people who gather
together with spirits at the Spirits’ Tree. She said she was never there when
that occurred, nor did she know anything about it, but she had heard talk of
these people, how they went on Thursdays, but she did not believe in it and
thought it was witchcraft.

Asked whether her military banner was raised above the
king’s head when he was crowned at Reims, she answered no, as far as she knew.

We asked why her military banner was carried into the
church at Reims during the consecration, but not the banners of other captains.
She answered, “The banner was present during the perils of war, and that is
reason enough for it to be honored.”

Court Transcripts are Read in Joan’s Presence
(March 24)

Saturday, the twenty-fourth day of March, before reading
the court transcripts, the Promoter appointed by us stated that the task was to
verify the accuracy of the transcripts; that everything they contained, our
questions as well as Joan’s replies, had been truly said and done. After this,
Joan took an oath to add nothing but the truth to her replies.

While the transcripts were being read to Joan, she said
that her surname was d’Arc or Rommee, and that in her area the girls took their
mother’s surname. She also requested that we read the questions and answers to
her consecutively. She said that anything that was read to her without
contradiction on her part she acknowledged to be true and admitted as
testimony.

She added these words to the statements regarding her wearing
women’s clothes: “Give me a woman’s dress to go to my mother’s house, and I
will take it.” She said she would do this to escape from prison, but when she
was outside of the prison she would take counsel regarding what she should do.

Finally, after the content of the court transcripts had
been read to her, Joan admitted that she believed she had spoken well according
to what had been written in the register and read to her, and she did not
contradict any other information contained the court transcripts.

Joan Says It Is Not “In Her” To Wear Women’s
Clothes (March 25)

The following Sunday morning, Palm Sunday, the
twenty-fifth day of March, in Joan’s prison cell in the castle of Rouen, we,
with the Bishop, spoke with Joan in the presence of Jean Beaupere, Nicolas Midi
and Pierre Maurice, Doctors of Sacred Theology, and Thomas de Courcelles,
Bachelor of Sacred Theology.

We told Joan that she had asked us several times,
especially yesterday, due to the solemnity of these past days and of this time,
if it would be permitted for her to attend Mass on Palm Sunday. That is why we
asked her, if we gave her permission, whether she would abandon wearing men’s
clothes and put on women’s clothes, as she used to do in the area of her
birthplace and as the women there were usually clothed.

Joan replied by asking us if she could attend Mass wearing
men’s clothes, as she was currently dressed, and if she could receive the
Eucharist on Easter Sunday. So we told her that if she were to respond to our
request, that is, to abandon men’s clothes, permission would be given. But she
replied that she did not have counsel on this matter from her Voices and
therefore could not yet wear women’s clothes.

Then we asked her if she would get advice from her saints
regarding wearing women’s clothes. She replied that it might well be permitted
for her to attend Mass as she is currently dressed, which she truly desired,
but with regard to changing from men’s clothes to women’s clothes, she could
not do it and it was not in her.

After the court officials had urged her, according to all
the goodness and piety which she seemed to have, to wear clothes appropriate
for her sex, Joan answered that it was not in her to do it; but if it was to
be, it would be done soon.

Then we told her to speak with her Voices to find out if
she could once again wear women’s clothes to receive the Eucharist at Easter.
Joan replied that as far as it was in her ability, she could not receive the
Eucharist by changing her clothes for women’s clothes. She asked to be permitted
to attend Mass in her men’s clothes, adding that this attire did not burden her
soul, and that wearing these clothes was not against the Church.

Ordinary Trial; 70 Accusations Presented (March 26
– 28)

It was decided that in addition to the preparatory trial
conducted up to this time by our office, further proceedings should be carried
out within the context of an ordinary trial. Articles precisely defining the
accusations against Joan were produced so that she could be questioned and
heard to answer before us. The articles would be put forward by a solemn lawyer
or by the Promoter himself, and if Joan refuses to answer the articles of
accusation after she has been canonically admonished, then her refusal to
answer will be construed as her confession to the aforementioned articles.

After we discussed other matters it was decided that on
the next day the articles would be offered by the Promoter, and that Joan would
be questioned and heard with regard to the accusations contained in the
articles.

March 27, Introduction to Articles of Accusations
against Joan

The following Tuesday after Palm Sunday, March 27, in a
room near the great hall of the castle of Rouen, the Promoter appointed by us
in this trial appeared before us in our episcopal presence.

Joan was led into our presence so that the Promoter could
present to Joan specific petitions and requests.

The Promoter began with the following statement:

My lords, reverend fathers in Christ, and you, Vicar,
especially appointed to this office by the lord Inquisitor of those who stray
from the Catholic faith, established and appointed throughout the whole kingdom
of France, I, the Promoter, appointed, charged and ordained by you in this
trial according to the specific information produced on your behalf, propose
and declare that Joan should be brought before us now to answer the questions which
I shall ask of her regarding the faith.

I undertake to prove, if need be, through the declarations
and conclusions that are fully stated in these articles, all of the facts,
rights and reasons that are contained in these articles, which I will present to
you as judges in this trial.

I implore and request that Joan be made to affirm and
swear that she will answer these articles, each one separately, according to
whether she believes or does not believe their assertions; and in the event of
her refusal to swear to tell the truth, or to decline or postpone it, then she
shall be ruled to be deficient and willfully disobedient to the authorities assembled
in her presence; and if her obstinacy necessitates it, that she shall be
excommunicated for the evident offenses.

If she delays answering, you may determine a specific day
as soon as possible for Joan to answer these articles, indicating to her that
if she does not answer before the appointed day, you will assert that she has
confessed to the articles on which she has not given an answer, according to
law, style, use and the custom you wish and require.

When the request of the Promoter had been completed and
the opinions of each assessor heard, we concluded that the articles displayed
by the Promoter should be read and explained to Joan in French, and that she
should answer what she knows according to each article, but if there were
topics on which she asked for a delay to answer, a reasonable delay should be
granted to her.

The Promoter then took an oath regarding the accusations,
and when this was completed, we told Joan that all of the assessors were
ecclesiastical and educated men, experienced in canon and civil law, who wished
and intended to proceed with her in all piety and meekness, as they had always
been disposed, seeking not vengeance or corporal punishment, but rather her
instruction and her return to the ways of truth and salvation.

Also, because she was not educated and literate enough in
such complex matters, we suggested that she could choose one or more of the
assessors present to give her some counsel with regard to what she should do
and how she should reply, provided that she wished to answer truthfully. We
stated that we required her to swear to speak the truth.

Joan replied, “First, for admonishing me about my
salvation and our faith, I thank you and all who are gathered here. Regarding
the counsel you offer me, I thank you for that too, however, I have no
intention of departing from the counsel of our Lord; the oath you wish me to
take, I will willingly swear to answer truthfully on everything that concerns
your trial.” She took the oath with her hands on the Holy Scriptures.

Then, at our invitation and command, the articles which
the Promoter had shown us were read to Joan, and the contents of the articles
of accusation were explained to Joan in French.

ARTICLE 1

Before you, competent judges, is the woman commonly called
Joan the Virgin, found, captured and taken within the jurisdiction of your
territory and within the boundaries of your Diocese of Beauvais. She surrendered
and has been entrusted, delivered and restored to you, her ecclesiastical and
ordinary judges, by our lord the Christian king of France and England, to be
dealt with by law and corrected as a person who is strongly suspected,
denounced and defamed by honest and sober people.

She should be denounced and declared by you, her judges,
as a witch, an enchantress and a false prophet; a caller-up of evil spirits;
superstitious; implicated in and given to the magic arts; thinking evil in our
Catholic faith; schismatic in the faith; a skeptic, devious and sacrilegious;
idolatrous; an apostate of the faith; accursed and doing evil; blasphemous
towards God and His saints; scandalous and seditious; disturbing and
obstructing the peace; inciting people to war; cruelly thirsting for human
blood; encouraging blood to be shed; and having completely and shamelessly
abandoned the modesty befitting her sex, she is guilty of indecently wearing
inappropriate clothes and the clothes of soldiers.

For these and other things abominable to God and to man,
contrary to laws both divine and natural, and to ecclesiastical discipline:
misleading princes and people; having, to the scorn of God, permitted and
allowed herself to be adored and venerated, giving her hands to be kissed;
heretical, or at the least, strongly suspected of heresy; and according to
divine and canonical sanctions, she should be punished and corrected
canonically and lawfully for these reasons and for all other proper ends.

According to divine as well as canon and civil law, it is
proper for the ordinary judge and Inquisitor of the Faith to drive out, destroy
and completely uproot from your diocese and the whole kingdom of France the
heresies, sacrileges, superstitions and other crimes declared above; to punish,
correct and restore heretics, those who propose, speak and say things contrary
to our Catholic faith or act against it in any way; and all evil doers, criminals
or their accomplices who are apprehended in this diocese and jurisdiction, even
if part or all of their misdeeds have been committed elsewhere, as other
competent judges in their own dioceses, limits and jurisdictions are empowered
and bound to do; even with respect to a lay person of whatever status, sex,
quality or preeminence, you must be held as esteemed, reputable and competent
judges.

Joan’s response:

To this first article Joan replies that she is well aware that
our Holy Father the Pope at Rome, the bishops and other clergy exist for the
protection of the Christian faith and the punishment of those who fall from it;
however, for her part, with regard to her activities, she will submit only to
the Church in Heaven, that is, to God, to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and to the
Saints in Heaven. She firmly believes that she has not failed in the Catholic
faith and would not fail it in the future.

ARTICLE 2

The accused, not only in the current year but also from
the time of her childhood, and not only in your diocese and jurisdiction but
also in neighboring and other parts of this kingdom, has performed, composed,
associated with and commanded many charms and superstitions; she has been
idolized and has permitted herself to be adored and venerated; she has called
up demons and evil spirits, and has consulted and visited them, and has entered
into pacts and treaties with them; she has similarly given advice, assistance
and favors to other people doing the same things, and she has induced them to
do the same or similar things; likewise, saying, believing, maintaining and
affirming that to do these things or believe in them—to use such charms,
divinations and superstitious activities—was neither a sin nor a forbidden
thing; and she has instead assured people that it is lawful, praiseworthy and
appropriate, enticing into these evil ways and errors many people of different
status and of either sex, and in whose heart she has imprinted these ideas and
similar notions. In committing these crimes, she was captured and taken within
the boundaries and limits of your Diocese of Beauvais.

Joan’s response:

To this second article Joan answers that she denies the
charms, superstitions and divinations; and regarding the adoration, if certain
people have kissed her hands or garments it was not because of her or at her
direction; she said she kept herself from that as much as it was within her
power to do so. Regarding the rest of the accusations in the article, she denies
them.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, March 3, of this same year, with regard to
the contents of this article, when Joan was asked if she knew what was in the
thoughts of the people of her party as they kissed her hands, her feet and her
garments, she answered that many people gladly saw her, and with that, she said
she told them to kiss her garments as little as possible; however, the poor
people came to her, and she did not disappoint them and she helped them as much
as she could.

On Saturday, March 10, we asked her about leading the
military assault at Compiegne, where she was captured. She said she was told by
revelation or by her Voice to carry out the assault. She said on that day her
Voice had not foretold her capture, and she was not advised by her Voice to go
there, however, she has often been told by her Voice that she must be captured.
Asked if, when she made this assault she passed over the bridge of Compiegne,
she replied yes, and using the boulevard, she went with the company of her men
against the men of lord Jean de Luxembourg, and that she twice drove them to
the camp of the Burgundians, and a third time to the middle of the highway;
then the English cut off the road from her and her company, between her and the
boulevard, so her men retreated; and she, falling back to the fields on the
Picardy side, was captured; and the river, which was an impediment, was between
Compiegne and the place where she was taken, and between Compiegne and where
she was captured there was only the river and the boulevard with its ditch.

ARTICLE 3

The accused has fallen into many different errors of the
worst kind, infected with heretical evil. She has said, uttered, voiced,
affirmed, published and imprinted on the hearts of simple people specific false
and lying assertions infected with heresy and actually heretical, without faith
and contrary to our Catholic faith, and against the statutes made and approved
by the General Councils, as well as by divine, canon and civil laws. Also, she
has given advice and favors to people who have said, uttered, affirmed and
spread scandalous and sacrilegious assertions that are contrary to good custom
and offensive to pious ears.

Joan’s response:

This third article Joan denies, and she declares that to
the best of her ability she has upheld the Church.

ARTICLE 4

To better and more specifically inform you of the
offenses, excesses, crimes and misdemeanors committed by the accused, and as
has been reported in many parts of the territory, in this diocese and
elsewhere, it is true that the accused was and is a native of the village of
Greux, that her father is Jacques d’Arc and her mother is Isabelle, his wife;
that she was brought up in her youth until the age of about 18 in the village
of Domremy on the Meuse, in the Diocese of Toul, in the Bailly of
Chaumont-en-Bassigny, in the area of Monteclaire and Andelot.

In her youth, Joan was not taught or instructed in the
belief and principles of the faith, but was taught and initiated by certain
elderly women in the use of spells, divinations and other superstitious works
or magic arts. Many inhabitants of these villages are known from previous times
to have practiced these evil arts, and from certain of these women, and
especially from her godmother, Joan stated that she often heard talk of visions
or apparitions of spirits or fairy spirits; and from other people she has been
taught and filled with these evil and malevolent errors about the spirits, so
much so that she admitted to you, in judgment, that until this day she does not
know whether these spirits were evil spirits.

Joan’s response:

To this article Joan replies that she agrees with the
first part about her father and mother, and the place of her birth; but as for
spirits or fairies, she does not understand. Regarding her instruction by the
women, she said she learned to believe and was appropriately and suitably
taught how to behave as a good child should. Regarding her godmother, she
referred us to what she had stated previously. When asked about saying her
Credo, Joan answered, “Ask the confessor to whom I said it.”

ARTICLE 5

Near the village of Domremy stands a certain large and
ancient tree, commonly called The Charmed Spirits’ Tree of Bourlemont, and near
the tree is a fountain. It is said that in the vicinity of this tree there are
evil spirits, called fairies, and at night people who practice magic spells are
accustomed to dancing with the spirits as they move around the tree and the
fountain.

Joan’s response:

To this fifth article, regarding the tree and the fountain,
Joan referred us to an answer she had given previously; the rest she denies.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, February 24, Joan answered that not far from
Domremy there is a tree called the Ladies’ Tree, which some call the Spirits’
Tree, and near it is a fountain. She has heard that people who are ill drink
water from this fountain, and she herself has drunk water from this fountain.
She said that sick people seek restoration of their health from its water, but
she does not know whether they are cured or not.

On Thursday, March 1, when asked if St. Catherine and St.
Margaret spoke to her under the tree, she said, “I do not know.” Then we asked
if the saints spoke to her at the fountain, and she answered that they did, and
that she heard them there; but what the saints said to her there she no longer
remembers. When asked, on the same day, what the saints had promised her, there
or elsewhere, she replied that they made no promises to her except by God’s
permission.

On Saturday, March 17, when asked if her godmother, who
saw spirits at the Spirits’ Tree, is believed to be a wise woman, she answered
that she is known as a good, honest woman, and not a witch or a sorceress.

The same day, when asked if she had believed the spirits
to be evil spirits, she answered that she did not know; and the same day, when
asked if she knew anything about those people who associate with the spirits,
she answered that she never went there and never knew anything about that, but
she had heard that some people went to the Spirits’ Tree on Thursdays. She said
she does not believe in it, and she said it was witchcraft.

ARTICLE 6

Joan frequently went to the fountain and the tree, mostly
at night but sometimes during the day, particularly to be alone at times when
the Divine Office prayers were being recited in the church. While dancing, Joan
would move around the tree and the fountain, and then she would hang garlands
on the tree limbs; the garlands were made by her own hand using different herbs
and flowers; all the while, she danced and sang, before and afterward, certain
songs, verses and invocations, spells and evil arts; the next morning the
chaplets of flowers would no longer be found there.

Joan’s response:

To this sixth article, Joan referred us to another reply she
previously made. The remainder of the article she denies.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, February 24, Joan said that she heard how the
sick, when they were able to walk, would go to the Spirits’ Tree to walk around
it. The tree is a very large beech tree and the property is said to belong to
Pierre de Bourlemont. Sometimes she went to the tree playing with the other
girls in summer, and she made garlands for Our Lady of Domremy there.

She often heard elderly people say, but not people of her
family, that spirits frequently visited the tree. She heard her godmother, the
wife of the mayor of Domremy, Aubrey, say that she had seen the spirits, but Joan
herself does not know if it is true. She never, as far as she knows, saw the
spirits, and she does not know if she saw any of these spirits elsewhere.

She has seen girls putting chaplets of flowers on the
limbs of the tree, and she herself has hung chaplets of flowers with other
girls there, sometimes carrying them away, sometimes leaving them there. She
added that ever since she knew that she must travel to France she has spent
little time playing games or dancing, as little as possible.

She does not remember whether she has danced near the tree
since she has grown to the age of understanding; she added that on some
occasions she may well have danced there with the children, but she more often
sang than danced there.

She added that there is also a wooded area, called the
Oak-Wood, which can be seen from her father’s door, less than two miles away.
She does not know nor has she ever heard that spirits visit there, but she has
heard from her brothers that after she had left the area, it was said that she
received her message at the Spirits’ Tree. She says that she did not, and she
told her brother so.

Also, she said that when she travelled to see the king,
several people asked her if there was in her part of the country a wooded place
called the Oak-Wood, because there were prophecies saying that a young girl
would come out of the Oak-Wood and work miracles; however, she said she put no
faith in that.

ARTICLE 7

Joan was accustomed to wearing a mandrake in her bosom,
hoping thereby to have good fortune in riches and things of this world; this
mandrake, she affirmed, possessed these capabilities and potency.

Joan’s response:

This seventh article, of the mandrake, Joan absolutely
denies.

Promoter’s comments:

On March 1, when we asked what she had done with her
mandrake, Joan replied that she never had one; she heard people say there was a
mandrake plant near her village but she never saw it. She had heard that it is
an evil and dangerous thing to keep; however, she cannot say what its use is.
Asked where this mandrake plant is, the one she heard about, she replied that
she heard it was in the ground near the tree, but she cannot say exactly where;
she has heard that a hazel tree grows over the mandrake plant.

Asked what benefits the mandrake provides, she replied
that she has heard it attracts wealth, but she puts no faith in that, and her
Voices never told her anything about the mandrake.

ARTICLE 8

Joan, of her own will and without the permission of her
father and mother, went to the town of Neufchateau in Lorraine, and while she
was there for some time she served in the house of a woman, an innkeeper named
La Rousse, where many young unguarded women stayed, and the lodgers were mostly
soldiers. Therefore, dwelling at this inn, she would sometimes stay with these
women, sometimes she would drive the sheep to the fields, and occasionally she
would lead the horses to drink, or to the meadow or to pasture. She said it was
there that she learned to ride a horse and became acquainted with the
profession of being a soldier.

Joan’s response:

To this eighth article Joan referred us to her other
replies, and she denied the remainder.

Promoter’s comments:

On February 22, Joan confessed that out of fear of the
Burgundians she left her father’s house and went to the town of Neufchateau in
Lorraine, to the house of a certain woman named La Rousse, where she stayed for
about two weeks performing the common duties of a household, but she did not go
into the fields. On Saturday, the twenty-sixth of the same month, when asked if
she took the farm animals to the fields, she said she had already replied; she
also added that since the time she had grown up and reached the age of
understanding she did not typically look after the cattle, but helped to take
them to the meadows and to a castle called the Island, out of fear of the
soldiers, but she does not remember whether or not she tended them in her
youth.

ARTICLE 9

Joan, while serving at the house of the woman named La
Rousse, summoned a certain youth before the magistrate of Toul for breach of a
promise to marry, and in the course of this legal case she frequently went to
Toul, and pursuing the legal case she spent almost everything she had. This
young man, knowing she had lived with the women at the house of La Rousse,
refused to marry her, and he died while awaiting an outcome of the litigation.
For this reason, out of spite, Joan left the house of La Rousse.

Joan’s response:

To this ninth article Joan answers that she has replied
elsewhere, and she refers us to that reply. She denies the remainder.

Promoter’s comments:

On Monday, March 12, while answering a question regarding
who had persuaded her to summon the man from Toul for breach of a promise to
marry, Joan said, “I did not have him summoned; it was he who summoned me, and
I swore before the judge to tell the truth.”

Also, she swore that she had made no promise to marry this
man. She added that her Voices assured her that she would win her legal case
against this man.

ARTICLE 10

After leaving the service of La Rousse, Joan claims for
the past five years she has been having visions and apparitions of St. Michael,
St. Catherine and St. Margaret, and that they have privately revealed to her
that she should carry out the military assault on the city of Orleans and have
Charles, whom she calls her king, crowned, and that she should drive out all the
adversaries of the kingdom of France.

Against the wishes of her father and mother, she left
them, and of her own initiative and decision she went to Robert de Baudricourt,
captain of Vaucouleurs, to inform him—according to the commands of St. Michael,
St. Catherine and St. Margaret—of the visions and revelations made to her by
God, as she claims, and to ask Robert to help her accomplish the objectives of
these revelations. Twice refused by Robert and after being sent home, she
received once more by revelation the command to return to Robert de
Baudricourt, and it was during this third time that she was welcomed and
received by Robert.

Joan’s response:

To this tenth article, Joan answers that she will stand by
her other replies on this matter.

Promoter’s comments:

Joan previously stated that when she was about 13 years
old, she heard a Voice from God to help her and guide her, and that the first
time she heard the Voice she was very frightened. The Voice came around noon on
a summer’s day, in her father’s garden, when she was not fasting, and she had
not fasted on the previous day.

She heard the Voice on her right, towards the direction of
the church, and she rarely heard the Voice without it being accompanied by a
visible light. The light came from the same side as the Voice, and generally it
was a bright light, and the first time she heard the Voice there was a light. When
she traveled through France she often heard a great Voice; she added that if
she was in a wooded area she heard the Voice well, and it seemed to her an
admirable Voice, and she believed it was sent to her from God.

After she heard the Voice three times she knew it was the
Voice of an angel. She said the Voice always protected her well, and she
understood the Voice well. Asked what instruction this Voice gave to her
regarding the salvation of her soul, she said it taught her to be good and to
go to church often, and that she must travel through France. She added that the
questioner would not learn from her at this time in what form the Voice
appeared to her.

The Voice told her two or three times a week to leave her
home and travel to France, and that her father was to know nothing about her
leaving. The Voice told her to come and she could no longer stay where she was.
The Voice told her she would carry out the military assault on Orleans.

When she reached Vaucouleurs she recognized Robert de
Baudricourt even though she had never seen him before. She recognized Robert
through her Voice, which told her it was Robert. She told Robert that through
her Voices it had been revealed to her that she must travel to France. Twice he
refused her, but the third time he received her and he gave her an escort, as
her Voice had foretold.

On Saturday, February 24, when we asked at what time on
the preceding day she had heard the Voice, she replied that she had heard the
Voice three times in all; first in the morning, next at Vespers, and lastly
when the Hail Mary [church bells] were rung in the evening. She often heard the
Voice more frequently than this; and the previous morning, while she was asleep,
the Voice woke her not by touching her, but by speaking to her. She did not
know if the Voice was in the room but she was certain it was in the castle. She
admitted that when the Voice came to her for the first time she was 13, or
about 13 years old.

On Tuesday, February 27, she said that it had been at
least seven years since St. Catherine and St. Margaret began for the first time
to guide her. Asked if St. Michael appeared first, she said yes, and she
received great comfort from him. She also said, “I do not speak of St.
Michael’s Voice, but of his great comfort.”

Asked which Voice was the first to come to her about the
age of 13, she answered that it was St. Michael who she first saw with her eyes,
and that he was not alone but accompanied by many angels from Heaven. She said
that she travelled through France only by the instruction of God. Asked if she
saw St. Michael and the angels physically and in reality, she replied that she
saw them with her bodily eyes in the same manner that she saw the assessors at
the trial. When St. Michael and the angels left her, she cried and wished they
had taken her with them. Asked on the same day if there was a light with the
Voice, she answered there was a great deal of light on all sides, as was most
appropriate.

On Thursday, March 1, we asked if, since the preceding
Tuesday, she had spoken with St. Catherine and St. Margaret, and she answered
yes, both, on that day and on the previous day, but she did not remember at
what hour. She said that there is not a day that goes by without her hearing
them.

On Monday, March 12, we asked if she inquired of her
Voices whether she should tell her father and mother that she would be leaving
them, and she answered that her Voices would have been glad for her to tell her
parents except for the difficulties it would have caused if she had done so. If
the decision regarding whether to tell her parents was up to her, she would not
have told her parents anything; the Voices left it up to her to tell her
parents or to be silent.

Asked about the dreams her father had of her going away,
she said that her mother told her several times that while she was still at
home her father said he had dreamt of Joan’s going away with soldiers, so they
took great care to keep her safe and were overly protective; and she obeyed
them in all things except for the incident at Toul regarding the action for
marriage. She had heard her mother say how her father said to her brothers, “If
I thought what I dreamed was going to happen, I would want you to drown her,
and if you would not, I would do it myself.” Her father and mother almost lost
their senses when she left for Vaucouleurs. Asked whether these thoughts came
to her father after she had her visions and heard her Voices, she answered yes,
more than two years after she first heard the Voices.

ARTICLE 11

Joan, having entered into intimate relations with Robert
de Baudricourt, boasted to have told him that after having accomplished
everything revealed to her by God, that she would have three sons: the first
would be Pope, the second emperor, and the third king.

After hearing this, the captain said to her, “Now then, I
would like to give you a child since they’re going to be such powerful men,
because I’m worth as much or more and I would be better off.” To which Joan
replied, “Gentle Robert, no, no, this is not the time, the Holy Spirit will
find a way!” Robert confirmed and repeated this conversation in many places,
including in the presence of clerics, lawyers and notable persons.

Joan’s response:

To this eleventh article, Joan answered by referring us to
the answers she made elsewhere on this subject; and as for having three
children, she never boasted about it.

[The Duchess of Bedford requested Anna Bavon and at least
one other midwife to examine Joan’s virginity, and Anna stated that Joan
appeared to be a virgin. It is unclear if the trial judges believed the midwives.
At the time, it was generally believed that virgins could not be under the
influence of demonic forces, so the judges would have a motive to claim that
Joan was not a virgin. When Joan was asked why she called herself “the Maid”
(the Virgin) and whether she was a virgin in reality, she answered, “I may tell
you that I am.”]

Promoter’s comments:

On Monday, March 12, we asked if her Voices called her
daughter of God, or daughter great-hearted, and she answered that before the
military assault on Orleans and since then, her Voices have spoken to her every
day, often calling her Joan the Virgin, Daughter of God.

ARTICLE 12

To better and more easily accomplish her plans, Joan
required Captain Robert de Baudricourt to have a man’s outfit made for her,
with armaments to match, and he finally consented to her demands, which he did
reluctantly and with great repugnance. After the garments and armaments were
made, fitted and finished, Joan stopped wearing and entirely abandoned women’s
clothes; and with her hair cropped short and styled like a vain young man, she
wore a shirt, riding pants, a man’s close-fitting jacket, stockings fastened to
her riding pants, long leggings laced on the outside, a short cape reaching to
her knees or thereabout, a close-cut cap, tightfitting boots, long spurs, a
sword, a dagger, breastplate, and a lance and other armaments in the style of a
soldier, with which she performed the activities of war and affirmed she was
fulfilling the commands of God as they had been revealed to her.

Joan’s response:

To this twelfth article Joan referred us to her other
replies on this matter. Importantly, when we asked her whether she put on this
clothing and these armaments and other uniforms of war because of God’s
command, she answered, “I refer you, as before, to what I have already said in
reply to this.”

Promoter’s comments:

On Thursday, February 22, Joan said that her Voice had
told her to go to Robert, Captain of Vaucouleurs, and he would give her
soldiers. She answered to her Voice by saying she was a poor maid who could
neither ride a horse nor fight a war. She said that she had told an uncle that
she had to go to Vaucouleurs, so he took her there. Also, she said that when
she went to see the king she wore men’s clothes.

Before she went to the king, the Duke of Lorraine sent for
her; she went and told him she wanted to go to France. The Duke questioned her
about recovering his health, but she told him she knew nothing of that and
spoke little to him about her journey. She told the Duke to give her his son
and his men, to take her to France, and she would pray for his health. She
traveled to the Duke and returned to Vaucouleurs safely.

Upon leaving Vaucouleurs she wore men’s clothes and
carried a sword that Robert gave to her, but no other armaments, and she was
accompanied by a knight, a squire and four servants. She went to the town of
St. Urbain and slept in the abbey there. During this journey she passed through
Auxerre, where she attended Mass in the great church, and she said she
frequently heard her Voices during this time.

Robert made those who were escorting Joan swear to lead
her safely and surely, and when she left he said to her, “Go, go and come what
may.” She said that she had to change to men’s clothes because she believed the
advice she received from her Voices in that respect was good. She said she
travelled without any difficulty to see the king, to whom she sent letters for
the first time when she was at the town of St. Catherine de Fierbois.

On Tuesday, February 27, asked if her Voice had instructed
her to wear men’s clothes, she said that clothes are a minor thing, the least
of all things; but that she did not wear men’s clothes on account of any
person’s advice; she said she wore men’s clothes and did everything only at the
command of our Lord and His angels.

She said she did not wear men’s clothes at Robert’s
request. Asked if she had done the right thing to wear men’s clothes, she
answered that to her mind everything she did at God’s request was done well,
and she expects good support and help because of it. She also said that she had
a sword that she acquired at Vaucouleurs.

On March 12, we asked if it was at Robert’s request that
she wore men’s clothes, and if the Voice had given her any commands in
connection with Robert, and she answered as previously. Regarding the Voices,
she said that everything good that she had done had been at the request of her
Voices; and with regard to her clothes, she would answer another time because
at the present time she was not yet advised by her Voices, but would reply on
the following day.

On Saturday, March 17, we asked what support or aid she
expected from our Lord because she wears men’s clothes, and she answered that
in this, as in other matters, she wanted no reward other than the salvation of
her soul.

ARTICLE 13

Joan attributes to God, to His angels and to His Saints,
instructions that are contrary to the honesty of womankind, forbidden by divine
law, abominable to God and man, and prohibited under penalty of anathema [not
only excommunication from the Church and separation from the Sacraments, but
also social exclusion from the Christian community] by ecclesiastical decrees,
such as the wearing of short, tight and immoral men’s clothes, those clothes
underneath her pants and top, as well as the rest. She often dressed in rich
and luxurious clothes, lavish accessories made of gold, and clothing made of
fur; and not only did she wear short upper garments, but she dressed herself in
short coats and garments open at the sides. She was notoriously captured while
she was wearing a loose outer garment made of gold-colored cloth, a cap on her
head, and with her hair cropped in the style of a man’s haircut. Casting aside
all womanly decency, and not only scorning feminine modesty but also the
modesty of well-instructed men, she wore the clothes and garments of vain,
self-indulgent men, and in addition, she carried military weapons.

To attribute her behavior to requests made by God, His
holy angels and virgin saints is blasphemous to our Lord and His saints; it
sets aside divine decrees as if they were nothing, and it infringes on canon
law; it is a scandal for women and womanly decency, and it is the perversion of
all modesty in outward behavior. It also provides a sign of approval and
encouragement to engage in the most degenerate examples of behavior.

Joan’s response:

To this thirteenth article, Joan answered, “I have not
blasphemed God or His saints.”

Promoter’s comments:

On Tuesday, February 27, when asked if she thought the
instruction to wear men’s clothes was lawful, Joan answered that everything she
did was at God’s command, and that, if He had asked her to wear different
clothes she would have done so because it was at God’s request. Asked whether
she thought that in this particular instance she had done well, she replied
that she did not wear men’s clothes without God’s command, and that no single
action of hers was otherwise than at His command.

On the following Saturday, we asked her whether, when she
went to see the king for the first time, the king asked her if she had changed
her clothing after her revelations, and she said, “I replied to this question
before; I do not remember the details but my reply was written down during the
investigation at Poitiers.”

On the same day, when asked if she believed that she would
be in error or commit mortal sin by returning to women’s clothes, she answered
that she would do better to obey and serve her sovereign Lord, namely God.

ARTICLE 14

Joan affirms that it is acceptable to wear clothing and
other items worn by vain, self-indulgent men, and she says that she will
persist in doing so, saying that she must not stop wearing men’s clothes except
in the case where she is given specific permission to do so by revelation from
God; to do otherwise would grieve God, His angels and His saints.

Joan’s response:

To this fourteenth article, Joan answered, “I do not do
wrong to serve God; tomorrow you shall have a reply.”

Asked by one of the assessors if she had received an
instruction or revelation to wear men’s clothes, she answered that her reply
had already been given elsewhere and she leaves it at that; but then she said
that she would provide an answer the following day. She added that she knows
very well who instructed her to wear men’s clothes, but she does not know how
she should reveal it to us.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, February 24, when asked if she wanted a
woman’s dress, she said, “If you will give me permission to leave, then give me
a woman’s dress, I will take it and go; otherwise I do not want one; I am
content with this, because it is God’s will that I should wear it.”

On Monday, March 12, when asked whether she did not think
she was doing wrong to wear men’s clothes, she answered no, and even at that
moment, if she were back with her own party, it seemed to her that it would be
to the great good of France for her to do as she did before her capture.

On Saturday, March 17, when asked why, since she declares
her wearing of men’s clothes to be at God’s command, she asks for a woman’s
long garment in the event of her execution, she answered that any garment would
be sufficient for her if it was a long garment.

ARTICLE 15

Joan, having repeatedly asked permission to attend Mass,
was admonished to stop wearing men’s clothes and return to a woman’s dress. Her
judges gave her the hope that she would be allowed to attend Mass and receive Holy
Communion if she would finally stop wearing men’s clothes and wear women’s
clothes, as is appropriate for her sex. She would not agree, and she preferred
not to take Communion and participate in holy prayers rather than give up
wearing men’s clothes, pretending that by doing so she would displease God; by
this she revealed her obstinacy, her stubbornness in evil, her lack of charity,
her disobedience to the Church, and her scorn for the Holy Sacraments.

Joan’s response:

To this fifteenth article, on this Tuesday, March 27, Joan
answers that she would much rather die than turn her back on our Lord’s
command.

On this same day, when asked if she would stop wearing
men’s clothes and attend Mass, she replied that she would not stop wearing
men’s clothes, and that the day she would stop wearing men’s clothes is not up
to her.

She said that if the judges refuse to let her attend Mass,
then it is in God’s power to allow her to attend Mass when it pleases Him,
without them.

As for the remainder of the article, Joan said that she
admits she has been admonished to wear women’s clothes, but she denies the
charge that she is irreverent, and she denies the other charges in the article.

Promoter’s comments:

On Thursday, March 15, when we asked which she would
prefer, to wear a woman’s dress and attend Mass or keep wearing men’s clothes
and not attend Mass, she answered, “Promise me I can attend Mass if I am in women’s
clothes and I will answer you.” Whereupon the questioner said he promised, and
then Joan said, “What do you say if I have sworn and promised to our King not
to stop wearing men’s clothes? However, I will answer you; have a long dress
reaching down to the ground with no train made for me, and give it to me to go
to Mass, and then on my return I will once again put on the clothes I have.”

When asked, once and for all, whether she would wear a
woman’s dress and go to Mass, she answered, “I will get advice on that and then
I will answer you.”

Also, in honor of God and Our Lady, she insisted that she
should be allowed to attend Mass in this good town; and at this point we told
her to take a woman’s dress, simply and absolutely, and she replied, “Give me a
dress such as the daughters of your officials wear, a long houppelande, and I
will wear it to go attend Mass.” Furthermore, speaking as urgently as she
could, she pleaded with us to allow her to attend Mass in the clothes she wore,
without any change.

On Saturday, March 17, questioned on the subject of the
woman’s dress offered to her so that she could attend Mass, she answered that
she would not put it on until it would please our Lord; but she added that if
she must be brought to judgment and stripped of her men’s clothes, then she
asks the lords of the Church to grant her the mercy of wearing a woman’s dress
and a hood for her head, because she said she would rather die than turn her
back on what her Lord commanded her to do. She firmly believes that God would
not permit her to be brought so low, or be at this time without His help or a
miracle.

Because she said that she would put on women’s clothes if
we let her go [from prison], we asked her if wearing women’s clothes under
those circumstances would please God, since God commanded her to wear men’s clothes.
She answered that if we permitted her to leave because she wore women’s
clothes, she would do so, but she would then immediately put on men’s clothes
and do what our Lord asked her to do. She said to accomplish God’s will nothing
would make her swear not to take up arms or wear men’s clothes.

ARTICLE 16

Joan, after her capture at the castle of Beaurevoir and at
Arras, was repeatedly and charitably admonished by noble and distinguished
persons of both sexes to stop wearing men’s clothes and to wear clothes
decently appropriate for her sex. This she absolutely refused, and she still
obstinately persists in her refusal to do so, as well as perform other duties
appropriate for her sex; in all things she behaves more like a man than a
woman.

Joan’s response:

To this sixteenth article, Joan admits that she was
admonished at Arras and Beaurevoir to wear women’s clothes, and that she
refused and still refuses to do so. As for the other womanly duties, she says
there are enough other women to do them.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, March 3, when asked if she remembers whether
the clerics of her own party who examined her, some for a month and others for
three weeks, did not question her about changing from wearing women’s clothes
to men’s clothes, she replied that she did not remember. However, they did ask
her where she began wearing men’s clothes and she told them it was at
Vaucouleurs. When asked if she began wearing men’s clothes because of her
Voices, she said, “That is not relevant to your legal case.”

When we questioned her if she was asked to change from
men’s to women’s clothes at Beaurevoir, she replied, “Yes, truly,” but she said
she would not do so without God’s permission. The Demoiselle of Luxembourg
asked Jean de Luxembourg not to turn her over to the English, and the Lady of
Beaurevoir offered her a woman’s dress and told her to wear it. Joan replied
that she did not have God’s permission and it was not yet time. Joan added that
Messire Jean de Pressy and others at Arras did not offer her any women’s clothes,
but others did ask her to change her clothes. Moreover, she said that if she
had to change her clothes, she would rather have done so at the request of those
two ladies than of any other ladies in France, except the queen.

We asked her, when God revealed to her that she should
change to men’s clothes, whether it was by the Voice of St. Michael, or by the
Voice of St. Catherine or St. Margaret, and she answered, “You will learn no
more at the present time.”

ARTICLE 17

When Joan came to see King Charles wearing men’s clothes
and carrying a weapon, she made three promises, among others, to him: first,
that she would carry out the military assault at Orleans; second, that she
would get him crowned at Reims [Charles was not yet officially crowned as
king]; and third, that she would take vengeance on his enemies, that she would
kill them all by her magic arts, drive them out of the kingdom, both the
English and the Burgundians. She boasted publicly of these promises many times
in different places; and to increase faith in what she was doing and saying,
she made use of magic spells, and she revealed to people, individuals whom she
had never seen or known, details about their habits, various aspects of their
lives and their secret activities, and then she boasted that her knowledge came
by revelation.

Joan’s response:

To this seventeenth article Joan replied that she gave
news to the king that she came from God, saying that our Lord would restore his
kingdom, would have him crowned at Reims, and would expel his enemies. She said
she was God’s messenger to that effect, and she told him to permit her to go to
work boldly and she would carry out the military assault on Orleans; she spoke,
she said, of the whole kingdom, and if the lord Duke of Burgundy and other
subjects of the realm did not come to obedience, the king would compel them by
force. With regard to recognizing Robert and the king, she said, “I maintain
what I said before.”

Promoter’s comments:

On Thursday, February 22, she admitted that when she came
to Vaucouleurs she recognized Robert de Baudricourt although she had never seen
him before, because her Voice told her it was Robert. She said that she saw the
king at Chinon; she arrived around noon and lodged at an inn; then after dinner
she went to the king at his castle, and when she entered the room she
recognized him from among the others by her Voices. She told the king she
wanted to fight the English. On March 13, when asked about a certain married
priest and a lost cup, she said she knew nothing about it and that she had
never heard anything about it.

ARTICLE 18

Joan, as long as she remained with Charles, discouraged
him and his men with all her power from negotiating any treaty of peace with
his enemies. She continually incited her soldiers to murder and shed human
blood, saying that there could be no peace except by the sword and the lance’s
point; and that this was ordained by God because the king’s enemies would not
otherwise yield the territory they held, and therefore to make war on them was
to her mind the greatest benefit to all Christendom.

Joan’s response:

To this eighteenth article Joan answered that she summoned
the Duke of Burgundy both by letter and ambassadors to make peace with the
king. As for the English, she said the only peace possible with them is by
their return to their own country, to England. Regarding the rest of this
article, she said she has already replied and she referred us to her previous
answers.

Promoter’s comments:

On Tuesday, February 27, when asked why she did not
conclude a treaty with the captain of Jargeau, Joan replied the lords of her
party answered to the English they would not get the delay of two weeks that
they requested, but must leave immediately with their horses. For her own part,
she said they could safely leave with their coats and their lives if they
wished, but otherwise they would be taken by assault. Asked if she had any
conversation with her counsel, or Voices, to find out whether or not to grant
the requested two-week delay, she answered that she did not remember.

ARTICLE 19

Joan, by consulting demons and using magic spells, sent
someone to get a specific sword hidden in the church at the town of St.
Catherine de Fierbois, which she had wickedly and deceitfully hid or had hidden
in this church, so that by misleading princes, nobles, clergy and common people,
she might more easily induce them to believe that it was by revelation that she
knew the sword was there, and they might more readily put absolute faith in her
sayings.

Joan’s response:

To this nineteenth article, Joan referred us to her
earlier answers regarding the sword; the rest of the article she denies.

Promoter’s comments:

On Tuesday, February 27, we asked Joan if she had been to
St. Catherine de Fierbois and she said yes, and that she went to Mass there
three times on the same day, and then went on to Chinon. The same Tuesday she
said she had a sword from the church of St. Catherine de Fierbois, the sword
she sent for when she was at Tours or Chinon. She said the sword was buried in
the ground behind the altar, but immediately the sword was found, and it was all
rusted. When asked how she knew the sword was there, she replied that through
her Voices she knew it was in the ground, was rusted over and had five crosses
on it; and she said that she had never seen the man she sent to fetch it.

She wrote to the clergy asking if she could have the sword,
and the clergy sent it to her. She thought it was not buried deep behind the
altar, and she did not know exactly whether it was in front or behind the
altar, but she thought it was behind. As soon as the sword was found, she
added, the priests cleaned it and the rust fell off immediately, without any
effort. An armorer of Tours fetched it.

The priests at St. Catherine’s church and also at Tours
gave her sheaths for holding the sword, one of crimson velvet and the other a
cloth of gold. She herself had another made of very strong leather, and added
that when she was captured she did not have the sword with her, although she
had it continuously until she reached Saint-Denis. Asked how it was blessed,
whether she said a blessing or asked for any benediction to be said over the
sword, she answered she had never asked for a blessing and did not know how to
do it. She said she loved the sword because it had been found in the church of
St. Catherine, whom she loved.

When questioned on Saturday, March 17, about the
significance of the five crosses on the sword, she answered that she did not
know.

ARTICLE 20

Joan put a magic spell on her ring, her military banner
and on linen flags, which she carried or had her men carry for her; and she did
likewise on the sword she claims to have found by revelation at St. Catherine
de Fierbois, affirming that these objects brought good fortune. She spoke many
curses and incantations over these objects in different places, publicly
declaring that with their aid she would do great things and overcome her
enemies, and her men would not be defeated in their attacks or fighting, or suffer
any misfortunes because they carried these flags. In particular, she publicly
said and proclaimed this at Compiegne on the eve of her attack on the lord Duke
of Burgundy, during the course of which she was captured and taken prisoner,
and many of her men were wounded, killed and captured. She also made such
declarations at the town of Saint-Denis, where she incited her soldiers to
attack Paris.

Joan’s response:

To this twentieth article, Joan, on Tuesday, March 27,
answered that she stands by her earlier answers regarding this matter.
Furthermore, she added that there was never any witchcraft or magic involved in
anything she did. With regard to her military banner, she referred to the good
fortune that our Lord brought it.

Promoter’s comments:

On Tuesday, February 27, when asked if she had her sword
when she was captured, Joan answered no, but that she had a sword that was
taken from a Burgundian soldier.

On Thursday, March 1, when asked who gave her the ring now
in the possession of the Burgundians, she replied her father and mother; she
thought it had written on it the names of Jesus and Mary, but she did not know
who inscribed the names. The ring had no gemstone, and it was given to her at
Domremy. She said her brother gave her another ring, in addition to the one
which the bishop has, and she requested that we give it to the Church. Never,
she said, did she use the rings as a means to cure any person or restore their
health.

On Saturday, March 3, we asked about the time when the
king first sent her to do battle and she had her military banner made, whether
the soldiers and others of her party had flags made like hers. She said, “It is
good to know that the lords kept their own arms.” She replied that some of the
soldiers had these flags made at their pleasure, while others did not. When
asked of what material they were made of, linen or another type of cloth, she replied
it was white satin, and on some flags fleurs-de-lis were depicted. She had only
two or three lances in her company, but her soldiers had flags made like hers,
doing so merely to distinguish their men from others. Asked if the flags were
often repaired, she answered that she did not know, but that when the lances
were broken new flags were made. Asked if those flags made like hers brought
good fortune, she answered that she did indeed sometimes say to her men, “Go
boldly in the midst of the English” or “Go boldly among the English,” then she
herself would go.

When asked if she told them to carry the flags boldly and
they would have good fortune, she answered that she certainly told them what
had happened before would happen again. Asked if she sprinkled Holy Water or
had others sprinkle Holy Water over the flags when they were first taken into
battle, she answered that she did not know, but if it was done it was not at
her instruction. Asked if she ever saw Holy Water sprinkled on them, she
answered, “That is not relevant to your legal case,” and if she did, she was
not now advised to answer.

Asked if her soldiers had written on their flags the names
Jesus and Mary, she said that by her faith she did not know. Asked if she had
carried around the altar of the church, or had others carry, the cloth that was
to be made into flags, she answered no, and she had never seen it done.

On Saturday, March 17, when asked what her ring, which had
Jesus and Mary written on it, was made of, she replied she did not exactly
know. She said if it was gold, it was not fine gold; and she does not know if
it was gold or brass, but she thinks there were three crosses on it, and to her
knowledge, no other insignia except the words Jesus and Mary. When we asked why
she so happily looked at this ring when she was going into battle, she said it
was out of pleasure and in honor of her father and mother, and because having
her ring on her finger and in her hand, she touched St. Catherine who appeared
before her.

Asked what part of St. Catherine she touched with her
ring, she answered, “You will get nothing more about that.”

ARTICLE 21

Joan, motivated by her boldness and her presumption, had
the names Jesus and Mary written on her letters, signed with a cross, and
addressed them from herself to our lord the king, to my lord Duke of Bedford,
then regent of France, and to lords at Orleans; letters which contained many
evil things, malicious and contrary to the Catholic faith.

Joan’s response:

To this article, on Tuesday, March 27, Joan answered that
she did not send these letters out of pride or presumption, but at our Lord’s
request, and she admits to the content of the letters except for three words.

Promoter’s comments:

On Thursday, February 22, Joan said she had letters sent
to the English at Orleans telling them to leave according to the instructions in
the letters, which were read to her [text is inserted below]. Regarding the
letters, she said where it states, “surrender to the Virgin” it should read “surrender
to the King,” and likewise regarding the three words, “body for body” and
“commander-in-chief.” The letters begin with “King of England,” and they are
inscribed with + Jesus Mary +.

On Saturday, March 3, when asked if her own party firmly
believed her to be sent from God, she said she didn’t know whether they did,
but referred us to their opinions; but if they did not believe she was sent from
God, she was nonetheless sent from God. When asked if she thought they were
wise to believe she was sent from God, she said, “If they believe I am sent
from God, they are not deceived.”

ARTICLE 22

[Transcript of the letter from Joan to the English military
at Orleans follows.]

+ Jesus Mary +

King of England, and you Duke of Bedford, calling yourself
regent of France, you, William Pole, Count of Suffolk, John Talbot, and you
Thomas Lord Scales, calling yourselves lieutenants of the said Duke of Bedford,
do right in the King of Heaven’s sight, surrender to the Virgin, who was sent
here by God the King of Heaven, the keys of all the good towns you have taken
and laid to waste in France. She comes in God’s name to establish the Royal
Blood, ready to make peace if you agree to leave France and repay what you have
taken. And you, archers, comrades in arms, gentlemen and others who are in the
town of Orleans, leave, in God’s name, and go to your own country. If you do
not, expect to hear from the Virgin who will soon attack you and inflict great
suffering upon you. And to you, King of England, if you do not do this, I am
commander in chief and wherever I meet your followers in France, I will drive
them out; if they will not obey, I will put them all to death. I am sent here
in God’s name, the King of Heaven, to drive you body for body out of all
France; if they obey, I will show them mercy; do not think otherwise; you will
not keep the kingdom of France from God, the King of Kings and Blessed Mary’s
Son. King Charles, the true inheritor to the throne, will possess it because
God wills it and has revealed it to him through the Virgin, and he will enter
Paris with good company. If you do not believe these messages from God and the
Virgin, wherever we find you we shall strike you and make a greater uproar than
France has heard for a thousand years. Know well that the King of Heaven will
send a greater force to the Virgin and her good soldiers than you in all your
assaults can overcome; and by these defeats shall the favor of the God of
Heaven be seen. You, Duke of Bedford, the Virgin prays and implores you not to
bring destruction to yourself. If you obey her, you may join her company, where
the French shall do the fairest deed ever done for Christendom. If you desire
peace in the city of Orleans, then answer; if not, then start thinking about
your impending great suffering. Written this Tuesday of Holy Week.

ARTICLE 23

From the content of this letter it is obvious that Joan
has been deceived by evil spirits and that she has frequently consulted them in
her actions, or, to mislead people, she has maliciously and falsely invented
these fictions.

Joan’s response:

To this article, Joan replies that she denies the last
part of it as well as the part which declares she acted on the advice of evil
spirits.

Promoter’s comments:

On February 27, she said she would rather have been drawn
by horses than to have journeyed to France without God’s permission.

ARTICLE 24

Joan misused the names of Jesus and Mary and the Sign of
the Cross placed with them.

Joan’s response:

To this article, on Tuesday, March 27, Joan replied by
referring us to a previous answer she gave regarding this matter.

Promoter’s comments:

On March 17, when asked what the purpose was of the sign
she put in her letters and of the names Jesus and Mary, she said that the
clerics who wrote her letters put them in there, and that some people said it
was proper to put the two names, Jesus and Mary, in letters.

ARTICLE 25

Joan, assuming the office of angels, said and affirmed
that she was sent from God, even in things tending openly to violence and to
the spilling of human blood, which is absolutely contrary to holiness, and
horrible and abominable to all pious minds.

Joan’s response:

To this article on Tuesday, March 27, Joan answered that
she first asked for peace, but if peace was not agreed to, then she was quite
prepared to fight.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, February 24, Joan said that she came from God
and therefore had no business being in this trial, and she asked to be sent
back to God from whom she came. On Saturday, March 17, she said that God sent
her to help the kingdom of France.

ARTICLE 26

On Thursday, March 1, when asked if she had received a
letter from the Count d’Armagnac regarding which of the three claimants to the
Papacy he should obey, she answered that the Count did write a letter to her
asking about this, to which she replied, among other things, that when she got
to Paris or anywhere else where she had the time to reply, she would answer at
that time; she was about to mount her horse when she said this.

After the letters from the Count and from Joan were read
[the text is included in the following Articles], she was asked whether that
was her actual reply. She answered that she thought part of what we read was
her reply, but not all of it. When asked if she had professed to know,
according to her advice from the King of Kings, what the Count should believe
in this matter, she said she did not know.

When asked if she had any doubts about which of the three
claimants to the Papacy she should obey, she answered that she did not know how
to instruct Count d’Armagnac regarding which of the three claimants to obey because
the Count asked her to say whom God wanted him to obey; but as for Joan
herself, she believed that we should obey our Holy Father the Pope at Rome. She
added that she said other things to the Count’s messenger that are not included
in the copy of the letter we read; and if the Count’s messenger had not left
immediately he would have been thrown into the water, though not by her.

Regarding the Count’s question about whom God wished him
to obey, she replied that she did not know, but she sent several verbal
messages to the Count by courier which were not put into writing. But, as for
Joan herself, she believed in our Holy Father the Pope at Rome.

When asked why she had written that she would answer at a
later time if she believed in the Pope at Rome, she said her answer was related
to a different matter other than the question of the three popes.

When asked if she had stated that she would get advice on
the question of the three popes, she said she swore by her oath that she had
never written, nor caused to be written, anything concerning the three popes.

ARTICLE 27

[Transcript of the letter from Count d’Armagnac to Joan
follows.]

My very dear Lady, I commend myself humbly to you and
implore you for God’s sake, seeing the division that now exists in the Holy
Church Universal regarding the question of the popes, I request you to ask our
Lord Jesus Christ, that in His infinite mercy, He confirm to us through you
which of the three is the true Pope, and which He would have us obey, him who
is called Martin, him who is called Clement, or him who is called Benedict, and
in whom we should believe, because we are all ready to do the will and desire
of our Lord Jesus Christ. Entirely yours, Count d’Armagnac.

ARTICLE 28

Joan gave an answer by letter, signed with her own hand,
which follows.

ARTICLE 29

Jesus + Mary

Count d’Armagnac, my good and very dear friend, Joan the
Virgin informs you that your message has reached her, whereby you say that you
have written to her to determine which of the three Popes mentioned in your
letter you should believe. In truth, I cannot say at the present time, until I
am in Paris or at rest elsewhere, because I am now too busy with the business
of war; but when you hear that I am in Paris, send a message to me and I will
tell you in whom you should rightfully believe and what I can find out
regarding what you should do, as far as I can, according to the advice of my
just and Sovereign Lord, the King of all the World. I speak well of you to God,
may He keep you. Written at Compiegne, August 22.

ARTICLE 30

When asked by the Count d’Armagnac to declare which of the
three was the true Pope and in whom the Count d’Armagnac should believe, Joan
not only cast doubt upon who it was, when there was only one true and authentic
Pope, but also, being arrogant of her own position and maintaining the
authority of the Church Universal to be of little weight, and preferring her
own word to the authority of the whole Church, she affirmed that within a
certain timeframe she would inform the Count d’Armagnac about which Pope he
should believe, which she would discover by God’s advice, as her letter
declares at great length.

Joan’s response:

Regarding Article 27, Article 28, Article 29 and Article
30, which were explained to Joan word for word, she refers us to the answer she
has made, which is stated in Article 26.

Wednesday after Palm Sunday, March 28

ARTICLE 31

Regarding her clothes, Joan said that she wore her clothes
and armaments at the request of God, and that this was true both of the men’s
clothes and the weapons. When asked to stop wearing these clothes she answered
that she would not stop without our Lord’s permission, not even to save her
life, but if it pleased God she would soon stop wearing men’s clothes; she added
that if she did not receive permission from our Lord, then she would not wear
woman’s clothes.

Joan, since the time of her youth, has boasted, and she now
daily boasts, of having had many revelations and visions; and regarding these
revelations and visions, in spite of being charitably admonished and lawfully
and properly required upon legal oath to tell us the details of these
revelations and visions, she will not tell us, and she will not swear an oath
to do so.

She continues to refuse and to delay in telling us about
the details of these revelations and visions; and while formally refusing to
swear an oath on many occasions, she has said and affirmed, while being
questioned here and elsewhere, that she would not reveal her visions and
revelations even if her head was to be cut off or her body was to be dismembered;
she said that we would not pry from her lips the signs which God has shown to
her, the signs by which she knows that she comes from God.

Joan’s response:

To this Article 31, Joan answers that concerning the sign
and other things contained in this article, she may well have said that she
would not reveal it, but she adds that her answer should contain the statement
that she would not reveal the sign without first having God’s permission to do
so.

Promoter’s comments:

On February 22, Joan said there was no day when she did
not hear this Voice or when she did not need it. On the following day she said
that on the previous night her Voice told her many things for the benefit of
the king, and that she wanted the king to know this information immediately, even
if she had to go without wine until Easter; she said the king would eat all the
more merrily because of the messages.

On Tuesday, February 27, Joan said that she sent letters
to the king to ask if she should enter the town where the king was; that she
had travelled more than 500 miles to help him, and that she knew many things
that would be to his advantage. She said she thought the letters stated how she
would be able to recognize him among all the other people.

On Thursday, March 1, when asked in what form St. Michael
appeared to her, she said that she did not see his crown and knew nothing about
his clothes. Asked if St. Michael was naked, she answered, “Do you think God
has not the ability to clothe him?”

On Tuesday, March 15, when required to say how she
expected to escape from the castle of Beaulieu using two pieces of wood, she
said that she would gladly escape from being a prisoner in any place, and that
while in the castle of Beaulieu she would have successfully restrained her
jailers in the tower had not the porter seen and prevented her from doing so.
She said apparently it did not please God to allow her to escape on that
occasion, and that she must see the English king, as her Voices had told her.

On this same day we asked her about the size and stature
of the angel who appeared to her, and she said that she would answer on
Saturday along with other matters, specifically, whatever would please God. The
same day we asked if she had said that a person is sometimes hanged for telling
the truth, and if she knew of any fault or crime of hers for which she should
fear her execution if she did not confess; she answered no.

On Saturday, March 17, we asked Joan about the age and
clothing of St. Catherine and St. Margaret, and she said, “You already have my
reply in this matter and will get no additional information from me; I have
answered you the best I can.”

ARTICLE 32

Consequently, you can and you must conclude that these
revelations and visions, if Joan ever had them, came from evil and deceitful
spirits, not from good spirits, and you must presume that this is the case,
especially in view of the cruelty, pride, manner, actions, lies and
contradictions indicated in several of these articles, which may be said and
held to be lawful and entirely legitimate presumptions.

Joan’s response:

To this thirty-second article, Joan answered, on the
Wednesday after Palm Sunday, March 28, that she denies it, and she declares
that she has acted according to the revelations of St. Catherine and St.
Margaret, and will maintain this assertion until her death.

On this same day she said that she was advised by a certain
person of her party to put “Jesus + Mary” on her letters, and she did so on
some letters but not on others. She added that where it is written, “All that
she has done is at God’s command,” it should read, “All the good I have done is
at God’s command.”

When asked on this same day whether she thought her
expedition to La Charité was done well or done poorly, she answered, “If I have
done wrong, I will admit it.”

When asked if it was right for her to go to Paris for a
military assault, she answered that the French noblemen wanted to go to Paris,
and by doing so, she believes, they performed their duty of attacking their
enemies.

ARTICLE 33

Joan arrogantly and recklessly boasted, and currently
boasts, of foreseeing the future and knowing things that have occurred in the
past that were secret or hidden; and this attribute of God she attributes to
herself, a simple and uneducated creature.

Joan’s response:

To this thirty-third article, this Wednesday, March 28,
Joan answers, “It is for God to decide to make such revelations known to
whomever He pleases.” Regarding the sword and other events that will happen in
the future, she says that she knows them by revelation.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, February 24, she said the Burgundians would
have a war if they did not do as they should, and she said that she knows this
from her Voice.

On Tuesday, February 27, when asked whether, when the
military assault was to be made at Orleans, she told her men that she would be
hit with arrows, crossbolts and stones, she said no, but at least one hundred
men were wounded, and she told them not to have any fear because their attack
on Orleans would be successful. When asked on the same day which fortress she
ordered her men to leave, she said she did not remember. She added that she was
confident the attack on Orleans would be successful because it had been
revealed to her, and she told the king this before going to Orleans.

She also said that during the assault on the fortress at
the Bridge she was wounded in the neck by a crossbolt, but she received great
comfort from St. Michael and was better in two weeks. When asked if she knew
beforehand that she would be wounded, she answered that she did indeed, and she
had told the king this; however, even though she knew she would be wounded she
would not give up her work; and this was revealed to her by the Voices of St.
Catherine and St. Margaret. She added that she herself was the first person to
plant the ladder up against the fortress of the Bridge, and as she was climbing
it, she was wounded in the neck with a crossbolt.

On Thursday, March 1, she said that within seven years the
English would lose a greater prize than they did at Orleans; that the English
would suffer a greater loss than they ever did in France, which would be the
victory that God would give the French over the English. This she knows by
revelation; it will happen within seven years and she is very upset that it
would be postponed for such a long time. She said she knows this by revelation
as clearly as she knows that we are standing in front of her; she said, “I know
it as well as I know you are here.” Asked in what year this will happen, she said,
“You will not learn that; however, I wholeheartedly wish it would be before St.
John’s Day.”

This same day, when asked if she said it would happen
before Martinmas, she answered that she had said many things would be seen
before then, and it might well be that the English would be overthrown and
struck down to the ground. When asked what she told John Grey, her guard in
prison, about Martinmas, she said, “I have already told you!” Asked through
whom she knew it would happen before Martinmas, she answered that she knew it
from St. Catherine and St. Margaret.

This same Thursday, March 1, when asked what promises St.
Catherine and St. Margaret made to her, she answered, “That is not relevant to
your legal case,” but, among other things, St. Catherine and St. Margaret told
her that the king would be reestablished in his kingdom regardless of whether
his enemies wished it or not. On this same day she said she knew very well that
the king would regain the kingdom of France as well as she knew we were standing
in front of her.

On Saturday, March 3, when asked if the Voices told her
anything in a general way, she answered, “Yes, definitely, they told me that I
would be delivered, but I do not know the day or the hour, and they told me I
must boldly show a cheerful expression on my face in front of you.”

On Saturday, March 10, when asked if the military
incursion at Compiegne was made at the instruction of her Voices, she answered
that during the last week of Easter, when she was in the trenches at Melun, she
was told by the Voices of St. Catherine and St. Margaret that she would be
captured before St. John’s Day; her Voices said it had to be so, but that she
should not be afraid and take everything in good stride, and God would come to
her aid.

On this same day, when asked if since Melun she had been
told by her Voices she would be captured, she answered yes, and that several
times, almost every day, her Voices said this to her.

She asked her Voices if, when she was captured, she might
die quickly so that she would not suffer for a long time in prison. Her Voices
told her to be resigned, that these events must happen, but they did not tell
her when these things would happen because if she had known when she was to be
captured she would not have gone. She often asked her Voices at what hour she
would be captured, but they did not tell her.

On the same day she said that when she had to leave to see
the king, she was told by her Voices, “Go boldly, when you are in the king’s
presence he will receive a good sign to receive you and believe in you.”

On Monday, March 12, when asked how she would have rescued
the Duke of Orleans, she said that she would have taken enough English
prisoners in this district to ransom him; and if she had not taken enough
English prisoners she would have crossed the sea to England to take him by
force. Asked if St. Catherine and St. Margaret had told her absolutely and
unconditionally that she would take enough prisoners to ransom the Duke, who
was in England, or else she would cross the sea to take him and bring him back
within three years, she answered yes, and she told the king to let her have her
way with the prisoners. She added if she had gone on for three years unhindered
she would have rescued him; she said that she needed less than three years but
more than one year.

On Wednesday, March 14, when asked to what risk and danger
we, the bishop and clerics, were in because we were trying her in court, she replied
that St. Catherine told her she would receive help; she does not know whether
this will be her deliverance from prison, or if, while she is being tried in
court, some turmoil might arise through which she can be rescued. She thinks it
will be one or the other; most often her Voices tell her that she will be
delivered by a great victory, and they say, “Take everything peacefully, and do
not be concerned about your martyrdom.”

ARTICLE 34

Joan, persisting in her rash and arrogant ways, has
declared, has spread abroad, and has had written, that she is able to recognize
and distinguish the Voices of God’s archangels, angels and saints, affirming
that she can distinguish them from human voices.

Joan’s response:

To this thirty-fourth article on Wednesday, March 28, Joan
replies she stands by her previous answers in this matter; and with respect to
her rashness and arrogance, she refers herself to the judgment of our Lord.

Promoter’s comments:

On Tuesday, February 27, when asked if it was the Voice of
an angel or of a saint, or God Himself, which spoke to her, she replied that it
was the Voice of St. Catherine or St. Margaret, and their heads were crowned in
rich and precious style with beautiful crowns. She added, “I have God’s
permission to tell you this, and if you doubt it, then inquire to Poitiers,
where I was questioned before.”

The same day, when we asked how she knew one saint from
the other, she answered that she knew them by the greeting they gave her and
because they tell her their names.

On Thursday, March 1, we asked how she knew whether her
apparition was a man or a woman, and she answered, “I know very well and I
recognize the saints by their Voices,” and because they reveal themselves to
her. The same day, when asked what part of them she saw, she answered the face.
When asked if they had hair, she said, “It is good to know they have hair.”
Asked if there was anything between their crowns and their hair, she answered
no. Asked if their hair was long and draped down, she said, “I do not know.”

She added that she did not know whether they appeared to
have arms or other body parts. She said they spoke very well and beautifully,
and she understood them very well. When asked how they spoke if they had no other
body parts, she said, “I refer myself to God.”

On March 15, when asked if she had no other sign, other than
these apparitions, regarding whether or not they were good spirits, she
answered, “St. Michael certified it before the Voices came to me.” Asked how
she knew it was St. Michael, she answered, “By the angel’s speech and
language,” and she firmly believes they are angels.

Asked how she knew it was the speech of angels, she
answered that she knew it immediately and had the desire to believe it. She
added that St. Michael, when he came to her, told her that St. Catherine and
St. Margaret would also come to her, that she should follow their advice, and
that St. Catherine and St. Margaret were instructed to lead her and advise her
about what she had to do, and that she should believe what they said because it
was at our Lord’s command.

When asked how she could determine if he was a good spirit
or an evil spirit if the Enemy put himself in the form and disguise of a Holy
Angel, she answered that she would certainly know whether it was St. Michael or
a counterfeit in his likeness.

She said at first she had serious doubts about whether it
was St. Michael, and that the first time she saw him she was afraid; and she
saw him many times before she knew it was St. Michael.

Asked how she knew then, rather than on the first
occasion, that it was St. Michael who had appeared to her, she replied that the
first time she was a young girl and was afraid; but since then St. Michael had
taught her and showed her so many things that she firmly believed it was him.

When asked what doctrine St. Michael taught her, she
answered that in all things he told her to be a good child and God would help
her; and among other things, he told her that she should go to the aid of the
king of France. A great part of what the angel taught her is in this book
[sacred scriptures]; and the angel told her about the pitiful state of the
kingdom of France.

ARTICLE 35

Joan has boasted and asserted that she is able to tell
whom God loves and whom He hates.

Joan’s response:

To this thirty-fifth article, on Wednesday, March 28, Joan
answers, “I stand by what I have already answered with regard to the king and
the Duke of Orleans.” Regarding other persons, she says she does not know. She
says she knows very well that God loves the king and the Duke of Orleans more
than her, and she knows this by revelation.

Promoter’s comments:

On Thursday, February 22, Joan said that she knows God
greatly loves the Duke of Orleans, and that she has had more revelations about
him than any man alive, except the king.

On Saturday, February 24, when asked if she could
influence the Voice so that it would obey her and take news to the king, she
answered that she did not know whether the Voice would obey her unless it was
God’s will and God consented to it. She said, “If it pleases God, He will be
able to send revelations to the king, and with this I shall be very pleased.”

When we asked why this Voice no longer speaks with the
king as it did when Joan was in his presence, she answered that she does not
know if it is God’s will or not.

On Saturday, March 17, when we asked how she knows St.
Margaret and St. Catherine hate the English, she answered, “St. Margaret and
St. Catherine love those whom God loves, and hate whom He hates.”

When asked if God hates the English, she answered that she
knows nothing about God’s love or hatred, or what God will do to their souls,
but she is certain that with the exception of those who shall die on French territory,
the English will be driven out of France, and that God will send victory to the
French against the English.

Asked if God was for the English when they were prospering
in France, she answered that she did not know whether God hated the French, but
she believed it was His will to allow them to be chastised for their sins if
they were in a state of sin.

ARTICLE 36

Joan has declared, affirmed and boasted, and still does so
day after day, that she knows and has truly known, and not only she, but also
other men at her request have truly known and recognized, a certain Voice that
she calls her Voice, which comes to her; although by its nature, this Voice,
which she describes and has described, must have been, and is, invisible to
every human being.

Joan’s response:

To this thirty-sixth article, Joan states she stands by
her previous answers.

Promoter’s comments:

On Thursday, February 22, she said that those of her party
knew very well that the Voice was sent from God, and that they saw it and knew
it, and she knew this very well. Moreover, she said that the king and several
others heard and saw the Voice that came to her, and that Charles de Bourbon
and two or three others were present as witnesses.

ARTICLE 37

Joan admits that she has often done the opposite of what
the revelations have instructed and commanded her to do, although she boasts to
receive these revelations from God; for example, when she left Saint-Denis after
the military assault at Paris, when she jumped from the tower at Beaurevoir,
and on other occasions. As a result, it is clear that either she has not
received revelations from God or she has rejected these instructions and
specific revelations by which she asserts that she is completely influenced and
governed.

Moreover, she said when she was ordered not to jump from
the tower and was tempted to do the opposite, she could not do otherwise. As a
result, she appears to hold erroneous ideas about men’s free will, and she
stumbles into the error of people who put forth the idea that human behavior is
determined by fate or is predetermined.

Joan’s response:

To this thirty-seventh article, on Wednesday, March 28,
she answers, “I refer you to my earlier answers.” However, she added that she
did receive permission for her departure from Saint-Denis. When asked whether,
by acting against the instruction of her Voices, she believed herself to be in
mortal sin, she replied, “I have already answered this, and I refer you to that
answer.” With respect to the rest of this article, she commits herself to God.

Promoter’s comments:

On Thursday, February 22, Joan said that her Voice told
her to remain at Saint-Denis in France, but against her will the lords took her
away. Nevertheless, if she had not been wounded she would not have gone. She
was wounded in the trenches before Paris and said that she recovered in five
days.

On Saturday, March 10, when asked if her Voices had
ordered her to make the attack at Compiegne and had also told her that she
would be captured, whether she would have gone, she answered that if she had
known when she was going to be captured she would not have gone willingly;
however, she said that she would have ultimately followed the requests of her
Voices, whatever it may have cost her.

On Thursday, March 15, when asked if she ever did anything
against the instruction and will of her Voices, she answered that she performed
with all her might whatever she could do and was able to do. Regarding her leap
from the tower at Beaurevoir, which she did against the request of her Voices,
she said she could not help herself; and when her Voices saw she was in need of
assistance, and that she could in no way have held herself back from jumping
from the tower, they provided assistance to protect her life and prevented her
from being killed. Moreover, she said that whatever she did in her great
endeavors her Voices comforted her, and that this is a sign they are good
spirits.

On the same day we asked if she believed it was a great
sin to anger St. Catherine and St. Margaret by behaving in a manner contrary to
their requests. She answered yes, but that she knows how to atone for it; and what
angered St. Catherine and St. Margaret the most of all, in her opinion, was her
leap from the tower at Beaurevoir; however, she asked their forgiveness for
this as well as for other offenses she had committed against them.

ARTICLE 38

Joan, beginning from the time of her youth, has expressed,
committed and perpetrated many sins, crimes, errors and faults, and shameful,
cruel, scandalous and dishonorable actions unfitting to her sex; nevertheless,
she proclaims and affirms that everything she has done is at God’s request and
according to His will, and that she has never done anything which does not
proceed from Him, through the revelations of His holy saints, and through the
blessed virgins Catherine and Margaret.

Joan’s response:

To this thirty-eighth article, Joan refers us to her previous
answers in this matter.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, February 24, Joan said that except for the
grace of God she could do nothing. The same day, when asked if the people of
Domremy were on the side of the Burgundians or the others, she answered that
she knew only one Burgundian in the village, and she would have been quite
willing for him to have his head cut off, if it pleased God.

Asked if in her youth her Voice told her to hate the
Burgundians, she answered that since she knew the Voices were for the king of
France, she did not like the Burgundians.

On Thursday, March 15, when asked if in battle she had
done anything without the advice of her Voices, she answered, “You already have
my answer to this. Read your transcripts carefully and you will find it.”

Nevertheless, she said that at the request of soldiers she
made an attack at Paris, and also at La Charité, at the king’s request; and it
was neither against nor according to the commands of her Voices. When asked if
she ever did anything contrary to the command and will of her Voices, she
referred us to her earlier replies in this matter.

ARTICLE 39

Although the just man falls seven times a day [good people
sin many times each day], Joan has declared that she has never committed, or at
least to her knowledge has never committed, acts of mortal sin, notwithstanding
that she has in reality engaged in all of the behaviors that are customarily
performed by soldiers, as is documented in the preceding and the following articles.

Joan’s response:

To this thirty-ninth article on Wednesday, March 28, she
answers, “I have answered this already and I stand by my earlier answers.”

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, February 24, when asked if she knows if she
is in God’s grace, she answered, “If I am not, may God put me there, and if I
am, may God keep me there.”

She said she would be the saddest creature in the world if
she were not in God’s grace, and she added that if she were in a state of sin,
she did not think the Voice would come to her, and she wished everyone could
hear the Voice as well as she did.

On Thursday, March 1, she said she is very glad when she
sees her Voice, and she thinks that when she sees her Voice she cannot be in
mortal sin.

She says that St. Catherine and St. Margaret, alternately,
at different times, gladly hear her confession, and if she is in mortal sin,
she is not aware of it.

Asked if, when she confesses, she feels as if she is in
mortal sin, she replied that she did not know whether she was in a state of
mortal sin, but she does not think she has committed such sins. She said,
“Please God, I never was in mortal sin, and if it pleases Him, I never shall
commit nor have committed such sins that burden my soul.”

On Wednesday, March 14, when asked whether it was not a mortal
sin to take a man for ransom, a prisoner, and then put him to death, she
answered that she had not done that; and with regard to a certain Franquet
d’Arras who was sent to Lagny to be put to death, she answered that she consented
to his death if he deserved it, because he had confessed himself to be a
murderer, a thief and a traitor. His trial lasted for two weeks, she said, and
he was tried by the Bailly of Senlis and a jury of the people of Lagny. She
said she had asked to have Franquet exchanged for a man from Paris, the
landlord of the Bear Inn; and when she heard of the death of the landlord and
the Bailly told her she would be doing a great injustice by freeing this
Franquet, she said to the Bailly, “Since the man I wanted is dead, do with
Franquet as justice demands.”

After Joan was reminded that she had attacked Paris on a Catholic
feast day, and that she had the horse of the lord Bishop of Senlis, and that
she had thrown herself from the tower at Beaurevoir, and that she wore men’s
clothes, she was then asked if she believed she had committed mortal sin. She
answered, firstly, concerning the attack on Paris, she did not think she was in
mortal sin, and if she was, it was a matter only for God and the priest in
confession to know about it.

Secondly, concerning the bishop’s horse, she replied that
she firmly believes she did not commit a mortal sin because the lord Bishop of
Senlis received a warrant for 200 gold saluts for the horse. Thirdly, regarding
the tower of Beaurevoir, she replied that she did not jump out of despair, but
in the hope of saving her body and of going to the aid of many good people in
need, and after the leap she confessed herself and asked forgiveness of God,
which she received, and she thinks it was wrong to have made the leap. She
knows she received forgiveness after her confession because of a revelation
from St. Catherine, on whose advice she confessed herself. Fourthly, concerning
the men’s clothes, she answered, “Because I do it by God’s command and in His
service, I do not think I do wrong, and as soon as it shall please God to
command it, I will stop wearing men’s clothes.”

ARTICLE 40

Joan, forgetful of her salvation and at the instigation of
the devil, is not ashamed, and has not been ashamed, from time to time and in
many various places, to receive Holy Communion while wearing men’s clothes, a
style of clothing that is forbidden and prohibited by the command of God and
the Church.

Joan’s response:

To this fortieth article, Joan replies, “l answered this
before, and I refer you to my earlier answers.” In conclusion, she submits
herself to God.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, March 3, when asked if, when she was
journeying through the country, she often received the Sacraments of Holy
Communion and Confession when she came to the good towns, she replied yes, from
time to time; furthermore, when we asked if she received the Sacraments while
wearing men’s clothes, she answered yes, but she does not remember receiving
them in armor.

ARTICLE 41

Joan, like a madwoman, out of hatred and scorn for the
English, and also out of fear of the destruction of Compiegne, decided to jump
from the top of a high tower at the instigation of a devil; planning,
attempting and performing all she could to accomplish it. She jumped from the
tower, incited or induced by a diabolical instinct, more worried about the welfare
of her body than the salvation of her soul and of other souls; she boasted
often that she would rather die than let herself be delivered into the hands of
the English.

Joan’s response:

To this forty-first article, Joan answers, “I refer you to
the answers I have already made.”

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, March 3, when asked if she was in the town of
Beaurevoir for a long time, she answered that she was there for about four
months; and when she heard that the English were on their way she became very
angry; and although her Voices had forbidden her to jump from the tower,
finally, out of fear of the English, she jumped and commended herself to God
and Our Lady. Asked if she had said that she would rather die than fall into
the hands of the English, she answered that she would rather surrender her soul
to God than fall into their hands.

On Wednesday, March 14, when asked why she jumped from the
tower at Beaurevoir, she answered that she had heard that the people of
Compiegne, all of them to the age of seven years, were to be put to the fire
and sword; and that she would rather die than live after such a massacre of
good people; that was one reason why she jumped; the other was that she knew
she had been sold to the English and she would have rather died than fall into
their hands.

Asked if her leap was made at the advice of her Voices,
she answered that St. Catherine told her almost every day not to jump, and that
God would aid her and the people of Compiegne too. But Joan told St. Catherine
that since God was going to help the people of Compiegne she wanted to be there
too. St. Catherine said, “You must be resigned and not falter; you will not be
delivered until you have seen the king of the English.” Joan answered, “Truly,
I do not want to see him, and I would rather die than fall into the hands of
the English.”

She said that after her fall from the tower she went two
or three days without any desire to eat, however, she was comforted by St.
Catherine who told her to confess and ask God’s forgiveness for having jumped
from the tower, and the people of Compiegne would assuredly receive assistance
before Martinmas in winter; it was then that she began to eat and drink, and
soon after she recovered her health.

We asked her if, when she regained her speech after her
fall, she denied God and His Saints, and she answered that she did not remember
that she had ever denied God or His Saints.

When asked if she was willing to abide by the evidence
collected, or to be collected, for this trial, she answered that she would
leave that up to God, and nobody else.

ARTICLE 42

Joan has said and publicly declared that St. Catherine,
St. Margaret and St. Michael have body parts such as a head, eyes and face, and
that she has also touched these saints with her own hands, and has embraced and
kissed them.

Joan’s response:

To this forty-second article, Joan replies, “I have
answered this before, and with regard to this, I refer you to my earlier
statements.”

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, March 17, when asked whether she ever kissed
or embraced St. Catherine and St. Margaret, she answered that she had embraced
them both and they had a fine fragrance. Asked if, when she embraced them, she
felt heat or anything else, she answered that she could not embrace them
without feeling or touching them. Asked what part of them she embraced, their
head or their feet, she answered that it was more fitting to embrace their
feet.

ARTICLE 43

Joan has said and publicly declared that the saints,
angels and archangels speak French and not English, and that the saints, angels
and archangels are not on the side of the English but on the side of the French;
and she affirmed their scorn: that the saints in glory look with hatred on a
Catholic realm and a country given to the veneration of all the saints
according to the instruction of the Church.

Joan’s response:

To this forty-third article, which was explained to her
word by word, Joan said nothing beyond, “I refer myself to our Lord and to my
earlier answers.”

Promoter’s comments:

On Thursday, March 1, she said that the Voice is fair,
soft and humble, and speaks French. When asked if this Voice, that is, St.
Margaret, spoke English, she replied, “Why should she speak English? She is not
on the English side.”

ARTICLE 44

Joan has boasted and proclaimed, and still does boast and
proclaim, that St. Catherine and St. Margaret promised to accompany her to
Heaven, that St. Catherine and St. Margaret assured Joan of her salvation if
she kept her virginity, and that Joan is assured of her salvation.

Joan’s response:

To this forty-fourth article, Joan answers, “I refer
myself to our Lord and to my earlier answers.”

Promoter’s comments:

On Thursday, February 22, she said that she never asked
the Voice for any other final reward than the salvation of her soul.

When asked, since her Voices told her she will eventually
go to the Heaven, whether she feels assured of her salvation and safe from
damnation in Hell, she answered that she firmly believes what her Voices told
her, namely, that she will be saved, and she knows this as firmly as if she
were already in Heaven. When we told her that this answer of hers was critical,
she replied that she held this as a great treasure; and she meant, with regard
to this article, provided that she kept her oath and promise to our Lord, that
is, to maintain her virginity of body and soul.

Asked whether, after this revelation, she believes it is
possible for her to commit mortal sin, she replied, “I do not know, but I
commit myself to God in all things.”

Asked if she needed to confess her sins since she believes
from the revelation of her Voices that she will be saved, she answered that she
does not know of having committed mortal sin; but if she were in mortal sin,
she thinks St. Catherine and St. Margaret would immediately abandon her; and
she believes that it is impossible for a person to cleanse their conscience too
much.

She said on Thursday, March 1, that her saints promised to
accompany her to Heaven, and that she had asked them to do so.

ARTICLE 45

Although the judgments of God are completely unfathomable
to us, Joan has said, declared and proclaimed that she has known, and knows,
who are the saints, the angels, the archangels and the elect [saved] of God,
and that she can distinguish them, one from another.

Joan’s response:

To this forty-fifth article, Joan replies, “I refer you to
my earlier answers.”

Promoter’s comments:

On Tuesday, February 27, when we asked how and why she
knew it was St. Catherine and St. Margaret who appeared to her, and how she
could discern one from the other, she answered that she knew very well who they
were and easily recognized one from the other.

On Thursday, March 1, when asked if the saints always
appeared to her in the same clothing, she answered that she always saw them in
the same form, and that their heads were richly crowned; and of their other
clothing she does not speak, nor knows anything of their robes.

On Saturday, March 3, she said she clearly saw St.
Catherine, St. Margaret and her other apparitions, and that she knows they are
saints of Heaven.

ARTICLE 46

Joan says that she very affectionately interceded with St.
Catherine and St. Margaret for the people of Compiegne before taking her leap
from the tower, saying to them, among other things, in a manner of criticism,
“And why does God allow the people of Compiegne to die so wretchedly, those who
are so faithful to Him!” With this statement, Joan expresses impatience and
irreverence towards God and His Saints.”

Joan’s response:

To this forty-sixth article, Joan replies, “I refer you to
my earlier answers.”

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, March 3, she said that after she was wounded
by leaping from the tower of Beaurevoir, the Voice of St. Catherine told her to
be of good cheer and that she would recover, and that the people of Compiegne
would receive assistance. She said that she often prayed with her Voices for
the people of Compiegne.

ARTICLE 47

Joan, displeased with the wounds she received from her
fall or leap from the tower of Beaurevoir, and upset that she had not
accomplished her plan of escape, blasphemed God and His Saints, shamefully
denied them, and terribly scorned them to the horror of all who were present;
and further, since she has been in the castle of Rouen, on many different days
she has blasphemed and denied God, the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, behaving
with impatience and protesting against the fact that she is being brought to
trial before us and is to be judged by the clergy.

Joan’s response:

To this forty-seventh article, Joan replies, “I refer
myself to our Lord and to my previous answers in this matter.”

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, March 3, when asked whether she was not upset
and angry after jumping from the tower and whether she blasphemed the Name of
God, she answered that she never cursed the Saints, and it was not her custom
to swear. Asked about the town of Soissons, where her captain had surrendered
the town, and whether she denied God and said that if she captured the captain
she would have him drawn and quartered, she replied that she never denied the
Saints, and that those people who said so were mistaken.

On Wednesday, March 14, when asked since she had been in
this prison if she had denied or blasphemed God, she answered no, but that sometimes
when she said, “Good God’s will!” or “Saint Joan!” or “Our Lady!” the people
who reported her words may have misunderstood.

ARTICLE 48

Joan declared that she believed and currently believes the
spirits that have appeared to her are angels, archangels and saints of God, as
firmly as she believes in the Christian faith and in the doctrines of this
faith, however, she doesn’t provide any signs sufficient to determine their
identity. Moreover, regarding these activities, she has not consulted any
bishop, priest or other prelate of the Church, or any other cleric, to
determine whether she should give credibility to these spirits. She also
declares that she was forbidden by her Voices to reveal these communications to
anyone except a captain of soldiers, to the king, and to other purely secular
persons. As a result, she is admitting that her trust in these spirits is reckless,
and her opinions on the doctrines of the faith and their foundations are
erroneous. In addition, she has had suspicious revelations that she has hid
from priests and from other clergy, while at the same time she has made these
revelations known, preferentially, to secular persons.

Joan’s response:

To this forty-eighth article, Joan answers, “I have
already given you my reply and I refer you to what is already written down.”
About Joan providing signs sufficient to determine the identity of these spirits,
she said if those people who ask for these signs are not worthy, she cannot
help that. She added that many times she has prayed to God that, if it pleased
Him, to reveal these signs to some people of her party. She also added that,
regarding her believing in her revelations, she did not ask the advice of any
bishop, priest or other cleric.

She said that she believes it is St. Michael because of
the good doctrines he taught her. When asked whether St. Michael said to her,
“I am St. Michael,” she said, “I have already answered that,” and with respect
to the rest of this article, she said, “I refer myself to our Lord.” She said
she believes, as firmly as she believes our Lord suffered death to redeem us
from the pains of Hell, that it is St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Catherine and
St. Margaret that our Lord sends to her to comfort her and advise her.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, February 24, Joan said that she firmly
believes, as firmly as she believes in the Christian faith and that our Lord redeemed
us from the pains of Hell, that this Voice comes from God and is at His
command.

On Saturday, March 3, when asked if she believes that St.
Michael and St. Gabriel have natural heads, she answered that she had seen them
with her own eyes and she believes they are St. Michael and St. Gabriel as
firmly as she believes in the existence of God. Asked if she believes God
created them with the heads that she saw, she answered, “I have seen them with
my own eyes and I will not tell you anymore!”

When asked whether she believes God created them in the
shape and form that she saw them, she answered yes.

On Monday, March 13, when asked whether she had spoken of
her visions to her priest or to any other cleric, she answered no, only to
Robert de Baudricourt and to the king. She added that she was not restricted by
the Voices to conceal them, but she was afraid to speak about them out of fear
of the Burgundians, in case they would prevent her travels through France. The
same day, when asked if she thought it was right to leave her childhood home
without the permission of her father and mother, because one should honor one’s
father and mother, she answered that she obeyed them in all things except for
this departure; but since that time, she had written to her father and mother
and they have forgiven her.

ARTICLE 49

Joan, for no other reason except by her imagination, has
venerated these spirits, kissing the ground where she saw they had passed,
kneeling before them, embracing them and kissing them, and performing other
acts of reverence, including giving them thanks, putting her hands together in
prayer to them, and entering into relationships with them; however, she did not
know whether they were good spirits, and moreover, considering these
circumstances, they must be judged by her to be clearly more evil than good;
and by her reverence and veneration she seems to be engaging in idolatry as the
result of a pact made with devils.

Joan’s response:

To this forty-ninth article on Wednesday, March 28, Joan
answers, regarding the first part of this article, “I have already answered
this.” Regarding the remainder of the article, she says, “I refer myself to our
Lord.”

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, February 24, asked whether she did not thank
the Voice that appeared to her and kneel down before it, she answered that she
thanked it but was sitting on the bed, and so she put her hands together, and
this was after she had asked advice from the Voice.

On Saturday, March 10, asked what reverence she showed the
sign when it came to the king and whether it came from God, she answered that
she thanked our Lord for her deliverance from the difficulties arising from the
opposition of the clergy of her party; and she knelt down many times. The same
day, when asked whether the king and Joan showed reverence to the angel when
the angel revealed the sign, she answered that she did, she knelt down and
uncovered her head.

On Monday, March 12, when asked whether she spoke to our
Lord when she promised Him to keep her virginity, she answered that it ought to
be quite enough to promise it to those who were sent from Him, namely St.
Catherine and St. Margaret. She said that the first time she heard her Voice
she vowed to keep her virginity as long as it would please God, and she was
then about 13 years old. The same day we asked whether she showed reverence to
St. Michael and the angels when she saw them, and she answered that she did,
and she kissed the ground where they had passed after they were gone.

On Thursday, March 15, we asked if, when her Voices came
to her, she bows down completely, as if to a saint, and she answered yes; and
if sometimes she failed to do so she asked forgiveness afterwards; she said she
could not properly reverence them because she fully believes them to be St.
Catherine and St. Margaret. She said the same with respect to St. Michael. The
same day we asked her whether she had made offerings to the saints who come to
her, by burning candles or other things, in a church or elsewhere, or had
Masses said, she answered no, except at Mass, in the priest’s hands, and in
honor of St. Catherine. She believes that St. Catherine is one of the Voices
that appears to her, and she has not lit as many candles to St. Catherine and
St. Margaret, who are in Heaven, as she would have liked to, because she fully
believes it is St. Catherine and St. Margaret who come to her.

Asked the same day whether, when she puts these candles
before images of St. Catherine, she does it in honor of the saint who appears
to her, she answered, “I do it in honor of God, of Our Lady, and of St.
Catherine who is in Heaven, and I do not differentiate between St. Catherine
who is in Heaven and St. Catherine who appears to me.”

Asked the same day if she always successfully accomplished
the requests made by her Voices, she answered that with all her might she
accomplished the requests that our Lord spoke through her Voices, as far as she
could understand them, and they told her nothing except in accordance with the
good pleasure of our Lord.

On Saturday, March 17, when asked if she gave chaplets of
flowers to the saints who appeared to her, she answered that in honor of these
saints she gave many chaplets to their images or representations in churches,
but as far as she remembers she has not given any flowers to those saints when
they appear to her. Asked whether, when she hung garlands on the Spirits’ Tree,
she did it in honor of the saints who appeared to her, she answered no. The
same day, when asked if, when the saints came to her, she showed reverence to
them by kneeling or bowing, she replied yes; and the more she could show them
reverence the more she did because she knows very well they are saints of
Heaven.

ARTICLE 50

Joan frequently and daily invokes these spirits,
consulting with them about her private activities, for example, with regard to
the answers she should give during her trial as well as in other matters, and
this appears to involve an invocation of demons.

Joan’s response:

To this fiftieth article on Wednesday, March 28, she replies,
“I have already answered this,” and she says she will continue to call these
Voices to come to her aid as long as she will live. Asked in what manner she
calls to them, she answered, “I beg Our Lord and Our Lady to give me their
advice and comfort, and then they send it to me.”

When asked what words she uses when she begs Our Lord and
Our Lady to give her their advice and comfort, she answered that she says,
“Very sweet Lord, in honor of Your Holy Passion, I beg You, if You love me, to
reveal to me how I am supposed to answer these church people. I know very well
your command regarding the matter of my clothes and the command by which I
began to wear these clothes, but I do not know how I am to stop wearing men’s
clothes. In this matter, may it please You to instruct me.” And then the Voices
come to her immediately.

Often, she said, she receives news through her Voices
regarding the Bishop of Beauvais. When we asked Joan what the Voices say to her
about us, she answered, “I will tell you separately,” and on that very day the
Voices had come to her three times.

Asked if the Voices were in her room, she replied, “I have
already answered your question about this; nevertheless, I hear them very
well.” She says St. Catherine and St. Margaret told her in what way she should
reply to us with regard to wearing men’s clothes.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, February 24, she said the Voice told her to
answer boldly; and that when she woke up from her sleep she asked advice from
the Voice regarding what she should reply, telling the Voice to ask advice from
our Lord; the Voice told her to answer boldly and God would comfort her. The
same day, when asked whether, before she questioned the Voice, the Voice
addressed certain words to her, she said the Voice did speak certain words to
her but she did not understand them all. However, when she awoke, she
understood the Voice telling her to answer us boldly; she said that night she
had heard the Voice say, “Answer boldly.”

On Tuesday, February 27, when asked what the Voice had
told her, she said that since last Saturday she had asked for advice on certain
points regarding our questions during the trial. Asked if the Voice had given
her any advice on certain points, she answered yes, on some points, but that on
other points she might be asked questions that she should not answer without
their permission. If she replied without getting permission perhaps she would
not have the approval of the Voices; but when she had permission from our Lord
she would not be afraid to speak because then she would have good
authorization. The same day, when asked how she could distinguish between the
points on which she would answer and the points on which she would not answer,
she replied that on some points she had asked permission and on some of those
she had received the permission.

On Monday, March 12, when asked whether the angel deceived
her with respect to things of good fortune when she was taken prisoner, she
said she thought that since it pleased God, it was better for her to be taken
prisoner. Asked whether the angel did not fail her with regard to the good
effects of grace, she answered, “How could he fail me when he comforts me every
day?” And she believes the comfort is from St. Catherine and St. Margaret.
Asked if she calls them or if they come without being called, she answered that
they often come without being called, and sometimes, if they did not come, she
would pray to God to send them. Asked if she sometimes had called them without
their coming to her, she answered that no matter how little she needed them
they always came to her.

On Wednesday, March 13, when we asked whether she had
spoken to St. Catherine since the previous day, she answered that she heard St.
Catherine since then and was told many times to answer the judges boldly in
response to whatever they would ask regarding the legal case.

On Wednesday, March 14, when asked whether her Voices
required a delay before answering, she said that St. Catherine answers her
sometimes and sometimes Joan falls to understand her because of some commotion
in the prison and the noise made by her guards.

After she makes the request to St. Catherine, then St.
Catherine and St. Margaret immediately take Joan’s request to our Lord; and
then, at our Lord’s request, they give the answer to Joan. Asked if there is a
visible light with the saints when they come to her, and whether she sees a
light when she hears the Voice in the castle, and whether she knows if the
Voice is in her room, she answered that no day passes by without her Voices
coming to her in the castle of Rouen, and they come with a visible light;
however, on this occasion when she heard the Voice she does not remember if she
saw the light, nor if she saw St. Catherine. She said she asked three things of
her Voices, namely first, her deliverance; second, that God should help the
French keep those towns already in their control; and third, the salvation of
her soul.

ARTICLE 51

Joan has not feared to boast that St. Michael, God’s
archangel, came to her with a great multitude of angels in the castle of Chinon
and in the house of a certain woman; that St. Michael walked with her, holding
her by the hand, and together they climbed the castle steps and entered the
king’s chamber; that this archangel St. Michael showed reverence to the king,
bowed before him, and was accompanied by other angels, some of who were crowned
and others had wings. To say such things about archangels and other holy angels
must be viewed as arrogant, rash and deceitful, especially since these things
have not been written about by any man, however honorable, and not even Our
Lady, the Mother of God, has received such reverence or greetings.

Joan often said that the archangels St. Gabriel and St.
Michael, and sometimes a million angels came to her. Moreover, Joan boasts that
by her prayer the angel brought with him, in the company of other angels, a
most precious crown for her king, to put on his head, and that the crown was
put into the king’s treasury. According to Joan, the king would have been
crowned with this crown at Reims if he had waited a few days, but because of
the haste with which his coronation was carried out he used another crown.
These are less divine revelations than lies, invented by Joan, suggested or
shown to her by a demon in illusive apparitions in order to simulate things in
her imagination, all while she meddled with things that are beyond her
competencies and abilities.

Joan’s response:

To this fifty-first article on Wednesday, March 28, Joan
answers that she has already replied regarding the angel who brought the sign;
and as for the Promoter’s statement about millions of angels, she answers that
she has no recollection of having spoken about such a number. She added that
whenever she was harmed she always received great comfort and aid from Our Lord
and St. Catherine and St. Margaret. Regarding the crown, she says that she has
already answered our questions about it; and regarding the last part of the
article, as well as where the crown was made, she refers us to God.

Promoter’s comments:

When asked if there was an angel above the king’s head
when she saw the king for the first time, Joan answered, “By Our Lady, if there
was, I do not know of it, and did not see it.” Asked if there was a visible
light, she said that there were more than 300 knights and more than fifty
torches, not counting the spiritual light, in the room; and she seldom had
revelations without a visible light. Asked why the king believed in what she
said, she answered that he received good instructions on that from the clerics.
She said that the clerics of her party were of the opinion that nothing but
good results would come from her mission.

On Thursday, March 1, when asked whether her king had a
crown at Reims, she answered that she believes he gladly used a crown he found
at Reims, but a much richer one had been since brought; he did this to speed up
his coronation at the request of the townspeople and to avoid burdening the
soldiers; but if he had waited he would have been crowned with a crown a thousand
times richer. Asked whether she saw this richer crown, Joan answered that she
cannot discuss this without committing perjury, and that if she did not see it,
she heard that it is of such wealth.

On Saturday, March 10, when asked what the sign was that
appeared to the king, she answered that it was fair, honorable and most
credible, rich and good, the richest in the world.

Asked why she will not discuss or reveal the sign,
considering that Joan wanted to see Catherine de La Rochelle’s sign, she
answered that she would not have asked to see Catherine’s sign if it had been
as well visible as her own sign was before notable ecclesiastics, archbishops
and bishops, and others whose names she does not know; she said Charles de
Bourbon, the Sire de la Tremouille, the Duke d’Alencon and many other knights
saw and heard the sign as plainly as she saw those speaking to her at that
time.

Moreover, she knew very well through St. Catherine and St.
Margaret that the affairs of this Catherine de La Rochelle amounted to nothing
at all. Asked whether the sign still exists, she answered, “It is good to know
that it does, and it will last a thousand years and more.” She said the sign is
with the king’s treasure. When asked whether it was gold, silver, precious stone
or a crown, she answered, “I will tell you no more. No man could describe a
thing as rich as this sign.”

She added, “The sign you need is for God to deliver me out
of your hands, the most certain sign He could show you.”

The same day she said that an angel from God, and from no
other source, gave the sign to the king, and for this she thanked our Lord many
times. She said the clergy of her party stopped opposing her when they had seen
this sign. Asked whether the clergy of her party saw the sign, she answered
that when the king and those who were with him saw the sign, and also the angel
who had it, she asked the king if he was satisfied, and he replied yes. Then
she left and went to a little chapel nearby, and she heard after her departure that
more than 300 people saw the sign. She added, that for her sake and to stop men
from preaching to her, God willed that the people of her party who were there
would see the sign.

On Monday, March 12, when asked whether the angel who
brought the sign spoke any words, she answered yes, the angel told the king to
put her to work and the country would quickly be at peace. Asked whether the
angel who brought the sign was the same angel that first appeared to her or
whether it was another, she answered that it was always the same one, and he
never failed her. The same day, when asked about the sign she gave the king,
she said she would seek advice from St. Catherine about it.

On Tuesday, March 13, when questioned about the sign she
gave the king and what the sign was, she answered, “Would you be satisfied if I
perjured myself?”

Asked if she had vowed and promised to St. Catherine not
to discuss this sign, she answered, “I swore and promised not to discuss this
sign on my own decision because I was being pressured too much to discuss it.”
Then she said she would not speak about it to any man. The same day she said
the sign was that an angel gave assurance to the king by bringing him the crown
and saying he would possess the entire kingdom of France by God’s help and the
work of Joan; and the king was to put her to work, that is, give her the
soldiers, or else he would not so soon be crowned and consecrated.

The same day, when asked how the angel brought the crown
and whether he placed it on the king’s head, she answered that the crown was
given to an archbishop, namely the archbishop of Reims, in the king’s presence,
so it seemed to her, and the archbishop took it and gave it to the king, and
Joan was present, and then it was put in the king’s treasure.

Asked where the crown was brought, she answered that it
was brought to the king’s chamber, in the castle of Chinon. Asked on what day
and at what hour, she answered that she did not remember the day, and as for
the hour, it was late, and beyond that, she could not recall the hour. She
added it was in the month of April or March, she thought. She said that in the
present month of March or the following April, it would be two years ago, and
it was after Easter.

Asked whether the first day she saw the sign the king also
saw it, she replied yes, he himself received it. Asked what the crown was made
of, she replied, “It is good to know that it is made of pure gold,” and was so
rich that she could not count its richness, and it signified that the king
would reclaim the kingdom of France.

Asked if there were precious stones in it, she answered,
“I have already told you what I know.” Asked if she held it or kissed it, she
said no. Asked if the angel who brought it came from Heaven or from the Earth,
she answered that he came from Heaven, meaning that he came at our Lord’s
command, and he entered the room by way of the door. Asked whether the angel
walked on the ground when moving from the door, she answered that he walked and
came forward from the door while walking on the ground, moving towards the
king; and when he came before the king he showed reverence to the king by
bowing before him, pronouncing the words of the sign, and at this time the
angel recalled to the king the sweet patience he had shown during the great
difficulties that had befallen him.

We asked her how far it was from the door to the king, and
she answered that she thought it was a good lance-length, and that the angel
went out by the same way he came in. She said when the angel came she
accompanied him, and went with him by way of the stairs to the king’s chamber,
and the angel went in first, and then she said to the king, “Sire, here is your
sign, take it.”

Asked where it was that the angel appeared to her, she
answered that she was almost always praying to God to send the king a sign; she
was in her lodging, in the house of a good woman near the castle of Chinon,
when the angel came. Then they went together to see the king, and the angel was
accompanied by many other angels whom no one saw; but for her sake, and to
unburden her from the distress she was experiencing as a result of the people
opposing her, Joan said she believed that many people saw the angel who would
not have otherwise seen him.

Asked whether all who were with the king saw the angel, she
answered that she thought the Archbishop of Reims, de la Tremouille, and
Charles de Bourbon saw him, and many churchmen and others who did not see the
angel saw the crown.

When we asked her of what appearance and size the angel
was, she replied that she does not have permission to discuss that but will
answer tomorrow. When asked if all who were in the company of the angel were of
the same appearance, she answered that some were fairly similar, and some, as
far as she could see, were not; some had wings and some had crowns, and others
did not; and among them were St. Catherine and St. Margaret, who were with the
angel and the other angels while going up the stairs to the very chamber of the
king.

Asked how the angel left her, she said he left her in a little
chapel, and she was very upset when he left and she cried; she said she would
have gladly gone with him, that is, her soul would have gone with him. Asked
whether, at the angel’s departure, she remained happy or if she was afraid and
had great anxiety, she answered that the angel did not leave her in fear, but
she was upset because he departed.

Asked whether it was because of any merit of hers that God
sent His angel to her, she said it was because of the merit of the king and the
good Duke of Orleans, and that the angel came with a great purpose, in hope
that the king would believe the sign and Joan would no longer have any
opposition.

When asked why the angel came to her rather than to
another person, she answered, “It pleased God to drive back the king’s enemies
through a simple virgin.”

Asked if she had been told from where the angel had
initially received the crown, she said the crown was brought from God, and that
no goldsmith on Earth could make a crown so rich and fair; however, with respect
to where the crown came from, in this matter she refers us to God and knows
nothing more about it.

Asked if the crown had a good fragrance and whether it
sparkled, she answered she did not remember and would think about it to try to
remember; afterwards, she said that it had, and always would have, a good
fragrance, but must be guarded very well and appropriately; and it was in the
form of a crown.

When asked if the angel had written her letters, she said
no. Asked what sign the king and the people who were with him and Joan received
to convince them that it was an angel who appeared to them, she answered that
the king believed it because of the instruction of the churchmen who were
there, and by the sign of the crown. Asked how the churchmen knew it was an
angel, she answered that they knew because of their high level of education and
because they were clerics.

ARTICLE 52

Joan has so misled the Catholic people by her activities
that many people have adored her as a saint in her presence, and they even
adore her in her absence, offering Masses and collections in church out of
reverence for her; indeed, they declare her to be greater than all of God’s
saints after Our Lady.

They set up images of Joan on the altars of saints; they
wear medals that depict her image, like those medals made for the anniversaries
of saints that are canonized by the Church; and they preach in public that she
is sent from God, an angel rather than a woman. These are very scandalous
actions, hurtful to the Christian religion and dangerous to the salvation of
souls.

Joan’s response:

To this fifty-second article, on Wednesday, March 28, she
answers that, with regard to the first part of this article, she has already
given us her answer, and regarding the last part of the article she defers to
our Lord.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, March 3, when asked whether she ever knew
Brother Richard, she said, “I had never seen him before I came to Troyes.”
Asked what type of greeting he gave to her, she said that the people of Troyes,
she thought, sent Brother Richard to her, saying they were afraid she was not a
thing sent from God, and so when he came close to her, he made the Sign of the
Cross and sprinkled Holy Water at her, and she said to him, “Come boldly, I
shall not fly away.”

Asked whether she saw or had any images or pictures made
in her likeness, she answered that at Arras she saw a painting in the hands of
a Scot where she was shown in full armor with one knee on the ground,
presenting letters to the king. Asked about a certain painting at her host’s
house in Orleans showing three women, Justice, Peace and Union, she answered
that she knew nothing about that. Asked whether she knows that certain people
of her party had a religious service, a Mass or prayers said for her, she said
she knows nothing about it, and if any religious service was held it was not at
her instruction, although if people prayed for her, she feels they did nothing
wrong.

On that Saturday, March 3, Joan was asked what honor the
people of Troyes gave to her when she entered the town, and she answered, “They
did me no honor.” She added that she thought Brother Richard entered Troyes
with her but she does not remember seeing him enter. Asked whether he preached
a sermon when she arrived, she answered that when she came she briefly stopped
at Troyes, and did not even sleep there, and as for the sermon, she knew
nothing about it.

ARTICLE 53

Joan, acting against the wishes of God and His Saints, arrogantly
and proudly assumed domination over men; she appointed herself leader and
captain of an army that increased at times to 16,000 men, in which there were
princes, barons and other nobles, all of whom she made fight under herself as the
principal captain.

Joan’s response:

To this fifty-third article, on Wednesday, March 28, Joan
answers that with regard to the matter of being a leader during war she has
already given her answer to us, and if she was the leader, it was to conquer
the English. With regard to the last part of the article she defers to our Lord.

Promoter’s comments:

On Tuesday, February 27, when asked what forces the king
gave to her when he put her to work, she replied he gave her 10,000 or 12,000 men,
and that she went first to Orleans, to the fortress of St. Loup, and then to
the fortress of the Bridge.

ARTICLE 54

Joan unashamedly walked with men, refusing to have the
company or care of women, and she wished to employ only men whom she made serve
in the private offices of her room and in her secret affairs, a thing unseen
and unheard of in a modest or devout woman.

Joan’s response:

To this fifty-fourth article, Joan answers that her leadership
of military personnel was through men. Regarding where she lodged or slept at
night, she usually had a woman with her, and during times of military battles
if there was no woman to be found, she would sleep fully dressed and armored.
Regarding the last part of the article, she defers to God.

ARTICLE 55

Joan misused the revelations and prophecies she claims to
have come from God, turning them into worldly profit and advantage; for
example, by means of these revelations and prophecies she has acquired a great
deal of wealth, status and attire, and many officers, horses and adornments; in
this respect she has imitated the false prophets, who for love of worldly goods
and to gain the favor of high-status people of this world, are inclined to
pretend that they have received revelations concerning these high-status
people, and thereby hope to please the princes of this world; as a result they
abuse the divine oracles and attribute their false lies to God.

Joan’s response:

To this fifty-fifth article, Joan answers that she has
already replied to this; and regarding the gifts made to her brothers, the king
gave the gifts from his grace, without her seeking those gifts. Regarding the
accusation that the Promoter makes at the end of this article, she defers to
God.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, March 10, when asked if she ever had any
other riches from the king other than her horses, she answered that she never
asked for anything from the king except good weapons, good horses, and money to
pay the people of her household. Asked whether she had any wealth, she answered
that the ten thousand or twelve thousand worth she had was not much to carry on
a war with, very little indeed, and she thinks her brothers have those assets.
She says that what she has is the king’s own money. She said when she was
captured she was riding a half-charger. When asked who gave the horse to her,
she answered that the king, or the king’s people using the king’s money, gave
the horse to her. She said she had five chargers from the king’s money, not
counting the hackneys, which were more than seven.

ARTICLE 56

Joan has often boasted of having two advisors, whom she
calls her advisors of the fountain, who came to her after she was captured, and
this has been proved by the confession of Catherine de La Rochelle in front of
an official in Paris, where Catherine said that Joan would escape from her
prison with the devil’s aid if she wasn’t well guarded.

Joan’s response:

To this fifty-sixth article, Joan replies she stands by
her previous answers. Regarding the advisors of the fountain, she does not know
what that means, but she believes she once heard St. Catherine and St. Margaret
there. With regard to the last part of the article, she denies this, and she
declares on oath that she would not want the devil to drag her out of the prison.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, March 3, when asked if she saw or knew
Catherine de La Rochelle, she answered yes, at Jargeau and at
Montfaucon-en-Berry. Asked if this Catherine showed Joan a lady robed in white
who Catherine de La Rochelle said sometimes appeared to her, she answered no.
Asked on the same day what this Catherine said to her, she answered that
Catherine told her she was visited by a lady-in-white robed in clothing of gold
who told Catherine de La Rochelle to go through the good towns, that the king
would give her heralds and trumpets and she should cry out that whoever had hidden
gold, silver or other assets should immediately bring them out; and those who
did not comply she would immediately know and would be able to find their
hidden assets, and these assets would be used to pay Joan’s soldiers. Joan’s
reply to Catherine de La Rochelle was that she should go home to her husband,
do her work and look after her children. To ensure she was correct, Joan spoke
to St. Catherine and St. Margaret, who told her that the mission of this
Catherine de La Rochelle was all madness and nonsense. Joan wrote to the king
about Catherine de La Rochelle and told him what he should do about her, and
later when Joan saw the king she told him it was all madness and nonsense.

Nevertheless, Brother Richard wanted to put Catherine de
La Rochelle to work, and he and Catherine were unhappy with Joan. Asked whether
she spoke to Catherine de La Rochelle about going to La Charité, she answered
that Catherine did not advise her to go there because the weather was too cold
and she should not go.

Also on March 3, Joan admitted that she told Catherine de
La Rochelle, who wanted to go to the Duke of Burgundy and make peace, that no
peace would be found except at the lance’s point. Joan also admitted to having
asked Catherine if the lady-in-white came to her every night, and that she
would sleep with her to see the lady-in-white, which she did, and watched until
midnight but saw nothing, and then Joan fell asleep. In the morning she asked
Catherine if the lady had come and Catherine answered that she had, while Joan
was sleeping, but Catherine was unable to wake up Joan. Then Joan asked if the
lady would come the following night and Catherine said she would, so Joan slept
during the day so that she could watch at night. The next night Joan lay with
Catherine and watched all night long, but saw nothing, although she asked
Catherine if the lady would come, and Catherine answered, “Yes, soon!”

ARTICLE 57

On the Feast Day of the Birth of Our Lady, Joan called
together all the soldiers of the army to march and launch a military assault on
Paris. She led the soldiers in an attack against Paris and assured them they
should enter on that day because she knew it by revelation. She had every preparation
made by which she could attack the city, and Joan was not afraid to deny this in
judgment before us.

Likewise, in many other places, at La Charité-sur-Loire,
at Pont l’Eveque and at Compiegne, when she attacked my lord the Duke of
Burgundy’s army, she made many promises and pronounced many prophecies that she
claimed to know by revelation, which in no way came true and were altogether
contradicted. In front of you, she denied having made such promises and
prophecies because they did not turn out as she had said. However, many
trustworthy people reported that these promises were proclaimed and published
by Joan.

During the attack on Paris, Joan said that thousands of
angels accompanied her, ready to carry her to Heaven if she would die. She was
asked why her entry into Paris had not taken place according to her promise, and
that many soldiers of her company, and she too, had instead been injured with serious
wounds, and some even killed; she is said to have answered, “Jesus has failed
in His promise.”

Joan’s response:

To this article, on Wednesday, March 28, Joan replies
regarding the first part of this article she has already answered this, and
added, “If I am advised further by my Voices I will gladly answer more.” With
regard to the last part of this article, that Jesus had failed her, she denies
saying this.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, March 3, when we asked what she did in the
trenches at La Charité, she answered that she made a military assault there but
she did not throw or sprinkle Holy Water. Asked why she did not enter the town
since she had received God’s command to do so, she answered, “Who told you I
was commanded to enter?”

Asked if she had the advice of her Voices on this matter,
she answered that she wanted to travel to France but the soldiers told her it
was better to first go to La Charité.

On Tuesday, March 13, asked if, when she went to Paris, it
was revealed by her Voices that she should go there, she answered no, but it
was at the request of noblemen who wanted to instigate a battle or an assault;
and she really intended to go beyond and cross the trenches. Asked whether she
had any revelation regarding going to La Charité, she said no, but she went
there at the request of soldiers, as she previously said.

On this same Tuesday, when we asked if it was revealed to
her that she should go to Pont l’Eveque, she replied that after it was revealed
to her at Melun that she would be captured, she generally deferred to the will
of the captains in questions of war, however, she did not tell them that it had
been revealed to her that she would be captured. When asked if it was right to
attack Paris on the Feast Day of Our Lady’s Birth, she answered that, in her
opinion and conscience, “It is good to celebrate the Feast Day of Our Lady”
from beginning to end.

ARTICLE 58

Joan had painted on her military banner two angels and God
holding the world in His hand, with the words Jesus and Mary and other images,
and this she says she did at God’s command, who revealed it to her through His
angels and saints. She placed this military banner in the cathedral of Reims
near the altar when Charles was crowned, desiring out of arrogant pride that
people should honor this banner in particular. She also had her coat-of-arms
painted with two lilies in a blue field, and in the midst of the lilies a sword
or dagger with the point topped by a crown; and this appears to reflect
ostentation and vanity instead of piety or religion; and to attribute such
vanities to God and the angels contradicts the reverence that is due to God and
His Saints.

Joan’s response:

To this fifty-eighth article, on March 28, Joan replies,
“I have answered this already.” Regarding the contradiction indicated by the
Promoter, she says, “I defer to our Lord.”

Promoter’s comments:

On Tuesday, February 27, when asked if, when she went to
Orleans, she had a military banner and what color it was, Joan answered yes,
and its field was sown with lilies, and the world was pictured on it with two
angels at the sides. It was white, made of white linen or boucassin. The names
Jesus and Mary were written on it, and it was fringed with silk. Asked whether
these names were written above or at the side or beneath, she said they were at
the side. Asked if she liked her sword better than her banner, she answered
that she liked her banner forty times better. Asked who made her paint her
banner with this design, she answered, “I have told you often enough that I
have done nothing except by God’s command.”

She said that she herself carried the banner when moving
among enemy combatants to avoid killing anyone; she said she has never killed a
man.

On Saturday, March 3, she said she thought her banner was
in the church of Reims, fairly close to the altar, and she carried it there for
a short time, but she did not know whether Brother Richard carried it.

On Saturday, March 10, when asked whether the world with
two angels was painted on her banner, she answered yes, she had only one
banner. Asked what it signified to show God holding the world with two angels,
she answered that St. Catherine and St. Margaret had told her to paint on the
banner an image of the King of Heaven, and to take this banner and carry it
boldly. She told the king that was all she knew of its significance. Asked
whether she had a shield and arms, she answered that she never had, but the
king granted arms to her brothers, namely a blue shield with two fleurs-de-lis
and a sword in between, which she described to a painter in Reims because he
asked what arms she carried. She said the king gave them to her brothers, to
their joy, and without her request and without a revelation.

On Saturday, March 17, when asked why she decided to have
painted on her banner angels with arms, feet, legs and robes, she answered,
“You already have my reply to that.” Asked if she had the angels painted as
they appeared to her, she answered that they were painted in the style in which
they are represented in churches. Asked if she ever saw angels in the manner in
which they were painted, she answered, “I will not tell you anything more.”

Asked why the light that came along with the angels and
her Voices was not painted on the banner, she said that she was not commanded
to paint the light. The same day she was asked if the two angels painted on her
banner were St. Michael and St. Gabriel, and she answered that the
representations of the two angels were solely for the honor of our Lord, who
was painted holding the world.

Asked if the two angels on her banner were the two angels
who guard the world, and why there were not more angels considering that she
was commanded in our Lord’s name to carry the banner, she answered that the design
of the entire banner was commanded by our Lord and by the Voices of St.
Catherine and St. Margaret, who said to her, “Take the banner in the name of
the King of Heaven.” And because the saints told her, “Take the banner in the
name of the King of Heaven,” she had this image of Our Lord and the angels
painted in color on it. All of this, including the colors, she did at God’s
command.

Asked if she questioned her saints whether, because of
this military banner, she would win all the battles in which she fought, she
answered that the saints told her to carry the banner boldly and God would
assist her. When asked which was of more help, she to the banner or the banner
to her, she replied that whether the victory was her victory or the banner’s,
it must all be attributed to God.

Asked whether the hope for victory was based on the banner
or on her, she answered that it was based on Our Lord, and nothing else.

When asked if anyone else had carried the banner, whether
he would have been as fortunate as she was, she answered, “I do not know and I
leave it to God.”

Asked if, whether one of her party had sent his banner to her
to carry, and particularly if she had been given the king’s banner and had
carried it, she would have had as firm a hope in that banner as in her own
banner, which she received in God’s name, she answered, “I more gladly carried
that which was requested of me in God’s name, however, in all things I commit
myself to God.”

The same day, when asked if she made her banner wave above
the king’s head when it was unfurled, she said that she did not know it had
been done. Asked why her banner was carried into the church at Reims during the
consecration of the king rather than the banners of other captains, she replied,
“The banner was present during the perils of war, and that is reason enough for
it to be honored.”

ARTICLE 59

At the church in Saint-Denis in France, Joan offered, and
positioned in a high place, the armor in which she had been wounded during the
assault on Paris, so that it might be honored by the people as relics; and in
the same town she had candles lit, from which she poured melted wax onto the
heads of little children, foretelling their fortunes, and with these
enchantments she made many divinations about the children.

Joan’s response:

To this fifty-ninth article, on Wednesday, March 28, Joan
replies, “I have answered this already.” Regarding the armor and the lighted
candles that were melted, she denies it.

Promoter’s comments:

On Saturday, March 17, when asked what armor she offered
at Saint-Denis, she replied that it was a whole suit of black armor for a
man-at-arms, with a sword, which she had worn during the assault on Paris. When
asked why she made an offering of this armor and arms, she answered that it was
an act of devotion, such as soldiers perform when they are wounded; and since
she had been wounded at Paris she offered them to St. Denis because “St. Denis!”
was the battle-cry of France. When asked if she did it so that the armor might
be worshiped, she said no.

ARTICLE 60

Joan, scornful of the precepts and sanctions of the
Church, many times refused to take an oath to speak the truth, exposing herself
to the suspicion of having said or done certain things in matters of faith or
revelation, which she dare not reveal to the judges, being fearful of a just
punishment. She appears to know this when she makes statements such as, “Men
are sometimes hanged for telling the truth,” “You will not know everything,”
and, “I would rather have my head cut off than tell you everything.”

Joan’s response:

To this sixtieth article, Joan answers that she only asked
for a delay so that she could more definitely answer the questions. Regarding
the last part of this article, she said that she was afraid to answer and she
asked for a delay to find out if she had permission to answer. She said that because
the advice for the king did not concern this legal case she did not wish to
discuss it; she discussed the sign given to the king because the clergy
commanded her to disclose it.

Promoter’s comments:

On Thursday, February 22, when asked whether there was a
light when the Voice showed her who the king was among the crowd, she answered,
“Go to the next question.” Asked whether she saw an angel over the king’s head,
she answered, “Spare me, and continue to the next question.” She said that
before the king had set her to work he had many apparitions and beautiful
revelations. When we asked what kind of apparitions and revelations these were,
she answered, “I will not tell you this; you will get no further answer, but
ask the king and he will tell you.”

On Saturday, February 24, we explained to Joan that she
must swear to speak the simple and absolute truth, with no conditions tied to
her oath; and she was admonished three times to do this. She said, “Give me
permission to speak,” and she added, “By my faith, you could ask such things
that I would not answer.” She also said, “Perhaps I shall not answer you
truthfully in many things you ask me concerning the revelations; perhaps you
would pressure me to say things I have sworn not to discuss, and so I would be
perjured, and you would not wish that.” She also said, “I tell you, pay close
attention to what you say, because you are my judge and you assume a great
responsibility, and you overburden me.”

Asked if she would swear simply and absolutely, she
answered, “You should be content. I have sworn enough, twice.” She added that
all the clergy of Rouen and Paris could not condemn her, except by law. She
said she could not tell us everything in one week. She said that regarding her
coming to France she would gladly speak the truth, but not the whole truth.

Joan was told to take the advice of the assessors
regarding whether or not she should swear, however, she answered that she would
willingly speak the truth about her coming to France but not otherwise, and we
must not speak to her about this anymore.

She was again warned that she made herself open to
suspicion, but she answered the same way as previously. Then we, including the
Bishop of Beauvais, summoned her to swear precisely; she answered, “I will
willingly discuss what I know, but not everything.” She was required to swear,
and she was admonished under the penalty of being charged with what was
attributed to her, but she replied, “I have sworn enough,” and “Continue on.”
Then, required and admonished to speak the truth in all matters concerning the
trial, and being told that she exposed herself to great danger, she answered,
“I am ready to swear to speak the truth about what I know concerning the trial,
but not everything I know,” and it was in this manner that she took the oath.

The same day, February 24, when asked if the Voice
prohibited her from telling us everything, she replied, “I will not answer you
about that. I have revelations concerning the king which I shall not tell you.”

When asked if the Voice prohibited her from discussing the
revelations, she replied, “I have not been advised about that,” and she asked
for a two-week delay in which to answer. Regarding the delay she said, “If the
Voice prohibited me, what would you say?” When we asked her again if the Voice
prohibited her, she replied, “Believe me, it was not men who prohibited me.”
She said she would not answer that day, and she does not know if she would
answer all that was revealed to her.

When asked if she thought it was displeasing to God for
her to tell the truth, she replied that her Voices said she was to discuss
certain things with the king but not with us. Asked if the Voices revealed to
her that she should escape from prison, she answered, “Must I tell you that?”

Asked whether that night the Voice had advised her how she
should reply to our questions, she said that if the Voice said it she did not
understand it well. Asked whether a light was visible during the last two days
when she heard the Voices, she answered that the light comes in the name of the
Voice.

When we asked her whether she saw anything with this
Voice, she replied, “I will not tell you everything, and I do not have
permission to discuss that.” She said her oath did not include that. She said
the Voice is beautiful, good and worthy, and she is not required to answer
whatever she is asked. Asked whether the Voice had sight or eyes, she answered,
“You will not learn that yet.” She said little children have a proverb, “Men
are sometimes hanged for telling the truth.”

On Tuesday, February 27, when we required Joan to take an
oath and swear to speak the truth on questions concerning the trial, she
answered that she would willingly swear with respect to the questions concerning
her legal case, but not about everything she knew. Then we required her to
answer truthfully about everything she would be asked, but she replied as she
did previously, saying, “You ought to be satisfied, I have sworn enough.”

She said she would willingly speak the truth regarding
subjects for which she had permission from our Lord, but without the permission
of her Voice she would not tell us about the revelations concerning the king.

The same day, when we asked whether St. Catherine and St.
Margaret were dressed in the same clothing, she replied, “I will not tell you
any more now,” because she did not have permission to discuss it; but she
added, “If you don’t believe me, go to Poitiers.”

She said that certain revelations came for the king but
not for those who were questioning her. Asked if the saints who appeared to her
were of the same age, she said she did not have permission to tell us. Asked
whether they spoke at the same time, or one after another, she said she may not
tell us, however, every day she receives advice from both St. Catherine and St.
Margaret.

Asked which one appeared to her first, St. Catherine or
St. Margaret, she replied, “I did not recognize them immediately.” However, she
said that she previously knew which one appeared to her first, but has now
forgotten. If she is permitted, she said she will willingly discuss these
matters, and she continued to refer us to previous transcripts of her answers,
saying, “It is written down at Poitiers.”

When asked in what form St. Michael appeared to her, she
said, “There is as yet no answer for that because I do not have permission to
answer.” Asked what St. Michael said to her the first time, she answered, “You
will get no additional information today.” She said the Voices told her to
answer boldly, and she added she does not yet have permission to discuss what
St. Michael told her, but she wished that her questioner had a copy of the
transcripts taken at Poitiers, if it was God’s will.

Asked if St. Michael and the other saints told her she
must not talk about them without their permission, she said, “I still may not
answer, but what I have permission to discuss, I will gladly answer.”

Asked what sign she has that this revelation comes from
God, and that it is St. Catherine and St. Margaret who speak to her, she
answered, “I have told you often enough that it is St. Catherine and St.
Margaret,” and “Believe me if you will.” Asked what revelations the king had,
she answered, “You will not learn that from me this year.”

On Thursday, March 1, when we asked what the saints
promised her, she answered, “That is not in your legal case at all.” Asked if
they promised her anything beyond that they would accompany her to Heaven, she
answered that there were other promises, but she will not tell them to us
because they do not concern this trial. She said within three months she will
tell us the other promises. Asked if the saints said that within three months
she would be delivered out of this prison, she answered, “That is not in your
legal case.” Nevertheless, she said she does not know when she will be
delivered. She said that the people who want to get her out of this world may
well go before she does.

Asked if her Voices had told her she would be delivered
from prison, she answered, “Speak to me about it in three months’ time and then
I will answer you.” She added that we should ask the assessors on their oath
whether this question was relevant to her trial; and after the assessors had
deliberated and unanimously decided that it was relevant, she said, “One day I
must be delivered, and I want to get permission to tell you,” and so she asked
us for a delay.

When asked whether the saints prohibited her from speaking
the truth, she answered, “Do you want me to tell you what concerns the king of
France?” She said many things do not concern her legal case. The same day, when
asked what sign she gave the king that she came from God, she said, “I have
always told you that you will not drag this from my lips. Go and ask him.”

Asked if she had sworn not to reveal what she was asked
concerning the trial, she answered, “I have already told you that I will not
tell you what concerns our king.”

Asked if she did not know the sign, she answered, “You
will not learn it from me.” She was told that this was relevant to the trial
and she replied, “What I have promised to keep secret I shall not tell you,”
and she added, “I have already said that I cannot tell you without committing
perjury.” Asked to whom she made the promise that would result in her
committing perjury, she replied that she promised St. Catherine and St.
Margaret, and this was made known to the king. She said she promised without
their asking, by her own decision, and said that too many people would have
asked her about her sign had she not made this promise to her saints.

When we asked her if anyone else was present when she
showed the sign to the king, she said, “I think there was no one but him,
although many people were quite near.” Asked if she saw a crown on the king’s
head when she showed him the sign, she answered, “I cannot tell you without
committing perjury.”

On Saturday, March 3, when asked whether she believes God
created St. Michael and St. Gabriel from the beginning in the form and fashion
in which she saw them, she replied, “You will learn no more from me at the
present time other than what I have already told you.”

Asked whether she had seen or known by revelation that she
would escape, she answered, “That does not concern your legal case; do you want
me to speak against myself?”

Asked if the Voices told her anything about escaping, she
said, “That is not in your legal case. I leave it up to our Lord, and if
everything concerned you, I would tell you everything.” She added, “By my
faith, I do not know the hour.”

Asked if, when God told her to change her clothing, it was
through the Voice of St. Michael, St. Catherine or St. Margaret, she replied,
“You will not learn anymore.”

On Monday, March 12, when asked whether she had received
letters from St. Michael or her Voices, she answered, “I do not have permission
to tell you, but within a week I will gladly tell you what I know.”

ARTICLE 61

Joan, admonished to submit all her deeds and words to the
decision of the Church Militant, and advised of the distinction between the
Church Militant [Members of the Church on Earth] and the Church Triumphant
[Members of the Church in Heaven], professed to submit to the Church Triumphant
and refused to submit herself to the Church Militant, and so she declares
herself to have an erroneous opinion with regard to Unam Sanctam
[authoritative document establishing the Pope as supreme head of the Church],
and in all this she shows herself to be at fault. She said it was for God
alone, without an intermediary, to judge her, and she committed herself, her
deeds and her words to Him and His Saints, and not to the judgment of the
Church.

Joan’s response:

To this sixty-first article, Joan answers that she would
desire to bring to the Church Militant all the honor and reverence in her
power, but with regard to submitting her actions to the Church Militant, she
says, “I must submit them to the Lord God who commands me.”

Asked whether she submits her actions to the Church
Militant, she answers, “Send me a cleric next Saturday and I will tell you.”

Promoter’s comments:

On Thursday, March 15, Joan was told about the Church
Triumphant and the Church Militant, and she was required to submit her words
and her deeds, both good and bad, to the decision of the Church, and she
answered, “I will not give you any further answer at the present time.” After
warnings were given to her that if she had done anything contrary to our faith
she ought to refer it to the decision of the Church, she answered that her
replies should be seen and examined by the clergy, and then she should be told
if there was anything contrary to the Christian faith, and that she would
certainly be able to tell that it was, and then she would say to us what she learned
from her Voices.

She said if there was anything contrary to the Christian
faith, the faith that our Lord ordained, she would not want to sustain it, and
she would be grieved to be in opposition. The same day, when asked whether she
would submit her deeds and words to the decision of the Church, she answered,
“Everything I have said or done is in God’s hands, and I commit myself to Him.
I certify to you that I would do or say nothing contrary to the Christian
faith, and if I had said or done anything, or if anything was found about me
that the clerics would declare to be against the Christian faith established by
Our Lord, then I would not uphold it, and I would cast it out.”

Then asked whether she would submit herself to the
decision of the Church, she answered, “I will not now answer you anymore, but next
Saturday send me a cleric if you do not wish to come, and I will answer this
question with God’s assistance, and it shall be set down in writing.”

On Saturday, March 17, when we asked if she thought she
was required to answer the whole truth to our Holy Father the Pope, God’s
Vicar, regarding everything we asked her concerning the faith and state of her
conscience, she replied that she required to be taken to the Pope, and then she
would answer.

On Saturday, the last day of March, when asked whether she
would submit to the decision of the Church on Earth regarding everything she
had done, either good or evil, especially the questions, crimes and
misdemeanors attributed to her, and all that concerns her legal case, she
answered that with respect to what she was asked she would submit to the Church
Militant provided we did not ask her to do what was impossible, meaning by
impossible the revocation of her deeds and words put forth in these proceedings
which concern the visions and revelations she claims to have from God; she
would not revoke them for anything in the world. She said that what our Lord
has requested of her she will not for any man alive cease to do; that, she
could not revoke.

In the event of the Church wanting her to do otherwise,
against the request of our Lord, she would not obey for anything. Asked whether
she would submit to the Church if the Church Militant said that her revelations
were false and devilish things, superstitious and evil, she replied that she
would submit to our Lord, whose requests she will always fulfill, because she
knows that the actions described in these proceedings were done at God’s
request; it would be impossible for her to do other than what she declares she
has done at God’s request. If the Church Militant told her to do otherwise, then
she would submit to nobody other than our Lord, whose good requests she always
fulfilled.

When asked if she believes she is subject to the Church on
Earth, namely our Holy Father the Pope, to the cardinals, archbishops, bishops
and other prelates of the Church, she answered yes, our Lord being served first.
Asked whether her Voices requested her not to submit to the Church Militant on
Earth or its judgment, she said that she does not merely answer us by saying anything
that comes to her mind, but she answers according to the Voices’ instructions,
and they do not forbid her to obey the Church, our Lord being served first.

Because of her illness, Joan was told that the more
fearful she was about her health the more necessary it was for her to reform,
and that she would not receive the rites of the Church as a Catholic if she did
not submit to the Church. She answered, “If my body dies in prison, I expect
you to bury it in holy ground, and if you do not, I put my trust in our Lord.”

The same day, when we asked—since she desired the Church
to give her the Sacrament of the Eucharist—whether she would submit to the
Church if she was promised the Eucharist, she replied that with respect to this
question she would not answer other than what she had already answered, but she
loves and serves God as a good Christian, and she would assist and sustain the
Church with all her might.

ARTICLE 62

Joan endeavors to scandalize the people, to induce them to
believe all her words and prophecies, assuming the authority of God and His
angels, lifting herself above all ecclesiastical power to lead men into error,
as false prophets are wont to do when they introduce sects of error and damnation
and separate from the unity of the body of the Church. This is malicious to the
Christian religion, and unless the clerics of the Church take action, a
subversion of the future ecclesiastical authority may arise; men and women
pretending to have revelations from God and His angels will pour in from all
sides and sow lies and errors, as has often occurred since this woman arose and
began to scandalize the Christian people and propagate her inventions.

Joan’s response:

To this sixty-second article on this Wednesday, March 28,
Joan replies that she will answer on Saturday.

ARTICLE 63

Joan has not been afraid to lie before the law, in
violation of her oath, and she has continually affirmed numerous conflicting
and contradictory things about her revelations; she has pronounced curses
against nobles and distinguished people, and against a whole nation; she has
without shame proclaimed falsehoods and contemptuous words that in no way are
appropriate for a holy woman, showing thoroughly she has been directed and
governed in her actions by evil spirits, and not by the advice of God and His
angels, as she boasts. Christ said of false prophets, “By their fruits you will
know them.”

Joan’s response:

To this sixty-third article, Joan this day answers, “I
refer you to what I have already said,” and regarding the accusation and
conclusion of this article, she defers to Our Lord.

Promoter’s comments:

On Tuesday, February 27, Joan said that she had a sword at
Lagny, and from Lagny to Compiegne she carried the sword of a Burgundian that
was a good fighting weapon, excellent for giving hard hits and blows; regarding
where she lost the other sword, she said this is not in the legal case so she
will not answer.

On Thursday, March 1, she said she would have died except
for the daily revelations and comfort she received from her Voices. Asked
whether St. Michael had any hair, she answered, “Why should it be cut off?” She
has not seen St. Michael since the time she left the castle of Crotoy and did
not often see him.

ARTICLE 64

Joan boasts of knowing that she has obtained remission of
the sins she committed when, due to a despairing heart and at the incitement of
an evil spirit, she cast herself from the top of the tower at the castle of
Beaurevoir. She says this even though Scripture teaches us that nobody knows if
he is worthy of love or of hatred, and therefore if he is purged or freed from
sin.

Joan’s response:

To this sixty-fourth article on Wednesday, March 28, Joan
answers, “I have answered this already and I refer you to my previous answer.”
Regarding the remainder of this article and its conclusion, she defers to our
Lord.

ARTICLE 65

Joan many times declared she has asked God to send her
special revelations through St. Catherine and St. Margaret regarding her conduct,
for example, whether she should answer truthfully in this trial certain
questions and matters personal to her. This behavior tempts the Lord God, to
ask Him needlessly for forbidden things, without having performed all inquiries
and investigations possible to man. Especially with regard to her leap from the
tower, it is clear that she tempted God.

Joan’s response:

To this sixty-fifth article on this Wednesday, Joan says
that she has already answered this; she will not speak about what has been revealed
to her without permission from God. Furthermore, she says that she does not ask
God needlessly, and she wishes He would continue to send other revelations so
that it can be more clearly seen that she comes in His name, and that He has
sent her.

ARTICLE 66

Some of Joan’s prophecies depart from divine, evangelic,
canon and civil law, and are contrary to decisions approved by the Church
Councils; they contain spells, enchantments and superstitions, some formally
and others casually, and others pertain to heresy; many contain errors against
the faith that encourage and incite people to heretical error; some are
seditious, harmful and contrary to the peace; some encourage the spilling of
human blood; some are nothing but curses and blasphemies against God and His
saints; others offend the ears of pious men.

In all this the accused, with daring recklessness and at
the instigation of the devil, offended God and His Holy Church, against which
she has scandalously committed excesses and crimes, is notoriously defamed, and
has appeared before you to be corrected and reformed.

Joan’s response:

To this sixty-sixth article, Joan answers that she is a
good Christian, and with respect to all of the accusations contained in this
article she commits herself to God.

ARTICLE 67

Each and every one of these activities the accused has
committed, perpetrated, pronounced, produced, declared, published and
accomplished, both in this and in other jurisdictions, and in many and diverse locations
within the territory, not once, but repeatedly on many occasions, days and
hours; she has persisted in these activities, and she has given her aid,
counsel and favor to people who have committed them.

Joan’s response:

This sixty-seventh article Joan denies.

ARTICLE 68

Therefore—since the time you discovered by the insinuating
sounds that struck your ears, not once but many times, and by public reports
and the evidence collected—the accused is strongly suspected and defamed; and so
you ruled that it was proper to hold an inquiry against her, and that you, or
one of you, must initiate proceedings against her and call her to answer these
questions, and this has been done.

Joan’s response:

To this sixty-eighth article, Joan answers, “This article
concerns the judges.”

ARTICLE 69

The accused, in everything, was and is strongly suspected,
scandalous, and to the highest degree notoriously defamed in the eyes of honest
and sober men, yet she in no way corrected her ways or reformed; on the
contrary, she delayed and declined to correct and amend herself; and she
continued and persisted in her errors, and she still does, although you and
other notable clergy and other honest people have, charitably and otherwise,
appropriately and sufficiently, asked and required her to do so.

Joan’s response:

To this sixty-ninth article, Joan says that she has not
committed the errors attributed to her by the Promoter; regarding the remainder
of this article, she commits herself to God; regarding the crimes of which she
is accused, she does not think she has done anything contrary to the Christian
faith.

Asked whether, if she has done anything contrary to the
Christian faith, she would be willing to submit to the Church and to those
whose responsibility it is to administer corrections, she answered that she
would give her reply after dinner on Saturday.

ARTICLE 70

That each and every one of these propositions is true,
known and clear, and that the public opinion and reports have reflected them,
and the accused has acknowledged and confessed them as true on many and appropriate
occasions, before trustworthy and honorable men, both in and out of court.

Joan’s response:

This seventieth article Joan denies, except for that which
she has previously admitted.

Promoter’s comments:

On these points and on others that you will complete,
correct and further inquire into, the Promoter requests and demands the accused
be evaluated; and as he has sufficiently proved, wholly or in part, you should
decide on and pronounce sentence on each and every one of the abovementioned
articles, and make additional statements and judgments according to law and
reason; thereby the Promoter appropriately and humbly implores you to carry out
the responsibilities of your offices.

Joan is Interviewed About Submitting to the Church
(March 31)

The following Saturday, Easter Eve, the last day of March
in the year of our Lord, 1431, we gathered in Joan’s prison cell in the castle
of Rouen.

First she was asked whether she would submit to the
judgment of the Church that is on Earth regarding all of her actions and words,
whether good or evil, and especially regarding the causes, crimes and errors of
which she was accused, and in everything concerning her trial. She answered
that in all these matters she would submit to the Church Militant provided that
it did not command her to do the impossible; and by impossible it is understood
that she means the revocation of the things she has said and done regarding the
visions and revelations she claims to have from God. She said she will not deny
them for anything in the world. What our Lord told her and will tell her to do
she will not cease from doing for any man alive. She said it would be
impossible for her to deny them, and in the event of the Church commanding her
to do anything contrary to God’s requests, she would not do it under any
circumstances.

Asked whether she would submit to the Church if the Church
Militant said that her revelations were illusions, diabolical, superstitious
and evil things, she said she would submit to our Lord, whose will she would
always do. She knows that what is written in these proceedings came at His
requests, and what she claims to have done at God’s command she could in no way
have done otherwise. If the Church Militant commanded her to do otherwise she
would not submit to it for any man in the world, except our Lord, whose good
will she would always do.

Asked if she thought she was subject to the Church on Earth,
namely to our Holy Father the Pope, the cardinals, archbishops, bishops and
other prelates of the Church, she answered yes, our Lord being served first.
Asked whether her Voices had requested her not to submit to the Church Militant
on Earth or its judgments, she answered that she did not respond to our
questions according to whatever happened to come into her mind, but she
answered at our Lord’s command. Her Voices did not tell her not to obey the
Church, our Lord being served first in all things.

Asked whether documents had been found implicating her
behavior in the castle at Beaurevoir or Arras or elsewhere, she answered “If
any were found regarding me, I have nothing more to answer.” At this point we then
left her prison cell to continue the proceedings upon these matters of the
faith.

70 Accusations are Summarized into 12 Accusations (April
2 - April 4)

The following Monday after Easter, April 2, and the following
Tuesday and Wednesday, we, the judges, with several other lords and lawyers, gathered
together and reviewed the seventy articles, both the questions and replies made
by Joan. We then produced twelve articles based on these seventy, which
comprehensively summarized all of the propositions and statements made by Joan.
We decided to send these twelve articles to doctors and other men educated in
canon and civil law, requesting their advice and consultation for the good of
the faith.

The Summary of Accusations is Submitted to the
Assessors (April 5)

On Thursday, April 5, we took our schedule of requirements
with the following 12 articles to all of the doctors who, to our knowledge,
were in the town of Rouen.

ARTICLE 1

Firstly, this woman says and affirms that in the
thirteenth year of her age or thereabout, she saw with her bodily eyes St.
Michael, who would console her, and at times St. Gabriel, and they appeared to
her in bodily form. Sometimes she also saw a large number of angels. Since
then, St. Catherine and St. Margaret have appeared to this woman and she saw
them in the flesh. Every day she sees them and she hears them speak, and when
she embraces and kisses them, she touches them and feels them physically.

She has seen not only the heads of these angels and the
saints, but other parts of their bodies of which she has chosen not to speak. She
said that St. Catherine and St. Margaret spoke to her at times by a certain
fountain near a large tree commonly called the Spirits’ Tree. With regard to
the matter of the fountain and the tree, the common report is that it is the
frequent gathering place of witches, and that many people who are sick go to
this fountain and tree to recover their health, although these are located in
an unholy place. There, and elsewhere on several occasions, Joan has adorned
the tree with garlands and shown reverence to the tree and the fountain.

In addition, she has said that St. Catherine and St.
Margaret appeared and revealed themselves to her crowned with rich and
beautiful crowns; and from that moment, and taking up the matter again on many
occasions, St. Catherine and St. Margaret said to Joan that God had commanded
her to go to a certain prince of this world [the king of France, who the
English did not recognize as king], promising that they would assist the
efforts of Joan, and the king would recover by force of arms great worldly
dominions and glory, and that he would overcome his enemies; also that the king
would welcome her, and give her soldiers and weapons to fulfill her promises.
Moreover, the so-called St. Catherine and St. Margaret instructed Joan, in the
name of God, to take and wear men’s clothes; and Joan has worn them, and still
wears them, stubbornly obeying this command to such an extent that Joan has
declared that she would rather die than abandon wearing these clothes. She has
made this declaration to wear men’s clothes simply and purely, adding at times,
“except at our Lord’s command.”

She prefers to be absent from Mass if she has to wear women’s
clothes, and to be deprived of the Holy Sacrament of Communion, including at the
times when the Church commands the faithful to receive the Sacrament. She does
this instead of giving up wearing men’s clothes.

The so-called St. Catherine and St. Margaret would seem to
have shown similar favor to Joan when, unknown to and against the will of her
parents, in the seventeenth year of her age or thereabout, she left her
father’s house and joined with a company of men following the profession of
being a soldier, living with them day and night, and never, or rarely, having
another woman with her.

Also, these saints have told and commanded her to do many
other things; this is why Joan has claimed to be sent by the God of Heaven, and
by the Church Triumphant of the saints already in Heaven, to whom she submits
any good that she has done.

But she has postponed and declined to submit her actions
and words to the Church Militant; and, having been questioned and admonished on
this point more than once, she has answered that she could not do otherwise
than what she has claimed to have done in answering to the commands of God,
because in these matters she did not refer herself to the consideration and
decision of living men, but to the judgment of our Lord alone.

These saints have revealed to her that she will enter into
the salvation and glory of the blessed in Heaven, and her soul will be saved if
she preserves the virginity she has consecrated to the saints when she first
saw and heard them; and since the time of this revelation she has asserted that
she was as sure of her salvation as if she had suddenly found herself in
reality in the Kingdom of Heaven.

ARTICLE 2

Joan said the sign the king received that led him to trust
in her revelations, to receive her, and to let her command the war efforts, was
that St. Michael approached the king along with a multitude of angels, some of
whom wore crowns and others who were winged, and with them were St. Catherine
and St. Margaret.

The angel and Joan walked together by land and by highway,
traveling long distances, climbing steps and crossing a hallway, and other
angels and the saints were with them. One angel gave the king a precious crown
of fine gold and bowed down before the king, giving honor to him. On one
occasion Joan stated that when the king received this sign he seemed to be
alone, although there were several men very near him; and on another occasion
it seemed to her an archbishop also saw this sign with the crown and gave it to
the king, all in the presence and view of several noblemen.

ARTICLE 3

Joan recognizes and is certain that he who visits her is
St. Michael. She is certain of this because of the good advice, consolation and
wise doctrine that St. Michael brings to her; also because he names himself,
saying that he is Michael. Similarly, she recognizes and distinguishes St.
Catherine from St. Margaret because they name themselves when they greet her.
This is why she believes that the St. Michael who visits her is St. Michael
himself, and that his actions and words are good and true, as firmly as she
believes that our Lord Jesus Christ suffered death to redeem us.

ARTICLE 4

Joan says and affirms that she is certain of future and
purely contingent events, and that these future events will occur as surely as
she sees the reality in front of her. She boasts that she has knowledge of
secret things through the verbal revelations of St. Catherine and St. Margaret;
for example, that she will be delivered from prison, that the French will have
more glorious success in her presence than all of Christendom has had up until
now. In addition, she has, according to her own account, recognized by
revelation people she had never seen before; and she has spoken and revealed
the place where a certain sword was hidden in the ground.

ARTICLE 5

Joan says and affirms that by the will and command of God
she has taken to herself and has worn, and still wears, clothes like those of a
man. Moreover, Joan has said that since she has received God’s command to wear
men’s clothes, she must wear a cap and a tight jacket, pants and stockings with
many details, and her hair cropped short above her ears; there is nothing about
her that displays and announces her sex except nature’s own distinctive marks.

In these clothes she has received the Sacrament of the Eucharist
on several occasions; and she has declined and still declines to wear women’s
clothes, although many times she has been gently requested and admonished to do
so; she says that she would rather die than give up wearing men’s clothes; she
has said this purely and simply, at times adding, “unless it is at our Lord’s
command.”

She has said that if she found herself in these clothes
among people of her party, for whom she previously took up arms, and if she
could do as she did before her capture and captivity, it would be one of the
greatest blessings that could come to the whole realm of France. She added that
not for anything in the world would she swear to give up wearing men’s clothes
and carrying weapons. In all this she has declared that her acts were good, and
are good, and that she has obeyed God and His commands.

ARTICLE 6

Joan admits and affirms that she has caused certain
letters to be written, and that on some of those letters were written the names
Jesus and Mary, with the invocation of the Sign of the Cross, and sometimes she
added a cross to show she did not wish to be done what she indicated in her
letters. Moreover, in other letters she has caused to be written, she indicated
that she would have those who disobeyed her letters and warnings killed, and
that “by blows would the favor of the God of Heaven be seen.” Often she has
said that she has done nothing except by the revelation and command of God.

ARTICLE 7

Joan says and admits that during or about her seventeenth
year, according to her own account, she went and found, intuitively and by
revelation, a certain squire whom she had never seen before, leaving her
parents’ house against their wishes. Her parents, when they discovered her
departure, were almost stricken out of their senses. Joan requested this squire
to lead her, or have her led, to the king. Then this squire, a captain, lent
Joan, at her request, men’s clothes and a sword. He told and instructed a
knight, a squire and four soldiers to escort her. When they arrived at the
king’s castle, Joan said to the king that she wished to direct the war effort
against his enemies, promising the king great dominion, that he would
annihilate his foes, and that she had been sent for this purpose by the King of
Heaven. In this matter she says that she has done very well according to the revelation
and the command of God.

ARTICLE 8

Joan says and admits that, without constraint or
compulsion, she threw herself down from a high tower, preferring death to
captivity in the hands of her enemies, or life after the destruction of the
town of Compiegne. Moreover, she has said that she could not help throwing
herself down in this fashion, although St. Catherine and St. Margaret had
forbidden her to do so, and she says that to offend them was a serious sin.
However, she claims to know that this sin was forgiven after she confessed it, and
she says that she has had a revelation about this.

ARTICLE 9

Joan says and affirms that St. Catherine and St. Margaret
promised to lead her into Heaven if she preserved the virginity of her body and
soul, which she consecrated to them; and she says that she is as certain of
this as if she were already among the blessed in Heaven. She thinks that she
has not committed any mortal sin, because, if she were in mortal sin, it seems
to her that St. Catherine and St. Margaret would not visit her every day, as
they do.

ARTICLE 10

Joan says and affirms that God loves certain people whom
she points out and names, who are still alive, and that He loves them more than
He loves her; and that she is aware of this by the revelations of St. Catherine
and St. Margaret, who often speak to her in the French language, and not in the
English language, because they are not on the side of the English; and since
she has known by revelation that they are on the side of her king, she has
therefore disliked the Burgundians.

ARTICLE 11

Joan says and admits that she has on several occasions
shown reverence to the Voices and spirits whom she calls St. Michael, St.
Gabriel, St. Catherine and St. Margaret, and that she has uncovered, knelt and
kissed the ground where they walked; she consecrated her virginity to St.
Catherine and St. Margaret when she embraced and acknowledged them; she has
touched them bodily and felt them, asking their advice and consolation; and she
has called upon them, although they often visited Joan without an invocation.

She has submitted to and obeyed their advice and commands,
and she has done so from the beginning, without asking counsel from another
person, for example, from her father or her mother, or from a priest or
prelate, or from any other cleric. Nevertheless, she firmly believes that the
Voices and revelations she has had, through saints both male and female, come
from God and are ordained by Him; she believes it as solemnly as she believes
the Christian faith and the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ suffered death for
our sake.

She has said that if an evil spirit were to appear to her,
pretending to be St. Michael, she would be able to tell whether he was St.
Michael or not. Joan has also said that, of her own free will, without being in
any way requested or constrained, she swore to St. Catherine and St. Margaret,
who appeared to her, that she would not disclose the sign of the crown which
she was to give to the king, adding “unless she was given permission to reveal
it.”

ARTICLE 12

Joan says and admits that if the Church were to desire her
to do anything contrary to the commands she claims to receive from God, she
would not do it for any reason whatsoever. She affirms that she is quite
certain that the things declared in her deposition were done in God’s name, and
that it would be impossible for her to do otherwise.

She does not submit herself to the judgment of the Church
Militant, or to the judgment of any living men, but only to God, our Lord,
whose commands she will always obey; she does this principally in all matters
relating to these revelations, and what she claims to have performed according
to the revelations.

She says she does not make this response and other
responses by the power of her own mind alone, but she gives these responses as
instructed by her Voices and by revelation; although the judges and others who
were present often reminded her of that article of faith, Unam Sanctam,
explaining to her that every faithful pilgrim in this life must obey it and must
submit his words and deeds to the Church Militant, principally in matters of
belief regarding all that is related to holy doctrine and ecclesiastical
sanctions.

Experts in Theology Give Their Opinions

The deliberations and opinions of experts in theology
regarding the 12 articles were received over the course of several days.
Sixteen doctors and six bachelors of theology gave their opinions on the 12
articles; with minor reservations, the doctors and masters gave their judgment
as follows.

We declare, having conscientiously considered, discussed
and weighed the quality of the person in question, her words and her actions,
the character of her apparitions and revelations, their purpose, cause and
circumstances, and all that is contained in the articles and proceedings, that
there is reason to think that these apparitions and revelations, which she
boasts and affirms she has received from God through His angels and His saints,
do not come from God through His angels and His saints, but are rather the
fictions of human imagination or proceeding from evil spirits.

Joan has not received sufficient evidence to believe and
recognize them as holy; in these articles there are fabricated lies, certain
improbabilities and beliefs that have been informally accepted on her part;
superstitions and divinations; scandalous and irreligious acts; audacious, arrogant
and boasting speech; blasphemies and curses toward God and His saints, St.
Michael and St. Gabriel; disrespect towards parents; disregard of the command
to love our neighbor; idolatry, or at least misleading fictions; schism
directed against the unity, authority and power of the Church; and things that
seem to be evil and are strongly suspected of heresy.

In proclaiming that these apparitions are St. Michael, St.
Catherine and St. Margaret, and their actions and words are good as firmly as
she believes the Christian faith, she is considered to be suspect of straying
from the faith; because if she believes that articles of the faith have no more
assurance than her own beliefs—her apparitions whom she names to be St.
Michael, St. Catherine and St. Margaret, and her statement that their acts and
words are good—then she strays from the faith.

Because to say, as contained in Article 5 and also in
Article 1, that she has acted rightly by not receiving the Sacrament of the
Eucharist at a time ordained by the Church, and that all she has done was done
by God’s command, then that is a blaspheme against God and strays from the
faith.

Statements by Notaries

The doctors and masters asked us, as public notaries, for
a deposition regarding the proceedings and requested us to forward it to the
lord judges. This was done in the chapel of the archbishop’s house at Rouen, in
the presence of Master Jean de la Haye and Jean Barenton, priests of the Church
at Rouen, called and requested to be witnesses to this.

I, Guillaume Manchon, priest of the Diocese of Rouen,
notary public and sworn by the imperial and apostolic authority of the
archbishop’s court of Rouen, have been present at all that has been said, done
and reported, with another notary and the above-signed witnesses, and have seen
and heard it done; and for that reason I have affixed my usual signature
together with my seal and subscription as a notary public, to this public
document, faithfully written in my hand, as a witness and in good faith, at the
request of the authorities listed above.

Signed: Guillaume Manchon

And I, Guillaume Colles, also known as Boisguillaume,
priest of the Diocese of Rouen, public notary by apostolic authority and of the
archbishop’s court of Rouen, notary sworn in this case, have been present at
all that has been said and done, with the witnesses and the notary named above,
and have seen and heard it done; and so I have signed this public document,
which is a faithful record written by Guillaume Manchon, with my usual
signature and seal as called and sworn to do, in assurance and as a witness to
these proceedings.

Signed: Guillaume Boisguillaume

Joan is Privately Admonished in Her Prison Cell
(April 18)

On Wednesday, April 18, we, the judges—knowing from the
deliberations and opinions of many doctors of sacred theology and of canon law,
and of individuals licensed in law and graduates of other faculties—are aware
of the great number of serious errors contained in the answers and assertions
made by Joan, and we know if she does not correct herself she is exposed to
grave dangers.

For these reasons we have decided to urge her charitably
and admonish her gently, and to have her admonished gently by many honest and
educated men, doctors and others, in order to lead her back to the way of truth
and a sincere profession of the faith. It is for this reason that we visited
Joan in her prison cell, accompanied by Guillaume Le Boucher; Jacques de
Touraine; Maurice du Quesnay; Nicolas Midi; Guillaume Adelie and Gerard
Feuillet, both Doctors of Sacred Theology; and William Haiton, Bachelor of
Sacred Theology.

In their presence we, with the bishop, addressed Joan, who
said she was sick. We told her that the masters and doctors had come in all
friendliness and charity to visit her in her illness, to comfort and console
her. Then we reminded her that on many different days in the presence of many
educated persons she had been questioned on grave and difficult questions
concerning the faith, to which she had given varied and divergent answers that
wise and educated men, evaluating and examining diligently, had found to
contain words and admissions that from the point of view of the faith were
dangerous; but because she was an uneducated and ignorant woman, we offered to
provide her with wise and educated men, honest and kind, who would
appropriately instruct her.

We urged the doctors and masters present to give helpful
advice to Joan for the salvation of her body and her soul, and to conform to
the duty of faithfulness that aligned her body and soul with the true doctrine
of the faith. If Joan knew others who were appropriate for this we offered to
send them to her so that they would also give her advice and instruction
regarding what she should do, maintain and believe.

We added that we were clergy, and by our vocations,
decisions and inclinations, we were prepared to seek the salvation of her soul
and assure the saving of her body by all means possible, just as we would do
for our closest relatives and for ourselves; that we would be happy each day to
provide her with such men who would instruct her appropriately, and to do for
her all the Church is accustomed to do in such circumstances, because the
Church does not close the gate against the lamb who wants to return.

Finally, we told Joan to carefully consider our admonition
and put it into effect, because if she should act in opposition, trusting her
own mind and her inexperienced level of knowledge, we would be compelled to
abandon her; and that she must therefore see the danger that would result to
her if that was to be the case, which, with all our might and affection, we
hoped to avoid.

Joan answered that she thanked us for what we said
regarding her salvation, and she added, “It seems to me, seeing how sick I am,
that I am in great danger of death; if it is so, that God desires to do with me
as He sees fit, then I ask to receive the Sacrament of Confession and my Savior
in Holy Communion, and for a burial in holy ground.”

Joan was told that if she wished to receive the Sacraments
of the Church she must do as good Catholics are in duty bound to do, and she
must submit to the holy Church; and if she persisted in her intention not to
submit to the Church, then she would not be allowed to receive the Sacraments
she asked for, except the Sacrament of Penance, which we were always ready to
administer. However, she answered, “I cannot now tell you anything more.”

She was told that the more she feared for her life because
of her illness, the more she ought to amend her life; that she would not enjoy
the rites of the Church as a Catholic if she did not submit to the Church. She
answered, “If my body dies in prison, I trust you will have it buried in holy
ground; if you do not, then I put my trust in our Lord.”

She was told that in her trial she had said that if she
had done or said anything contrary to our Christian faith ordained by God, then
she would not wish to sustain it. She replied, “I refer you to the answers I
gave and I refer myself to our Lord.”

Then, because Joan had professed to have many revelations
from God through the mediums of St. Michael, St. Catherine and St. Margaret,
she was asked this question: “If some good creature came to you and affirmed
that he had received revelations from God concerning your mission, would you
believe him?” She replied that no Christian in the world could come to her
saying he had a revelation about her without her knowing whether he was
speaking the truth or not; and that she would know this through St. Catherine
and St. Margaret.

Asked whether she thought God could reveal something to a
good creature that she would not know, she answered that she knew very well
that He could. “But,” she added “I would not believe any man or woman if I did
not receive a sign.”

Asked whether she believed that the Holy Scriptures were
revealed by God, she answered, “You know it very well, and it is good to know
that it was.”

Then she was asked, urged and required to take the good
advice of the clergy and notable doctors, and trust in their advice for the
salvation of her soul. She was asked if she would submit her actions and words
to the evaluation of the Church Militant, but she answered, “Whatever happens
to me, I will do and say nothing except what I have already said in the trial.”

At that point the venerable doctors who were present
pressed her as urgently as they could to submit herself and her words to the
Church Militant, citing in explanation to her many authorities and examples
from the Holy Scriptures; and in particular one of the doctors, Nicolas Midi, in
his exhortation, quoted this biblical passage from St. Matthew, Chapter 18, “If
your brother shall trespass against you…” and also, “If he neglects to listen
to the Church, let him be to you as a heathen man and a publican.” This was
explained to Joan in French, and she was told that if she would not submit to
the Church and obey it, then she would be abandoned as unfaithful.

Joan replied that she was a good Christian, and that she
had been properly baptized, and so she would die a good Christian.

Asked why, since she requested the Church to administer
the Sacrament of Holy Communion to her, she would not submit to the Church
Militant, because she was promised she could receive the Sacrament if she
submitted to the Church Militant. She answered that she would not reply other
than what she had already said previously on this question of submission to the
Church Militant and Church Triumphant; she said she loved God, that she was a
good Christian, and she desired to help and support the Holy Church with all
her strength.

Asked if she wanted a fine and distinguished procession of
ordained ministers to restore her to a good state if she were not currently in
a good state, she replied that she very much wanted the Church and the Catholic
people to pray for her.

Joan is Publicly Admonished by the Judges on Six
Items (May 2)

On Wednesday, May 2, we, the judges, held a session in a
room within the castle of Rouen near the great hall of the castle, assisted by
the reverend fathers, lords and masters assembled at our command. After Joan
had been thoroughly questioned, she then replied to the articles that were
carefully prepared against her by the Promoter. Then we sent the summary of her
admissions, which were in the form of twelve articles, to doctors and other
persons who are educated in canon and civil law for the purpose of obtaining
their advice.

Although her case has not finally been decided by us, we
have already adequately perceived that in the opinion and decision of many
people, Joan appears reprehensible with regard to many points. But before we
come to a final judgment, many honest, conscientious and educated men thought
it would be beneficial to try by every possible means to instruct this woman on
the points in which she seems to be in error, and, as far as we are able, to
bring her back to the way and knowledge of the truth. This is the objective we
have always desired, and we still desire it with all our strength, and this is
what we should seek, especially we who live in the Church and live for the
administration of holy things. We ought to show her in all charity where her
acts and sayings are out of harmony with the faith, truth and religion, and
charitably warn her to consider her salvation.

It is for this objective that we first tried to lead her
back by means of many notable doctors of theology, whom we sent to her on many
different days; they gave of themselves with all possible zeal to do this work,
but they did not coerce her.

However, the cunning of the devil prevailed, and these
notable doctors of theology have not yet had any effect on her. When we
perceived that our private admonitions bore no fruit, it appeared to us that it
would be appropriate that Joan should, in a solemn assembly, be gently and
charitably admonished to amend her ways; because perhaps the presence and exhortations
of some of you gathered here will more easily induce her to humility and
obedience, and dissuade her from having too much reliance on her own opinions,
so that she will give credibility to the advice of these worthy and educated
men who are knowledgeable in divine and human laws; therefore, she will not
expose herself to perils so great that they endanger her body and soul.

To address this solemn admonition to Joan we have
appointed an old and educated master of theology, one particularly
understanding in these matters, namely Jean de Chatillon, arch-deacon of
Evreux, who, if it so pleases him, will accept the present task of
demonstrating to Joan why she is in error on specific points. According to the advice
and consultations we have received from the authorities, he will persuade Joan
to abandon her faults and errors, and he will show her the way of truth.

Now, therefore, this woman will be brought before you to
be publically admonished. If any among you think that he can say or do anything
to facilitate her return, or helpfully instruct her regarding the salvation of
her body and soul, we ask him not to hesitate to speak to us or to the
assembly.

After Joan was led in before us on this day, we, the judges,
with the bishop, in our name and on behalf of the Vice-Inquisitor, her judge
with us, counseled her to listen to the advice and warnings which the lord
arch-deacon, professor of sacred theology, would address to her, because he was
about to say many things profitable for the salvation of her body and her soul,
to which she must agree; because if she did not, she made herself vulnerable to
dangers of body and soul; and so we explained many things to Joan as described
in the following statements.

We, the judges, then required the lord arch-deacon to
proceed charitably and begin the admonitions. In obedience to our order, the
lord arch-deacon, beginning to teach and instruct Joan, explained to her that
all faithful Christians were compelled and obliged to believe and hold firmly
the Christian faith and its teachings; and he warned her and required her in a
general admonition to correct and reform herself, her words and her deeds, in
accordance with the advice of the venerable doctors and masters who were
educated in divine, canon and civil law.

In response to the arch-deacon’s general admonition, Joan
replied, “Read your book,” referring to the document that the lord arch-deacon
held in his hand, “and then I will answer you. I trust in God my creator for
everything, and I love Him with my whole heart.”

When she was asked if she had anything further to say in response
to this initial general admonition, Joan said, “I trust in my Judge; He is the
King of Heaven and of Earth.”

Then the lord arch-deacon proceeded to the particular
admonitions, which he addressed to Joan according to the following statements.
He began:

ITEM 1

In the first place, he reminded her that she had recently
said that if anything evil were found in her actions and her words that the
clergy pointed out to her, she would desire to correct herself in that respect.
This was a good and laudable thing to say because every Christian must be meek
and always be ready to obey people who are wiser than him, and to give greater
credit to the judgment of good and educated men than to his own judgment.

Now, the actions and words of this woman had been
diligently and moderately examined for many days by doctors and clergy, who had
found many grave deficiencies in Joan’s actions and words; and if she wished to
reform herself, as a good devout Christian must, the clergy were always ready
to act towards her in all mercy and charity to affect her salvation. If,
however, out of arrogant and haughty pride she desired to persist in her own
views, and imagine that she understood matters of the faith better than doctors
and other educated men, then she would expose herself to grave danger.

ITEM 2

The arch-deacon explained to her, regarding the
revelations and visions she professed to have, that she would not submit to the
Church Militant or to any living man, but intended to refer herself to God
alone with respect to her actions and words. He explained to her on this point
the nature of the Church Militant, the authority it derives from God, in Whom
its power resides; how every Christian is bound to believe that the Holy Church
is one and Catholic, that the Holy Spirit governs it, that it never errs or
falls into error; that every Catholic is bound to obey it as a son obeys his
mother, and they must submit all their actions and words to its judgment; that
nobody, regardless of their apparitions or revelations, must on their own
decision withdraw from the judgment of the Church, since the apostles themselves
submitted their writings to the Church, and that the whole Scripture, which is
revealed by God, is sent for our belief by our mother the Church as an
infallible guide to which we ought to conform in all things, without schism or
division of any kind, as St. Paul the apostle teaches in many passages.

Moreover, every revelation from God leads us to maintain
meekness and obedience toward our superiors, and never otherwise, because our
Lord never desired anyone to presume to call himself subject to God alone, or
to refer himself with respect to his actions or words to Him alone.

Indeed, our Lord committed and gave into the hands of the
clergy the authority and power to know and judge the deeds of the faithful,
whether they were good or evil; those who scorned the clergy scorned God; those
who listened to the clergy listened to God.

Finally, the arch-deacon warned her that she must believe
that the Catholic Church is incapable of error or false judgment, because he
who does not hold this belief infringes upon the teaching contained in Unam
Sanctam, which had been explained to Joan in detail; and he who persists in
denying it must be determined to be a heretic; he is schismatic and shows
himself an evil thinker with respect to the holiness of the Church and the
infallible direction of the Holy Spirit; and canon law lays down a heavy
punishment that must be inflicted upon such wanderers.

ITEM 3

Joan was shown how for a long time she persisted in
wearing men’s clothes in the style of soldiers, and she continually and
needlessly still wears these clothes contrary to the honesty of her sex, which
is scandalous and against decent living and customs; and she wore her hair
cropped short and round. All these habits are contrary to the commandments of
God declared in Deuteronomy, Chapter 22, “A woman shall not wear a man’s
apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things
is abhorrent to the Lord your God.” Also, this is contrary to the instruction
of the Apostle who says that women shall veil their heads, and contrary to the
prohibitions of the Church proclaimed in the holy General Council, to the
teaching of the saints and of the doctors in canon and civil law; and this is
an evil example for other women.

Joan was especially in error when, out of a peculiar
insistence on continuing to wear her disgraceful clothes, she preferred not to
receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion at a time ordained by the Church;
rather than abandoning these clothes and putting on other clothes in which she
could receive the Sacrament reverently and decently, she scorned the command of
the Church to satisfy her persistent desire to wear men’s clothes; she did this
even though she had been often warned on this point, particularly regarding
Easter, when she said she greatly desired to attend Mass and receive Holy
Communion. At that time we told her to return to wearing women’s clothes, which
she had available, but she still refused to do so. In our opinion, she gravely
erred in this matter. Therefore, she was admonished to change these desires and
stop wearing men’s clothes.

ITEM 4

Joan, not content to wear women’s clothes even under the
aforementioned and aggravating circumstances, went further by maintaining that
she was acting wisely and was not in error. To maintain that one is acting well
when one goes against the teaching of the saints and against the commandments
of God and His apostles, and to scorn the teachings of the Church out of mere
obstinacy in wearing dishonest and indecent clothes, is to deviate from the
faith, and he who maintains this falls into heresy.

Moreover, she wanted to attribute responsibility for her
sins to God and His saints. She blasphemed God and His saints by attributing
unseemly things to them; the saints wish all honesty to be preserved and all
perversities and sins to be avoided, and so they would never have the
commandments of the Church disdained for such things. Therefore, the
arch-deacon admonished Joan to cease from pronouncing such blasphemies, from
recklessly attributing such thoughts to God and His saints, and from maintaining
them as lawful.

ITEM 5

Many doctors and notable ecclesiastics have considered and
examined with diligence the statements of Joan concerning her revelations and
apparitions, and there are clear falsehoods; for example, regarding the crown
brought to Charles and the coming of angels, which she has invented; these
falsehoods and imaginations have been recognized as such by those who are of
our party as well as by others.

Her statements regarding the kisses and embraces she gave
to St. Catherine and St. Margaret, who, if she is believed, came to her every
day, and even many times daily with no special intention or apparent reason;
there was no reason why they should come so frequently, and there is no
precedent of saints revealing themselves in such miraculous apparitions.

Joan said she knows nothing about their limbs or any other
details about their bodies except for their heads, which is not in accordance
with such frequent visions. Regarding the many commands she says that they gave
to her, such as commands to wear men’s clothes and commands to provide such
answers as she did in the trial, these commands are not in accordance with God
and His saints, and cannot be allowed to have originated from them.

Finally, in view of the numerous other points that the
doctors and other educated men have closely evaluated in this matter, they see
and recognize that such revelations and apparitions are not sent from God, as
she boasts. Joan was shown how extremely dangerous it is to believe, so
audaciously, that it is appropriate for a person to receive such apparitions
and revelations, because she lied with respect to things that are in the domain
of God, falsely prophesying and foretelling events that were going to occur in
the future, and God did not grant her this power, but she discovered these in
the imaginations of her heart, and from this prophesying and foretelling of
future events nothing can follow except the seduction of people, the springing
up of new sects, and many other ills that are inclined to the overthrow of the
Church and the Catholic people.

It is grave and dangerous to search curiously into things
that exceed our understanding, to put faith in what is new without consulting
the opinion of the Church and its prelates, and even to invent new and
unfamiliar things, because devils are accustomed to insinuate themselves into
these kinds of strange activities, either by occult instigation or by visible
apparitions in which they transform themselves into angels of light; using the
appearance of piety or some other good, they lead a person into malevolent
pacts and plunge a person into error, which is permitted by God in order to
punish the presumption of those people who allow themselves to be carried away
by such things. Therefore, Jean de Chatillon, arch-deacon of Evreux, admonished
Joan to renounce her vain imaginations, to cease propagating these falsehoods,
and to return to the way of truth.

ITEM 6

These invented revelations are the primary reason why she
was induced to commit so many other crimes; and as a result, usurping the
office of God, she did not hesitate to announce and affirm future and
contingent events, as well as the presence of hidden objects such as a sword
buried in the ground. Additionally, she boasted of knowing with certainty that
some people were loved by God; and for her own part, she said she knew that she
would receive forgiveness for the sin she had committed by leaping from the
tower of Beaurevoir, which was nothing but divination, presumption and
rashness.

Joan also said that she adored these unusual apparitions
that appeared to her, although she had no adequate proof to believe that they
were good spirits. She said she did not ask for the counsel of priests or any
other ecclesiastics regarding these apparitions, so she presumed too much on
her own initiative with regard to a matter in which the danger of idolatry is
always looming; she impulsively believed something that she should not have
given the slightest credibility, even if there was a basis of reality in these
apparitions (which, nevertheless, to our minds, are false).

Moreover, Joan dared to say that she believed these
apparitions to be St. Catherine, St. Margaret and angels as firmly as she
believed in the Catholic faith; in saying this, she not only exhibited a
reckless naïveté, but she also appeared to indicate that there is no more or
stronger reason to believe in the Christian faith and its doctrines, which the
Church has handed down to us, than in certain apparitions of a new and
unfamiliar kind. In this matter she received no judgment or consultation from
the Church; additionally, Christ and His saints teach us that it is not
appropriate to carelessly have faith in such apparitions, and she was told to
consider these things carefully.

While the arch-deacon was explaining these matters to Joan
in French according to the text of his document, Joan interjected comments
regarding the first and second items of the arch-deacon’s document. She said,
“As I have answered you before, so I will answer you now.”

Previously she had been advised about the nature of the
Church Militant and was admonished to believe and uphold the teaching of Unam
Sanctam, and that she must submit to the Church Militant as explained in
Item 2. She now responded, “I indeed believe in the Church on Earth, but
regarding my words and deeds, as I have already declared, I trust in God and
refer myself to God. I believe that the Church Militant cannot err or fail, but
with respect to my deeds and words, I submit them and refer everything to God, who
caused me to do what I have done.” She added that she submitted herself to God,
her Creator, who had caused her to do those things, and referred herself to Him
and to her own self concerning her words and deeds.

Asked if she wished to say that she had no judge on Earth,
and whether our Holy Father the Pope were not her judge, she answered, “I will
not say anything more. I have a good master, Our Lord, to whom I refer
everything, and to none other.”

When Joan was told that if she would not believe in the
Church and in the teaching of Unam Sanctam she would be a heretic, and
that she would suffer the punishment of being burned at the stake by the
sentence of the judges, she replied, “I will say no more to you, and if I saw
the fire, I would say all that I do now to you, and nothing more.”

Asked if the General Council, or our Holy Father the Pope,
the cardinals and other ecclesiastics were present, she would submit and refer
herself to the General Council, she answered, “You will get nothing further
from me.”

Asked if she would submit to our Holy Father the Pope, she
replied, “Take me to him, and I will reply to him.”

Regarding what was said in Item 3 and Item 4 about her
clothing, she said she would willingly accept a long dress and a woman’s head
covering to go to Church and receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as she had
previously said, provided that immediately after her return she might take it
off and wear her current clothes. When it was explained to her that she was in
no need of wearing this clothing, especially in prison, she said, “When I have
completed what God sent me to do I will resume wearing women’s clothes.”

Asked if she thought she was doing well to wear men’s
clothes, she replied, “I refer myself to Our Lord.”

After she was admonished and the other matters of Item 4
were explained to her, she said that she had neither blasphemed God nor His
saints. Then, when she was admonished to stop wearing men’s clothes and stop
believing that it was good to wear men’s clothes, and was advised to resume
wearing women’s clothes, she said she would not do otherwise.

Asked if, whenever St. Catherine or St. Margaret came to
her, she made the Sign of the Cross, she answered that sometimes she did and
sometimes she did not.

We asked Joan about what she had been told regarding her
revelations in Item 5, and she answered that on that question she referred
herself to her judge, namely God. She said her revelations came to her directly
from God.

We asked her about the sign given to the king, whether she
would defer to the archbishop of Reims, to the Sire de Boussac, to Charles de
Bourbon, to the Sire de la Tremouille or to Etienne, called La Hire, to whom
she said she had shown the crown, because they were present when the angel
brought it to Charles; we asked her whether she would defer to these other
people of her party, writing about this incident under their seal, and she
answered, “Give me a messenger and I will write to them about this trial.”
Otherwise, she would not believe them or defer to them.

With regard to Item 6, we asked Joan about the audacity of
her beliefs and her presumptions in prophesying future and contingent events;
she replied, “I refer myself to my judge, who is God, and to my earlier answers
written in this book.”

Asked if she were sent three or four clergy of her own
party she would refer herself to them concerning the apparitions and all that
was contained in the trial, she replied that we should first let them come and
then she would answer, otherwise she would not refer herself or submit to them
in this trial.

Asked whether she would refer herself and submit to the
church of Poitiers, where she was previously examined, she answered, “Do you
think you will catch me that way and thereby persuade me to come to you?”

Then, in conclusion, she was admonished profusely to
submit to the Church under the threat and pain of being abandoned by the
Church; because if the Church abandoned her she would be in great danger
concerning her body and soul; her soul would be in danger of eternal fire and
her body in danger of temporal fire by the sentence of the judges. She said,
“You will not do as you say against me without evil overtaking you, in body and
soul.”

Asked to give at least one reason why she would not refer
herself to the Church, she would make no other reply.

Whereupon many doctors and other educated men of various
estates and faculties admonished her and charitably guided her, urging her to
submit to the Church Universal and Church Militant, to our Holy Father the
Pope, and to the sacred General Council, explaining to her the dangers of body
and soul to which she exposed herself by her refusal to submit her actions and
words to the Church Militant. She answered as before.

Finally, we, with the bishop, told Joan to be sure to seriously
consider our admonitions, our counsel and our charitable exhortations, and
change her mind. She answered us by stating this question: “How long will you
give me to think it over?” We told her that she must think it over immediately
and answer as she wished. However, because she made no further reply, we
departed and Joan was taken back to her prison cell.

Joan is Threatened with Torture at the Rouen Castle
(May 9)

On Wednesday, May 9, Joan was brought into the great tower
of the castle of Rouen to appear before us, the judges.

She was required and admonished to speak the truth about
many different items addressed to her in her trial, activities which she had
either denied or responses she had given that were false, because we possessed
specific information, evidence and strong beliefs regarding these items. Many
of these points were read to her and explained to her, and she was told that if
she did not confess them truthfully she would be tortured, and we showed her
that these instruments of torture were all prepared to be used on her in this
area of the castle. There were also present, by our command, men ready to
torture her in order to restore her to the way and knowledge of the truth, and
by this means to secure the salvation of her body and soul, which by her lying
inventions she exposed to such grave perils.

Joan replied, “Truly, if you were to tear me limb from
limb and separate my soul from my body, I would not tell you anything more, and
if I did say anything, I would say afterwards and declare that you had coerced
me to say it by force.”

Joan said that on the previous Holy Cross Day she received
comfort from St. Gabriel. She firmly believes that it was St. Gabriel, and she
said it was by her Voices that she knew it was him. She said that she asked for
advice from her Voices about whether she should submit to the Church since the
clergy were pressing her hard to submit. Her Voices told her that if she
desired Our Lord to help her she must wait upon Him in everything she does. She
said that Our Lord has always been the master of everything that she does, and
that the Enemy never had any power over what she did or said. She asked her
Voices if she would be burned at the stake and they answered that she must wait
for God, and He would help her.

When asked about the crown she had given to the archbishop
of Reims, and whether she would refer herself to him, she answered, “Bring him
here and then I will answer you; he dare not deny what I have already told
you.”

Seeing the hardness of her heart and the manner by which
she answered our questions, the judges, fearing that the torments of torture
would be of little profit to Joan, decided to postpone their use until we had
received additional counsel on this matter.

Individual Assessors Declare Whether Joan Should be
Tortured (May 12)

On the following Saturday, May 12, the judges gathered at
our episcopal residence at Rouen. We, with the bishop, recalled what had taken
place on the previous Wednesday. We asked for advice from the assessors regarding
what remained to be done in Joan’s trial, in particular, whether it would be
useful to torture Joan.

First, Raoul Roussel said he thought it would not be
useful because a trial so well conducted could be exposed to slanderous
statements.

Master Nicolas de Venderes said he thought it was not yet
useful to torture Joan.

Master Andre Marguerie said it was not useful at this
time.

Master Guillaume Erart said it was unnecessary to torture
her because we possessed sufficient evidence without it.

Master Robert Le Barbier gave a similar opinion, but he
thought she should again be charitably admonished, once and for all, to submit
to the Church; then, if she would not, then in God’s name the proceedings
should continue.

Master Denis Gastinel said it would not be useful.

Master Aubert Morel said he thought it would be useful to
torture Joan in order to discover the truth about her lies.

Master Thomas de Courcelles said he thought it would be
wise to torture Joan, and she should also be examined about whether she would
submit to the judgment of the Church.

Master Nicolas Couppequesne said it would not be useful to
torture her, but she should, once more, be charitably admonished about her need
to submit to the decision of the Church.

Master Jean Le Doulx agreed.

Brother Isambard de La Pierre similarly agreed, saying
that for the last time she should be admonished to submit to the Church
Militant.

Master Nicolas Loyseleur said he thought it would be good
for the health of Joan’s soul to torture her, nevertheless, he deferred to the
earlier opinions.

Master William Haiton, who arrived later, said there was
no need to torture Joan.

Master Jean Le Maistre, Vice-Inquisitor, said Joan should
be once more examined regarding the question of whether she would submit to the
Church Militant.

After these opinions had been heard and we considered the
answers that Joan had made on the previous Wednesday, and in light of her
disposition and her will, and in light of the circumstances, we concluded that
it was neither necessary nor useful to torture Joan, and that we should proceed
further in the matter of her trial.

Statements from the University of Paris are Read
(May 19)

On the following Saturday, May 19, the judges met in the
chapel of the arch-episcopal manor at Rouen. In the presence of these judges,
the bishop explained how we had recently received a significant number of
opinions and evaluations made by notable doctors and masters concerning Joan’s
statements and confessions; and that based on these findings, which were undoubtedly
sufficient, we thought we might be able to render a judgment on Joan’s legal
case.

However, to show our honor and reverence for our mother
the University of Paris, and to obtain an even stronger and more detailed
explanation of the matter before us, and for the great peace of our conscience
and instruction of everyone gathered, we decided it was wise to send our
statements and findings to the University of Paris, in particular to the
Faculties of Theology and Canon Law, to ask for their advice and counsel.

The University, and particularly the members of these two
Faculties, who were burning with extraordinary zeal for the faith, gave us
their thorough, mature and solemn counsel regarding each of our statements; and
they addressed their responses to us in the form of a public, formal document.
So we ordered that the opinions contained in this document be read aloud, word
for word, clearly and publicly, so that all of the doctors and masters gathered
here could hear them.

After everyone had heard the reading of the opinions from
the University and the two Faculties [the text is inserted after the following
two letters], the masters gathered here explained how the opinions they had
already developed, as well as the procedures that are being used in the trial,
were in compliance with the opinions of the University and its Faculties of
Theology and Canon Law.

We have included below a letter from the University of
Paris addressed to the [English] king, a letter from the University addressed
to the Bishop of Beauvais, and other documentation received from the
University.

First, the letter from the University addressed to our
lord the king.

To the most excellent, high and mighty prince, King of
France and England, our most feared and sovereign lord:

Most excellent prince, our most feared and sovereign lord
and father, your royal excellence should in all things carefully endeavor to
keep whole the honor, reverence and glory of the divine Majesty and His Holy
Catholic faith by exterminating errors, false doctrines and all other offenses
hostile to God and the Church. By following through in these endeavors, your
highness will receive help, comfort and prosperity by the grace of the Most
High as well as receive a large increase in your notoriety.

To this end, your most noble highness, and with God’s
grace, there began a most excellent work regarding our holy faith, namely the
legal proceedings against this woman known as the Virgin, against her scandals,
errors and crimes, which are apparent across the entire territory and which have
been communicated to you repeatedly in our letters and documents.

We are acquainted with the matter and procedures of this
trial by way of letters we have received in your name from our agents, the very
honorable and most reverend masters Jean Beaupere, Jacques de Touraine and
Nicolas Midi, Masters of Theology, who have also provided answers to our
questions on points to which they have been entrusted.

Truly, when we had heard and closely examined these
reports, it appeared to us that in this woman’s trial, which involves extremely
grave matters, a holy and just procedure has been followed, which must be
pleasing to all men. Therefore, we express our most humble gratitude, first to
the sovereign Majesty, and then to your most high nobility, both with a humble
and loyal affection; and finally we give our thanks to all those who, by their
reverence for God, have endured many difficulties and have given their labors
and energies to this matter for the good of our holy faith.

Furthermore, most feared and sovereign lord, after many
meetings and wise deliberations among ourselves, we are providing our counsel
and conclusions on the points, statements and articles that were delivered and
explained to us, all in accordance with your instructions and demands received
in letters; and we are always prepared to work wholeheartedly in such matters
that so directly concern our faith, as our profession requires us to do, and as
we have always demonstrated to the best of our ability.

If anything further remains to be said or explained by us,
these honorable and reverend masters, who have now returned to your highness
and who were present at our deliberations, will be able to declare and explain
everything in accordance with our intentions. May it please your magnificence
to have faith in all that they will say in our name and receive them with this
special recommendation, because in truth they have shown great diligence in
these matters, all stemming from their pure and holy affection, unsparing in
their efforts and without regard to threatening dangers, especially while
traveling on the roads. Undeniably, it is through their wisdom, methods and
discreet judiciousness that this matter will be brought to its conclusion, if
it pleases God, with wisdom, holiness and reason.

Finally, we humbly request that your excellent highness
bring this matter to its conclusion as soon and as diligently as possible,
because truly the length of these proceedings and any further delays are
perilous; it is necessary to provide a great and noteworthy reparation for the
people who have been so scandalized by this woman, to bring them back to the
true holy doctrines and beliefs.

To the entire exaltation and integrity of our faith, and
for the praise of the eternal God, who may in His grace maintain your excellency
in prosperity until you reach eternal glory.

Written at Paris in our solemn assembly at St. Bernard on
May 14, 1431.

Your most humble daughter, the University of Paris.

Signed: Michel Hébert

[Michel Hébert, Priest, Master of Arts, Notary and
Secretary, University of Paris.]

Then follows the letter from the University of Paris addressed
to the Bishop of Beauvais.

To the reverend father and lord in Christ, the Bishop of
Beauvais:

My lord and most reverend father, your diligent work and
pastoral vigilance are clearly motivated by an immense dedication to a most
singular charity. Out of pious concern for the public safety you never cease to
work on behalf of our holy faith with a firm righteousness and never-ending
commitment.

Your strong and renowned combative spirit, your heroic and
forceful sense of justice, and your most sincere fervor showed its true measure
when this woman, commonly known as the Virgin, was brought into the hands of your
diocese by an auspicious grace of Christ. Christians throughout most of the
western world seem to have been infected by the poison she has widely spread. However,
by your reverent watchfulness, which is always at pains to perform the duties
of a true pastor, you did not fail to oppose this woman as a public menace.

In our general assembly various notable doctors of
theology as well as our agents, the masters Jean Beaupere, Jacques de Touraine
and Nicolas Midi, intelligently explained to us the evidence and how the trial
procedures have been conducted, using specific assertions, accusations and
letters from our lord the king, as well as documentation and commands issued by
your reverence, to address the grave offenses of this treacherous woman.

After they completed their presentations, we resolved to
express our most enthusiastic gratitude to his highness as well as to your
reverence, who has never been indifferent with regard to the noble work of
protecting the integrity and glory of the orthodox faith whenever the divine
name is in question, and to the beneficial instruction of faithful people. We
approved of this distinguished trial and its procedures, we considered it to be
in compliance with the holy canons, and we see it is being conducted by the most
eloquent and experienced minds.

Out of respect for our lord the king and our enduring
devotion to your reverence, we granted all the requests which the doctors
presented to us verbally or in writing, because we desired with all our
strength and sincere affection to please you, reverend father.

On the principal question, we took care to conduct many
very serious consultations and deliberations; and after the matter had been
repeatedly discussed with all freedom and honesty, we decided to produce in writing
the outcome of these consultations and deliberations, which, in the end, we
unanimously agreed upon. These doctors, our agents, who have returned to your
reverence, will faithfully show you this documentation. They will also carefully
discuss certain other things that are more fittingly explained at great length,
and which we more fully declare in our letter to our lord the king, a copy of
which is included here.

May your reverence receive with special recommendation
these eminent doctors who, unmindful of their labors and perils, have not
spared their energies and have worked unceasingly on this matter of faith.

We give our ongoing support to your reverence’s tireless
zeal and perseverance with regard to completing this endeavor, which has not
been carried out in vain, and which will continue until reason shall decide
that the divine Majesty has been appeased by a reparation which is
proportionate to the offense, that the truth of our orthodox faith remains
stainless, and that this wicked and scandalous demoralization of the people has
ended. Then, when the Prince of shepherds will appear, he will reward your
reverence’s pastoral fervor with a crown of eternal glory.

Written at Paris in our general assembly, solemnly held at
St. Bernard on May 13, 1431.

The Rector, The University of Paris.

Signed: Michel Hébert

Then follows statements from the University of Paris.

In the name of the Lord, amen. Let it be known and obvious
to all by the content of this public document that our mother the University of
Paris was assembled and called together solemnly at St. Bernard with respect to
two matters.

To address the first and principal of these matters, we heard
the reading of letters and assertions from the most Christian prince, our lord
the king, from his council, and from the lord judges involved in this trial in
matters of faith against a certain woman named Joan, commonly called the
Virgin, and then we deliberated upon these letters and assertions; the second matter
concerned ordinary requests and criticisms.

These articles were explained to us by the venerable and
prudent Master Pierre de Gouda, Master of Arts, Rector of the University and
President of the Assembly.

After the letters had been opened and read and their
credentials explained by one of the ambassadors from our lord the king—a member
of his council and one of the judges sent to the University—the twelve articles
inserted below were read.

My lord the rector identified, proposed and declared that
the content of the articles was important and challenging to the orthodox
faith, the Christian religion and holy laws. He said the task of evaluating and
judging these articles was of particular concern to the venerable Faculties of
Theology and Canon Law, in accordance with their professions. He also said the
University could not deliberate and decide upon these matters and articles
without the assistance of these two Faculties; so the decision and judgment of
the two Faculties will be submitted to the University, together or separately.

After this explanation to the general assembly of all the
masters and doctors here present, the rector opened a deliberation on each and
every one of the items that had been set forth. Then each Faculty or authority
met separately in the place where it customarily gathered to consider the most
difficult matters and tasks. After thorough deliberations by the Faculties and
authorities, the private decisions of each were made public according to custom
and were reported to the University.

Finally, the University, through the offices of the lord
rector and in conformance with the deliberations made by the Faculties and
authorities, resolved to entrust the judging of the articles and the decisions
on these matters to the Faculties of Theology and Canon Law, and that their
final evaluations would be reported to the University.

In the end, each Faculty, after long and thorough
deliberations, had doctrinally reached a decision according to the content of a
specific document which Master Jean de Troies, vice-dean of the Faculty of
Theology, held in his hands. In the presence of the University, he first
displayed and then read the document in a clear and loud voice, with the
articles already mentioned. The content of these articles, judgments and
qualifications, contained in this document, are given below word for word.

Here follows the text of the deliberations and conclusions
reached by the Holy Faculty of Theology at the University of Paris, which are judgments
on the articles already transcribed concerning the words and deeds of Joan,
commonly called the Virgin. The Faculty submits these entire deliberations and
conclusions to the judgment of our Holy Father the Pope and the Holy Council
General.

ARTICLE 1

Regarding the first article [that Joan claimed to receive
revelations from St. Catherine, St. Margaret, St. Michael and St. Gabriel], the
Faculty declares doctrinally that in view of the purpose, manner and content of
these revelations, the places they occurred and other circumstances, and the
quality of Joan as a person, these revelations are either fictitious,
malevolent and misleading lies, or they proceed from evil and diabolical
spirits, such as Belial, Satan or Behemoth.

ARTICLE 2

Regarding the second article [that Joan claimed to walk
with St. Michael to the king’s chamber when the sign was given to the king], it
appears to be based on audacious, misleading, malicious and contrived lies, and
it is disrespectful to the dignity of angels.

ARTICLE 3

Regarding the third article [that Joan believes it is St.
Michael himself who visits her, and she believes his actions and words as
firmly as she believes that Christ suffered death to redeem humanity], there is
no sufficient sign of its validity, and Joan believes lightly and affirms
impulsively; moreover, in the comparison she made, her belief is evil and she
wanders from the faith.

ARTICLE 4

Regarding the fourth article [that Joan is certain about
future events that will occur as surely as she sees the reality in front of
her], it is nothing but superstition, divination, arrogant affirmations and
vain boasting.

ARTICLE 5

Regarding the fifth article [that Joan wears men’s clothes
at the command of God, that she received the Eucharist wearing men’s clothes,
and that she would rather die than give up wearing men’s clothes], Joan is
blasphemous towards God, contemptuous of God in His Sacraments, unmindful of
divine and sacred law and ecclesiastical sanctions, exhibits evil thinking, and
she foolishly errs in the faith. She is boastful and must be suspected of idolatry,
and by the malediction of herself and her clothing, she has imitated the rites
of the heathen.

ARTICLE 6

Regarding the sixth article [that Joan had letters written
to English soldiers threatening them with being killed in battle and “by blows
would the favor of the God of Heaven be seen”], the woman is treacherous,
cunning, cruel, thirsty for the spilling of human blood, subversive, inciting
to tyranny, and blasphemous of God in light of her commands and revelations.

ARTICLE 7

Regarding the seventh article [that Joan left her parents’
house against their wishes and told Robert de Baudricourt she would annihilate
the king’s enemies], Joan is impious towards her parents, contemptuous of the
commandment to honor her father and mother, scandalous, and blasphemous towards
God; also, she wanders from the faith and has made rash and presumptuous
promises.

ARTICLE 8

Regarding the eighth article [that Joan jumped from the
tower where she was being held prisoner, that she could not resist jumping from
the tower, and that she was forgiven of her sin after confessing to St.
Catherine], we observe a fear that is bordering on despair and, by
interpretation, a suicide attempt; she makes a rash and presumptuous assertion
concerning the remission of her sin; and she has an erroneous opinion
concerning free will.

ARTICLE 9

Regarding the ninth article [that St. Catherine and St.
Margaret promised to lead Joan into Heaven, and Joan’s belief that she has not
committed any mortal sin because she believes St. Catherine and St. Margaret
would not visit her every day if she was in mortal sin], there appears to be an
impulsive and presumptuous assertion and a wicked falsehood; also, she
contradicts herself in the preceding article and holds evil opinions in matters
of faith.

ARTICLE 10

Regarding the tenth article [that God loves certain people
whom Joan points out and names, and that St. Catherine and St. Margaret “are
not on the side of the English”], we find impulsive and presumptuous
pronouncements, superstitious divinations, blasphemy of St. Catherine and St.
Margaret, and transgression of the commandment to love her neighbor.

ARTICLE 11

Regarding the eleventh article [that Joan has shown
reverence to the Voices and spirits whom she calls St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St.
Catherine and St. Margaret, that she has uncovered, knelt and kissed the ground
where they had walked, and that she consecrated her virginity to St. Catherine
and St. Margaret when she embraced and acknowledged them], this woman, by
assuming she has had the revelations and apparitions of which she boasts, and according
to the circumstances in Article 1, is idolatrous, a conjurer of evil spirits, a
wanderer from the faith, and makes impulsive affirmations and unlawful oaths.

ARTICLE 12

Regarding the twelfth article [that Joan says and admits
that if the Church were to desire her to do anything contrary to the commands
she claims to receive from God, she would not do it for any reason whatsoever,
and that she does not submit herself to the judgment of the Church Militant, or
to the judgment of any living men, but only to God, whose commands she will
always obey], Joan is schismatic, erroneous in her opinions of the unity and
authority of the Church, and an apostate; also, she obstinately persists in her
deviations from the faith.

Now, here follows the text of the deliberations and
doctrinal judgments of the venerable Faculty of Canon Law at the University of
Paris regarding the six items on which Joan was publically admonished by Jean
de Chatillon, the arch-deacon of Evreux, to persuade her to abandon her faults
and errors and show her the way of truth. The Faculty submits these
deliberations and findings to the decision and judgment of the sovereign
Pontiff of the apostolic Holy See and the Holy Council General.

ITEM 1

This woman is schismatic because schism is an unlawful
separation due to disobedience against the unity of the Church, and Joan
separates herself from obedience to the Church Militant, as she has said.

ITEM 2

This woman deviates from the faith and contradicts the
teaching contained in Unam Sanctam; and, as St. Jerome wrote, he who
contradicts the faith proves not only that he is ignorant, malicious and not
Catholic, but also a heretic.

ITEM 3

This woman is an apostate because the hair which God gave
her for a veil she has cropped short, and with the same motivation she rejected
women’s clothes and put on the clothes of men.

ITEM 4

This woman proves herself to be a liar and a witch when
she says she has been sent by God and that she speaks with angels and saints
because she is unable to defend these claims by way of any miracle or special
evidence from the Scriptures. For example, when the Lord sent Moses into Egypt
to the sons of Israel, Moses gave them a sign so that they could believe he was
sent by God: Moses changed a rod into a serpent, and he changed a serpent into
a rod. Likewise, when John the Baptist began his mission he delivered a special
testimony and evidence from the Scriptures when he said: “I am the voice of one
crying out in the wilderness; prepare the way for the Lord,” as Isaiah had
foretold.

ITEM 5

This woman, by law and by presumption of law, deviates
from the faith because, firstly, she persists in her behavior after she has
been declared anathema by the authority of canon law; secondly, she declared
that she preferred to wear men’s clothes rather than receive the body of Christ
in the Eucharist and go to Confession at a time ordained by the Church.
Moreover, she is strongly suspected of heresy and should be thoroughly examined
on articles of the faith.

ITEM 6

This woman sins when she says she is certain of being
received into Heaven and that she is already sharing in that blessed glory; on
this earthly journey no pilgrim knows if he is worthy of glory or of punishment,
which only the Sovereign Judge knows. 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 and publicly repudiate her
errors to the good pleasure and satisfaction of this judge, then she must be
abandoned to the discretion of the secular judge to receive the penalty
proportionate to her crime.

After these articles and evaluations were read, the lord
rector clearly and publicly demanded the venerable Faculties of Theology and Canon
Law to state whether the deliberations and evaluations which had just been read
from the book agreed with the deliberations and decisions of the Faculties, and
each of the Faculties answered separately. Master Jean de Troies of the Faculty
of Theology, and the venerable Master Guerould Boissel, dean of the Faculty of Canon
Law, declared that these decisions and evaluations were exactly those which
they had given and pronounced.

Then the lord rector reminded them and stated how the
University of Paris had commissioned the Faculties of Theology and Canon Law to
issue these decisions and evaluations; and that the University, as reported,
had undertaken to accept and honor the decisions made by the Faculties of Canon
Law and Theology as good, ratified and acceptable.

After this was declared in this general form, the lord
rector then opened for discussion the particular points that had been set forth
and declared to all the masters and doctors present in the general assembly.

After a long and thorough discussion by the Faculties and
authorities, each assertion was made and repeated in public, and the
University, through the person of the lord rector, stated that it accepted the
decisions and evaluations of the Faculties of Theology and Canon Law as good,
ratified and acceptable, and held them as their own.

In witness of these decisions, the prudent and venerable
masters Jean Beaupere, Jacques de Touraine and Nicolas Midi, Professors of
Sacred Theology, requested us to deliver and present to each of them one or
more copies of the public documents signed by the following notaries:

I, Jean Bourrillet, called François, Priest, Master of
Arts, licensed in Canon Law and Bachelor of Theology, Notary Public by imperial
and apostolic authority, with the venerable Master Michel Hébert, Priest of the
Diocese of Rouen, Master of Arts, Notary and Secretary of our mother the
University of Paris by imperial and apostolic authority, declare that I was
present at all which was said, explained, discussed, deliberated and resolved
in the assemblies of the University. In witness of this I have put my official
seal on this document, as I have been summoned and called to do, in testimony
of its faith and truth.

Signed: Jean Bourrillet

And I, Michel Hébert, Priest of the Diocese of Rouen,
Master of Arts, Notary and Secretary of the University of Paris by pontifical
and imperial authority, having been present with Master Jean Bourrillet at all
which was said, set forth and discussed at the University, and as has been
declared above, certify that I have seen and heard these things. Therefore, I
have put my official signature on this document, written with my own hand and
signed below in witness of its faith and truth, as I have been summoned and
called to do.

Signed: Michel Hébert

After this, the doctors and masters of Rouen stated that their
opinions were in conformance with the opinions of the University of Paris. Then
we, the judges at Rouen, thanked the reverend fathers, lords and masters, and we
said that we should once more charitably admonish Joan to return to the way of
truth for the salvation of her body and soul, and we would proceed to conclude
the trial and set a date for pronouncing a sentence according to the
deliberations and helpful counsel provided by the University.

Joan’s Faults are Explained to Her and the Trial
Ends (May 23)

The following Wednesday, May 23, Joan was led to a room
near her prison cell in the castle of Rouen and into our presence with the
judges assembled in tribunal. In the presence of Joan we explained certain
points on which she had been in error and strayed according to the conclusions
of the Faculties of Theology and Canon Law from the University of Paris. The
faults, crimes and errors contained in each of these points were explained to
her, and we warned her to abandon these faults and errors, to correct and
reform herself, and to submit to the correction and decision of our Holy Mother
the Church, as is stated in the documentation transcribed below, which was
explained to Joan in French by Master Pierre Maurice, Canon of Rouen and a
distinguished Doctor of Theology.

ITEM 1

Firstly, Joan, you have said that from the age of 13 years
or thereabout, you have had revelations and apparitions of angels and of St. Catherine
and St. Margaret, whom you have frequently seen with your bodily eyes, and they
have often spoken with you and told you many things that were well documented
in your trial.

On this point the clergy of the University of Paris and
others have considered the manner of these revelations, their purpose, the
content of the things revealed, and the quality of you as a person, and having
evaluated everything that is relevant, they declare that these revelations are
false, seductive and wicked, and that these revelations and apparitions are
superstitions and proceed from evil and diabolical spirits.

ITEM 2

You have said that the king received a sign by which he
knew that you were sent from God, and that this sign was St. Michael in the
company of many other angels, some with crowns and others with wings, that St.
Catherine and St. Margaret were among these angels when they came to you in the
town and castle of Chinon. They all went up the stairs of the castle with you
to the chamber of the king, and the angel who carried the crown bowed before
the king. At another time you said this crown, which you call a sign, was given
to the archbishop of Reims, who presented it to the king in front of many
princes and lords whom you have named. The clergy declares that this is not
likely to have happened, and that you have stated an audacious, misleading and
wicked lie, which is offensive and insulting to the dignity of angels.

ITEM 3

You have said that you recognized the angels and saints by
the good advice, comfort and doctrine they gave you, and by the fact that they
told you their names when the saints greeted you; you believe that their words
and deeds are good; and you believe it was St. Michael who appeared to you as
firmly as you believe and have faith in Jesus Christ. The clergy declares that
these signs are not sufficient to truly recognize angels and saints, that you
believed it too easily and affirmed it impulsively; and in the comparison you
make with faith in Jesus Christ you deviate from the faith.

ITEM 4

You have said that you are sure about the occurrence of
future and contingent events, that you have known where things were hidden, and
that you have recognized men you had never previously seen because of
revelations from the Voices of St. Catherine and St. Margaret. The clergy
declares that this is based on superstition, divination, arrogant assertions
and haughty boasting.

ITEM 5

You have said that you wore and still wear men’s clothes
at God’s command and to His good pleasure, and that you received instruction
from God to wear this clothing; and so you have worn a short tunic, a
sleeveless jacket, and stockings with many points; you wear your hair cut short
above your ears; you do not maintain anything about you that would indicate
your sex except what nature has given you; and you often received the Sacrament
of the Eucharist while wearing these clothes. Although you have been admonished
many times to stop wearing these clothes, you would not do so, saying that you
would rather die than stop wearing these clothes, unless it was God’s command
to do so; and that if you maintained wearing men’s clothes while in the company
of the people of your party it would be for the great benefit of France. You
also say that nothing would persuade you to take an oath not to wear these
clothes and carry military weapons; and you say that all of this is by divine
command.

Regarding these matters, the clergy declares that you
blaspheme against God and scorn Him and His Sacraments; you transgress divine
law, Holy Scripture and the canons of the Church; your thinking is evil and you
err on matters of the faith; you are full of haughty boasting, and you have
given in to the idolatry and worship of yourself and your clothes, as the
heathen do.

ITEM 6

You have often said that in your letters you have put the
names Jesus Mary, and have put the sign of the cross in letters to warn those
to whom you wrote not to do what was indicated in the letter. In other letters
you boasted you would kill all those who did not obey you, and that by your
blows the approval of the Lord would be seen. You have also often said that all
of your deeds were done according to revelation and by divine command. With
regard to such affirmations, the clergy declares you to be a traitor, disloyal,
cruel, desiring human bloodshed, seditious, an instigator of tyranny, and a
blasphemer of God’s commandments and revelations.

ITEM 7

You have said that according to revelations given to you
at the age of 17, you left your parents’ house against their will, driving them
almost mad. You went to see Robert de Baudricourt, who, at your request, gave
you men’s clothes and a sword, as well as soldiers to take you to the king.
When you met with the king you told him that his enemies would be driven away,
and you promised to make the king victorious over his enemies and bring him
into a great kingdom, and that it was for this purpose that God had sent you.
You say that you accomplished these things in obedience to God and according to
revelation.

Regarding these matters, the clergy declares that you have
been disrespectful to your father and mother, thereby disobeying God’s
commandment; you have also given occasion for scandal, blasphemed, erred in the
faith, and have made rash and presumptuous promises.

ITEM 8

You have said that of your own will you threw yourself
from the tower of Beaurevoir, preferring to die rather than be delivered into
the hands of the English and remain alive after the destruction of Compiegne. Although
St. Catherine and St. Margaret prohibited you from making the leap, you said
you could not restrain yourself from jumping; and despite the great sin you
have committed by offending these saints, you said you knew by your Voices that
after your confession your sin was forgiven.

The clergy declares that you jumped from the tower out of
cowardice, verging on despair, and you possibly attempted suicide. In this
matter you also made a rash and presumptuous statement in asserting that your
sin is forgiven. You also err in the faith regarding the teaching on free will.

ITEM 9

You have said that St. Catherine and St. Margaret promised
to accompany you to Heaven if you preserved the virginity which you vowed and
promised to them, and you are as assured of entering Heaven as if you had
already entered into the glory of the Blessed. You believe you have not
committed mortal sin, and it seems to you that if you were in mortal sin the
saints would not visit you daily as they do.

The clergy declares your assertion to be a wicked lie, and
a presumptuous and rash statement; your assertion also includes a contradiction
of what you had previously said, and your beliefs err from the true Christian
faith.

ITEM 10

You have said that you know very well that God loves
certain living persons more than you, and you learned this by revelation from
St. Catherine and St. Margaret. You also say that St. Catherine and St.
Margaret speak French, not English, because they are not on the side of the
English; and because you knew your Voices were for your king, you began to dislike
the Burgundians.

The clergy declares these matters to be rash and
presumptuous assertions, superstitious divinations, blasphemies uttered against
St. Catherine and St. Margaret, and a transgression of the commandment to love
our neighbors.

ITEM 11

You have stated that to those whom you call St. Michael,
St. Catherine and St. Margaret, you showed reverence by bending your knee,
removing your cap, kissing the ground on which they walked, and vowing to them
to keep your virginity; you believed the instruction given by these saints,
whom you invoked, kissed and embraced as soon as they appeared to you, without
seeking counsel from your priest or from any other ecclesiastic. You believe
these Voices came from God as firmly as you believe in the Christian religion
and the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, you said that if any evil
spirit would appear to you in the form of St. Michael you would know such a
spirit and be able to distinguish an evil spirit from a saint; and many times
you have said that by your own decision you have sworn not to reveal the sign
you gave to the king, adding “except by God’s command.”

The clergy declares that if you had these revelations and
saw these apparitions, of which you boast in such a manner as you say, then you
are an idolatress, an invoker of demons, an apostate from the faith, a maker of
rash statements, and a swearer of an unlawful oath.

ITEM 12

You have said that if the Church wanted you to disobey the
orders you say God gave to you, nothing would induce you to do so; that you
know all the deeds you have been accused of in your trial were done according
to the command of God, and that it was impossible for you to do otherwise.
Regarding these activities, you refuse to submit to the judgment of the Church
on Earth or to any living man, and you will only submit to God; also, you
declared that this statement itself was not made by your own decision but by
God’s command, despite the article of faith Unam Sanctam having been
declared to you many times; nevertheless, it is appropriate for all Christians
to submit their words and deeds to evaluation by the Church Militant,
especially everything that concerns revelations and similar matters.

Therefore, the clergy declares you to be a schismatic, an
unbeliever in the unity and authority of the Church, an apostate, and
persistently erring in the faith.

Now, after these assertions and the evaluations of the
University of Paris had been declared and explained to Joan, she was admonished
in French by the same doctor and instructed to think very carefully about her
words and deeds, especially in light of the last item.

He spoke to her thus:

Joan, dearest friend, it is now near the end of your trial
and it is time for you to think very carefully about everything that has been
said. For the honor and reverence of God, for the faith and the law of Jesus
Christ, for the alleviation of the scandal you have caused, and for the
salvation of your body and soul, you have been most diligently admonished four
times by the Bishop of Beauvais, the lord Vicar of the Inquisitor, and by other
doctors sent to you on their behalf and for the peace of their consciences.

Until now you have not wanted to listen to us, even though
you have been shown the dangers to which you expose your body and soul if you
do not reform yourself and your statements, and correct them by submitting your
words and deeds to the Church and accepting her judgment.

Now, although many of your judges would have been
satisfied with the evidence already collected against you, in their fear for
the salvation of your body and soul, they submitted your statements to be
evaluated by the University of Paris, the light of all knowledge and the
eradicator of all errors.

When the trial judges received the evaluations of the
University, they decided that you should once again be admonished and warned of
your errors, scandals and other crimes, and that we should beg, urge and advise
you—for the kind consideration of Our Lord Jesus Christ who suffered cruel
death for the redemption of humanity—to correct your statements and submit them
to the judgment of the Church, as every loyal Christian is required and
obligated to do. Do not permit yourself to be separated from Our Lord Jesus
Christ, who created you to be a partaker in His glory.

Do not choose the path of eternal damnation with the
enemies of God, who daily attempt to distract people by fabricating the
likeness of Christ and His angels and His saints, who they profess and affirm
themselves to be, and as has been explained fully by the Church fathers and in
the Scriptures.

Therefore, if such apparitions have appeared to you, do
not believe them; more than that, put away the belief or imagination you had in
such things, and believe instead in the words and opinions of the University of
Paris and other doctors who, being well acquainted with canon law, God, and the
Holy Scriptures, have concluded that no faith should be given to such
apparitions, or in any extraordinary apparitions or forbidden novelties that
are not supported by Holy Scripture, or by a sign or a miracle, none of which
you have.

You have believed these apparitions carelessly instead of
turning to God in devout prayer to grant you certainty; and you have not
consulted clerics or educated ecclesiastics to enlighten you on these matters,
although considering your situation and the simplicity of your knowledge, you
should have done so.

Consider this example. Suppose the king appointed you to
defend a fortress, forbidding you to let anyone enter. Would you admit anyone
who claimed to come in the king’s name but brought no official letter or
authentic sign? Likewise, Our Lord Jesus Christ, when He ascended into Heaven,
committed the government of His Church to the apostle St. Peter and his
successors, forbidding them to receive in the future those who claimed to come
in His name but provided no sign other than their own words. So you should not
have put faith in those which you say came to you, and nor should we believe in
you, since God commands the contrary.

Joan, you should consider this. If, when you were in the
king’s territory, a soldier or another person born in his territory had arrived
and said, “I will not obey the king or submit to any of his officers,” wouldn’t
you have said this man should be condemned?

So, what shall you say of yourself, who, brought up in the
faith of Christ by the Sacrament of Baptism and have become the daughter of the
Church and the spouse of Christ, if you do not obey Christ’s officers, that is
to say, the clerics of the Church? What judgment shall you deliver upon
yourself?

Stop, I pray you, from saying these things if you love
your Creator, your precious Spouse and your salvation. Obey the Church and
submit to its judgment, and know that if you do not, if you persist in this error,
your soul will be condemned to eternal punishment and perpetual torture; I do
not doubt that you will go to Hell.

Don’t let human pride and useless shame, which perhaps
constrain you, or perhaps hold you back out of fear that if you do as I advise you
to do you will lose the great honors you have accumulated, because the honor of
God and the salvation of your body and your soul must come first. You will lose
everything if you do not do as I say, because you will separate yourself from
the Church and from the faith you swore in the Holy Sacrament of Baptism. You will
cut yourself off from the authority of the Church, which is led, ruled and governed
by Our Lord through His Spirit and authority, because He said to the ministers
of the Church, “He that hears you hears Me, and he that despises you despises
Me.”

Therefore, if you will not submit to the Church you have
in fact separated yourself; and if you will not submit to the Church you refuse
to submit to God, and you err with respect to the teaching of Unam Sanctam.
What the Church is, and her authority, has been sufficiently explained to you
already in our previous admonishments to you.

In view of all these things and on behalf of your judges,
the lord Bishop of Beauvais and the lord Vicar of the Inquisitor, I admonish,
beg and urge you, by the sorrow you have for the Passion of your Creator, and
by the love you have for the salvation of your body and your soul, correct and
amend these errors, and return to the way of truth by obeying the Church and submitting
everything to her judgment and decision. By doing so, you will save your soul
and redeem, as I hope, your body from death; but if you do not, if you persist,
know that your soul will be overcome by damnation, and I fear the destruction
of your body. From these ills may Our Lord preserve you!

After Joan had been admonished in this manner and had
heard these exhortations, she replied this way: “As for my words and deeds,
which I declared in the trial, I refer you to them and maintain them.”

Asked if she thinks she is not bound to submit her words
and deeds to the Church Militant or to anyone other than God, she answered, “I
maintain that manner of speech which I always said and believed during the
trial.”

Joan said that if she were condemned and saw the fire or
the executioner ready to light the fire, and if she herself were in the fire,
she would say nothing else and would maintain until death what she said in the
trial.

Then we, her judges, asked the Promoter and Joan whether
they had anything further to say. They answered they did not. Then we proceeded
to conclude the trial according to the formula of a specific document that the
bishop held in his hands, which stated the following:

We, competent judges in this trial, as we regard ourselves
to be insofar as it is necessary, declare that by your refusal to say anything
further, the trial has ended. With this conclusion pronounced, we assign
tomorrow as the day on which you shall hear us deliver justice and pronounce
sentence, which shall afterward be carried out according to law and reason.

In the presence of the witnesses Brother Isambard de La
Pierre and Master Mathieu le Bateur, priests, and Louis Orsel, clerics of the
dioceses of Rouen, London and Noyon.

Joan Renounces Heresy on a Scaffold at the Rouen
Cemetery (May 24)

On the morning of Thursday, May 24, the judges went to a
public place, the cemetery of the Saint-Ouen abbey in Rouen, where Joan was
present before us on a scaffold or platform. First, for the constructive
admonition of Joan and for the benefit of the great multitude of people who
were present, we had a solemn sermon delivered by Master Guillaume Erart,
distinguished Doctor of Sacred Theology.

We had with us the very reverend father in Christ, Henry,
Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church and commonly called Cardinal of England; the
reverend fathers in Christ, the Bishops of Therouanne, Noyon and Norwich, individuals
licensed in canon law, and many others.

Master Erart began his sermon, taking his text from the Scriptures
in the fifteenth chapter of St. John, saying, “A branch cannot bear fruit by
itself unless it remains in the vine.”

He solemnly explained that all Catholics must remain in
the true vine of Our Holy Mother Church, which Our Lord planted with His right
hand. Master Erart also explained how Joan had cut herself off from the unity
of our Holy Mother Church by her many errors and serious crimes, and how she
had frequently scandalized the Christian people. Using suitable doctrines, he
admonished and exhorted Joan and the multitude of people gathered.

When the sermon was over he spoke to Joan, saying, “Look
at your judges, who have repeatedly summoned you and required you to submit all
your words and deeds to Our Holy Mother Church, showing and pointing out to you
that, in the opinion of the clergy, many things are found in your words and
deeds which are neither good to affirm nor maintain.”

To which Joan replied, “I will answer you. Regarding my
submission to the Church, I have already answered the judges on this point. Let
all that I have said and done be sent to Rome to our Holy Father the Pope, to
whom, after God, I refer myself. As for my words and deeds, they were done at
God’s command.”

Joan said that she charged nobody with her words and
deeds, neither her king nor any other person; and that if there were any faults
in her words and deeds, they were hers and no other person’s.

Asked whether she would retract all her words and deeds
that are disapproved of by the clergy, she replied, “I refer myself to God and
to our Holy Father the Pope.”

Then she was told that this would not be sufficient; that
it was not possible to seek our Holy Father the Pope at such a great distance,
and that the jurisdictional Ordinaries, each in his own diocese, were competent
judges; and therefore she must necessarily submit to Our Holy Mother Church by
holding as true all that the clergy and other authorities had said and decided concerning
her words and deeds, at which point she was cautioned by three more admonitions.

Then, because Joan would say nothing more, the bishop
began to read the final sentence.

When we had almost completed the reading of the sentence,
Joan began to speak, saying she would hold all that the Church would command,
and all that her judges would say and rule, and that she would obey our orders
and will in all things. She said repeatedly that to the extent the clergy had
declared her revelations and apparitions were not to be upheld or believed, she
would not maintain them, and that she would defer in all things to her judges
and our Holy Mother Church.

Then, in our presence and before a great multitude of
people and clergy, she made and pronounced her recantation and abjuration
according to the formula of a specific document written in French, which was then
read and which she spoke with her own lips and signed with her own hand.

The content of Joan’s recantation and abjuration follows:

All those who have erred and have been at fault in the
Christian faith, and have by God’s grace returned to the light of truth and
unity in Our Holy Mother Church, should vigilantly prevent the Enemy in Hell
from driving them back and causing their relapse into error and damnation.

Therefore, I, Joan, commonly called the Virgin, a
miserable sinner, recognizing the snares of error in which I was held, and
through God’s grace have returned to Our Holy Mother Church, in order to show
that my return is not a deception but made with a good heart and will, I
confess that I have most grievously sinned in falsely pretending to have had
revelations and apparitions from God, His angels, and St. Catherine and St.
Margaret; seducing others; believing foolishly and impulsively; making
superstitious divinations; blaspheming God and His Saints; breaking the divine
law, Holy Scripture and canon law; wearing immoral, tight and immodest clothing,
and hair cropped short like a man’s, against all modesty of women and against
the decency of nature; carrying weapons most inappropriately; cruelly desiring
the shedding of human blood; declaring that I did all these things by the
command of God, His angels and saints, and that to do so was good and not to
err; being seditious and idolatrous; and adoring and calling up evil spirits. I
also confess that I have been schismatic and have in many ways erred from the
path.

Without deception and with a good heart, I abjure and
recant, renouncing and cutting myself off from all these crimes and errors. By
God’s grace I have returned to the way of truth through holy doctrine and the
good counsel of the doctors and masters whom you sent me.

I submit to the correction, disposition, amendment and the
entire decision of Our Holy Mother Church and of your good justice regarding
all of these errors; and I vow, swear and promise to you, to my lord Saint Peter,
Prince of the Apostles, to our Holy Father the Pope of Rome, his Vicar and his
successors, to you, my lords, to the lord Bishop of Beauvais and the religious
Brother Jean Le Maistre, Vicar of the lord Inquisitor of the Faith, and my
judges, that I will never, through incitement or by any other means, return to
these errors from which it has pleased God to deliver and remove me; but will
always dwell in the unity of Our Holy Mother Church and the obedience of our
Holy Father the Pope of Rome.

This I say, affirm and swear by God almighty and the holy
Gospels, and so I have signed this document with my mark.

Signed: Jehanne +

Sentence after the Abjuration

After we, the judges, had received her recantation and
abjuration as noted above, we, with the bishop, pronounced our definitive
sentence in these terms:

In the name of the Lord, amen. When the treacherous sower
of errors painstakingly attempts with great cunning to infect the flock of
Christ with venomous poisons, all pastors of the Church who desire and work to
faithfully lead the Lord’s flock must pull together all their strength with
greater and more urgent vigilance to combat the assaults of the Evil one.

This is particularly necessary in these dangerous times,
which were declared in the words of the apostles, that many false prophets
would come into the world and introduce sects of error and damnation, and by
their various and foreign doctrines might seduce Christ’s faithful people if
our Holy Mother Church did not struggle to defeat these erroneous inventions
with the support of strong doctrines and canonical sanctions.

Therefore, Joan, commonly called the Virgin, has been
arraigned to account for many malicious crimes in matters of the faith, and she
has been ordered to appear before us, your competent judges, namely Pierre, by
divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, and Brother Jean Le Maistre, especially
appointed to officiate in this case by Jean Graverent, Inquisitor of Heretical
Error in the kingdom of France.

Having seen and examined with diligence the procedure of
Joan’s trial and all that has occurred during the trial, principally the
answers, admissions and affirmations which Joan made; and after having also
considered the most notable decisions of the masters of the Faculties of
Theology and Canon Law at the University of Paris, and that of the general
assembly of the University; and of the clerics, doctors and men educated in
theology and both canon and civil law, who gathered together in a great
multitude in this town of Rouen and elsewhere for the deliberation and judgment
of your statements, words and deeds; and having counsel and thorough deliberations
with those zealots of the Christian faith; and having seen and weighed all
there is to see and weigh in this matter, all that we and any man of judgment
and law could and should observe; we, having the honor of the orthodox faith
before our eyes so that our judgment may seem to emanate from the face of Our
Lord, we state, rule and pronounce that Joan has gravely sinned by falsely
simulating revelations and apparitions; by seducing others; by carelessly and
impulsively believing; by pronouncing superstitious prophecies; by blaspheming
God and His saints; by evading the law, the Holy Scripture, and the canonical
sanctions; by despising God in His Sacraments; by provoking sedition; by
apostasy; by falling into the crime of heresy; and by erring on many points in
the Catholic faith.

After repeated charitable admonitions and by God’s help, and
after a long delay, you have returned into the bosom of Our Holy Mother Church
with a contrite heart and without deception, as we would be pleased to believe;
you have openly renounced your errors, upon which you were recently admonished
in a public sermon, and you have with your own lips publicly abjured and renounced
all heresy. According to the formula established by ecclesiastical sanctions,
we therefore unbind you from the bonds of excommunication which enchained you,
on the condition that you return to the Church with a true heart and a sincere
faith, observing what is and shall be commanded by us.

But inasmuch as you have rashly sinned against God and the
Holy Church, we finally and definitively, for your constructive penance,
condemn you to perpetual imprisonment, with the bread of sorrow and water of
affliction, so that you may cry over your faults and never from this day
forward do anything to cause further weeping.

Joan Abandons Men’s Clothes and Puts on a Woman’s
Dress (May 24)

In the afternoon of the same day we went to Joan’s prison
cell with Brother Jean Le Maistre, the noble lords and masters Nicolas Midi,
Nicolas Loyseleur, Thomas de Courcelles, Brother Isambard de La Pierre and
several others. We, with our assessors, explained to Joan how God had on this
day been most merciful to her, and how the clergy had shown her great mercy by
receiving her into the grace and forgiveness of our Holy Mother Church; and
how, therefore, it was right that she, Joan, should humbly submit to and obey
the sentence and decree of the lord judges and ecclesiastics, and she should totally
abandon her errors and her former fabrications, never to return to them; and
how, if she did return to them, the Church would not receive her in clemency
and she would be completely abandoned. Also, she was told she must stop wearing
men’s clothes and wear women’s clothes, as the Church had commanded.

Joan replied that she would willingly wear women’s
clothes, and in all things she would obey and submit to the clergy. She was
given a woman’s dress, which she immediately put on after taking off the men’s
clothes; also, she desired and allowed her hair, which was cropped short around
her ears, to be shaved off and removed.

Joan Resumes Wearing Men’s Clothes and is
Interviewed (May 28)

On the following Monday, the day after Holy Trinity
Sunday, the judges went to Joan’s prison cell to witness her appearance and
disposition. We were accompanied by the lords and masters Nicolas de Venderes,
William Haiton, Thomas de Courcelles, Brother Isambard de La Pierre, Jacques Le
Camus, Nicolas Bertin, Julien Flosquet and John Grey.

Because Joan was wearing men’s clothes, a short mantle, a
cap, a man’s close-fitting jacket and other garments used by men, we questioned
her to find out when and for what reason she had resumed wearing men’s clothes
and rejected wearing women’s clothes. Joan said that she had only recently
resumed wearing men’s clothes and rejected women’s clothes.

Asked why she had resumed wearing men’s clothes and who
had compelled her to wear them, she answered that she had taken the men’s
clothes of her own will, under no compulsion, because she preferred men’s
clothes to women’s clothes.

She was told that she had promised and sworn not to wear
men’s clothing again, but she answered that she never meant to take such an
oath.

Asked for what reason she had resumed wearing men’s
clothes, she answered that it was more lawful and appropriate for her to wear
men’s clothes than women’s clothes because she was among men. She said she had
resumed wearing men’s clothes because the promises made to her had not been
kept, which were to allow her to go to Mass and receive her Savior in the
Eucharist, and to take off her chains.

Asked whether she had not abjured and sworn in particular
not to resume wearing men’s clothes, she answered that she would rather die
than be in chains, but if she were allowed to go to Mass, and if her chains
were taken off and she were put in a women’s prison, she would be good and obey
the Church.

Because we, her judges, had heard from certain people that
she had not yet cut herself off from her illusions and pretended revelations,
which she had previously renounced, we asked her whether she had heard the
Voices of St. Catherine and St. Margaret since Thursday. She answered yes.

Asked what they told her, she replied they told her that God
had sent word to her through St. Catherine and St. Margaret of the great sorrow
related to her disloyalty, by which she agreed to abjure and recant in order to
save her life; that she had damned herself to save her life.

She said that before Thursday, St. Catherine and St.
Margaret told her what to do and say, which she did. Also, her Voices told her,
when she was on the scaffold or platform in front of the people, to answer the
preacher boldly. Joan said he was a false preacher, and had accused her of many
things she had not done. Joan said that if she declared God had not sent her,
then she would damn herself, because, in truth, she was sent by God. She said
that her Voices had since told her that she had done a great evil by declaring
that what she had done was wrong. She said that what she had declared and
recanted on Thursday was done only because she feared the fire.

Asked if she believed her Voices to be St. Catherine and
St. Margaret, she replied, “Yes, and they come from God.”

Asked to speak truthfully about the crown that had been
discussed before, she answered, “In everything, I told you the truth about it
in my trial, as well as I could.”

When she was told that when she made her abjuration on the
scaffold or platform before the judges and the people, she had admitted that
she had falsely boasted that her Voices were St. Catherine and St. Margaret,
she answered that she did not mean to do or say so.

Joan said that she did not deny, or intend to deny, her
apparitions, that is, that they were St. Catherine and St. Margaret; she said
that everything she said on the scaffold was due to her fear of the fire.

She said she would rather do her penance once and for all,
that is, die, than endure any longer the suffering she experienced in her
prison cell.

Joan said that whatever the judges made her deny, she had
never done anything against God or the faith; furthermore, she said she did not
understand what was in the formula of abjuration.

She said that she did not mean to recant or abjure
anything, except at God’s good pleasure.

She said if the judges wished, she would once again wear
women’s clothes, but regarding everything else, she would do nothing more.

After hearing these statements from Joan, we then left her
to further discuss these matters according to law and reason.

Judges Deliberate on Relapse of Wearing Men’s
Clothes (May 29)

The next day, Tuesday after Holy Trinity Sunday, May 29, the
judges gathered together in the arch-episcopal chapel of Rouen to meet with
doctors and other persons educated in theology as well as in canon and civil
law.

In their presence, we, with the bishop established that we
had, in unity with the counsel of the judges, produced a public admonition to
be addressed to Joan on certain points that she was, in the opinion of the
University of Paris, judged to have fallen short and erred, and that these were
explained to her.

We urged Joan to reject these errors and return to the way
of the truth. But because she in no way acquiesced, and as neither she nor the
Promoter had anything further to say, we then pronounced the legal case
concluded and ordered the parties to appear on the following Thursday to hear the
reading of the sentence.

Then we reminded the judges about what happened on
Thursday, how Joan, after hearing the solemn sermon and admonitions addressed
to her, had recanted and abjured her errors, and with her own hand she signed
the recantation and abjuration, as was documented; and how on Thursday after
dinner, we, with the vicar of the Inquisitor and assessors, had charitably
admonished Joan to persevere in her good intentions and keep herself from
relapsing; and, obeying the orders of the Church, she had stopped wearing men’s
clothes and put on women’s clothes.

But Joan, prompted by the devil, had again, in front of
many witnesses, declared that the Voices and spirits which were accustomed to
visiting her had again returned to her and told her many things; and that Joan
had again rejected women’s clothes in favor of men’s clothes. When we were told
about this, we visited Joan and examined her.

Then, in the presence of the lords and masters mentioned
above, we ordered the confessions and statements made by Joan to be read aloud,
specifically those statements that were made in front of us the previous day.

We then asked those present to provide their counsel and
advice, and they provided their opinions as follows:

Master Nicolas de Venderes, licensed in canon law,
arch-deacon of Eu, and Canon of the Cathedral of Rouen, said Joan should be
considered a heretic, and when the sentence was to be pronounced she should be
handed over to secular justice with a request to act toward her with
gentleness.

The reverend father in Christ, Gilles, Doctor of Sacred
Theology and Abbot of the monastery of St. Trinite de Fecamp, stated that Joan
had relapsed. Nevertheless, he said it would be good to again read to Joan the
formula she had recently heard, explain it to her, and preach the Word of God
to her; then after that, the judges should declare her a heretic and abandon
her to secular justice, praying that it act toward her with gentleness.

Master Pierre Pinchon, licensed in canon law, arch-deacon
of Jouy, and Canon of the Churches of Paris and Rouen, thought that Joan had
relapsed, but regarding what should happen next, he deferred to the masters of
theology.

Master Guillaume Erart, Doctor of Sacred Theology,
Sacristan and Canon of the Churches of Langres and of Laon, stated that Joan
had relapsed and therefore should be abandoned to secular justice; regarding
what should happen after that, he agreed with the opinion of Abbot Gilles.

Master Robert Ghillebert, Doctor of Sacred Theology and
Dean of the Chapel of Our Lord the King, said he agreed with Master Guillaume
Erart.

The reverend Father in Christ, Abbot of the monastery of
St. Ouen of Rouen, agreed with the opinion of Abbot Gilles.

Master Jean de Chatillon, Doctor of Theology and Canon of
the Church of Evreux, stated a similar opinion.

Master Guillaume Le Boucher, Doctor of Sacred Theology,
declared that Joan had relapsed and should be condemned as a heretic; regarding
what should happen next, he referred to the statement of Abbot Gilles.

The reverend Father Pierre, lord Prior of
Longueville-Giffard and Doctor of Sacred Theology, stated that, if after the
period of the passion this woman confessed this point contained in the formula,
he agreed with the judgment of Abbot Gilles.

Master William Haiton, Bachelor of Sacred Theology,
considered that in view of the articles which had been read, Joan had relapsed
and should be condemned as a heretic; regarding what should happen next, he
referred to the statement of Abbot Gilles.

Master Andre Marguerie, licensed in civil law, Bachelor of
Canon Law, arch-deacon of Petit-Caux and Canon of Rouen; Master Jean Alespee,
licensed in civil law and Canon of Rouen; and Master Jean Garin, Doctor of Canon
Law and Canon of the Church of Rouen, all gave opinions that agreed with the
statement of Abbot Gilles.

Master Denis Gastinel, licensed in canon and civil law,
and Canon of the Churches of Paris and Rouen, declared that Joan was a relapsed
heretic and should be abandoned to the secular authority, with no prayer for
mercy.

Master Pasquier de Vaulx, Doctor of Canon Law and Canon of
the Churches of Paris and Rouen, agreed with the opinion of Abbot Gilles.

Master Pierre Houdenc, Doctor of Sacred Theology, stated
that, based on Joan’s behavior and the decisions she made, she had always been
a heretic and was, in fact, relapsed, and therefore she should be abandoned to
the violence of secular justice in line with the decision of Abbot Gilles.

Master Jean de Nibat, Doctor of Sacred Theology, said Joan
had relapsed, was unrepentant, and should be viewed as a heretic, and that this
is also the opinion of Abbot Gilles, who has been so frequently mentioned.

Master Jean Le Fevre, Doctor of Sacred Theology, declared
Joan to be obstinate and willfully disobedient to authority, and with regard to
what should be done next, he referred to the decision of Abbot Gilles.

The reverend Father in Christ, Guillaume, Abbot of
Mortemer and Doctor of Sacred Theology, held to the opinion of Abbot Gilles.

Master Jacques Guesdon, Doctor of Theology, agreed with
the opinion of Abbot Gilles.

Master Nicolas Couppequesne, Bachelor of Sacred Theology
and Canon of the Cathedral of Rouen, agreed with the opinion of Abbot Gilles.

Master Guillaume du Desert, Canon of the Church of Rouen,
gave an opinion in agreement with Abbot Gilles.

Master Pierre Maurice, Doctor of Sacred Theology and Canon
of Rouen, considered that Joan should be evaluated and judged to be a relapsed
heretic, and he agreed with the decision of Abbot Gilles.

Master Guillaume de Baudribosc, Bachelor of Sacred Theology;
Master Nicolas Caval, licensed in civil law; Master Nicolas Loyseleur, Master
of Arts; and Master Guillaume Desjardins, Doctor of Medicine and Canon of the
Church of Rouen, all agreed with the opinion of Abbot Gilles.

Master Jean Tiphaine, Doctor of Medicine; Master Guillaume
de Livet, licensed in civil law; Master Geoffrey du Crotay and Master Pierre
Carel, individuals licensed in civil law, all gave opinions that agreed with
the decision of Abbot Gilles.

Master Jean Le Doulx, licensed in canon and civil law;
Master Jean Colombel, licensed in canon law; Master Aubert Morel, licensed in
canon law; Brother Martin Ladvenu of the Order of Preaching Brothers; Master
Richard de Grouchet, Bachelor of Theology; Master Jean Pigache, Bachelor of
Theology; and Master Guillaume de La Chambre, licensed in medicine, all gave
opinions in accordance with that of Abbot Gilles.

Master Thomas de Courcelles, Bachelor of Theology, Canon
of the Churches of Therouanne and of Laon, and Brother Isambard de La Pierre of
the Order of Preaching Brothers, gave opinions in alignment with the decision
of Abbot Gilles, who has so frequently been mentioned; they added that Joan
should once more be charitably admonished for the salvation of her soul and be
told that she had no further hope of remaining alive in this world.

Master Jean Maugier, licensed in canon law and Canon of
the Church of Rouen, agreed with the opinion of Abbot Gilles.

Finally, when we had heard the opinions of everyone, we
thanked those present and concluded that Joan, according to law and reason,
should be treated as a relapsed heretic.

Tomorrow, Joan was to be summoned to appear before us to
hear the lawful sentence pronounced by the usher appointed to this legal case;
further details explaining the sentence would be contained in our letters and
read tomorrow by the usher.

The following declaration was given in the chapel of the
arch-episcopal manor of Rouen, on Tuesday, May 29, in the year of Our Lord,
1431:

Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, and Jean Le
Maistre, Vicar of the distinguished Doctor Jean Graverent, appointed by the
apostolic Holy See as Inquisitor of the Faith and Heretical Error within the
kingdom of France; to all public priests, rectors of churches established in this
town of Rouen or elsewhere in this diocese, to each and every one, greetings in
the name of Our Lord.

For specific causes and reasons more completely documented
elsewhere, a certain woman, commonly called Joan the Virgin, has relapsed into
many errors against the orthodox faith after a public abjuration of those errors
in the presence of the Church; she has fallen into error again, which has been
sufficiently proven by her statements, assertions and behavior.

Therefore, we explicitly command and order each of you who
is required, without waiting or excusing yourself because of something or
someone, to appear in person with us at eight o’clock tomorrow morning in the
Old Market Place of Rouen to summon Joan; the order is to hear us declare Joan
to be relapsed, excommunicated, and a heretic, along with the customary
warnings that are given in such cases.

Signed: Guillaume Manchon; Guillaume Boisguillaume

Joan is Burned at the Stake in the Old Market Place
of Rouen (May 30)

The following statement was given on this Wednesday, at
seven o’clock in the morning, in the year of Our Lord, 1431:

To the reverend father and lord in Christ, the lord
Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, and to Brother Jean Le Maistre,
Vicar of the distinguished Doctor Jean Graverent, appointed by the apostolic
Holy See as Inquisitor of the Faith and Heretical Error in the kingdom of
France.

With all due reverence, obedience and respect, I, your
humble priest, Jean Massieu, dean of the Christendom of Rouen, inform your
reverend fathers that according to your mandate addressed to me, to which these
letters are attached, I have summoned this woman, commonly called the Virgin,
to appear before you this Wednesday after Holy Trinity Sunday at eight o’clock
in the morning at the Old Market Place of Rouen, according to the procedure and
content of your mandate and instructions.

By these letters signed with my seal, I signify to your
reverend fathers that I have done these things that you have requested.

Afterwards, toward nine o’clock in the morning of the same
day, the judges went to the Old Market of Rouen, which is near the church of
St. Sauveur, in the presence of, and assisted by, the reverend fathers in
Christ the lord Bishops of Therouanne and of Noyon, Masters Jean de Chatillon,
Andre Marguerie, Nicolas de Venderes, Raoul Roussel, Denis Gastinel, Guillaume
Le Boucher, Jean Alespee, Pierre Houdenc, William Haiton, the superior of
Longueville, Pierre Maurice, and many other lords, masters and clergy.

Joan was led before us in view of a great multitude of
people gathered in this place, and she was placed upon a scaffold or platform.
For her constructive admonition and for the edification of all the people
gathered here, a solemn sermon was delivered by the distinguished Doctor of
Theology, Master Nicolas Midi. For his text he took the words of the Apostle in
the twelfth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, “Where one member
suffers, all the members suffer with it.”

When this sermon was over, we once more admonished Joan to
seek the salvation of her soul, to reflect on her errors, and to repent and
show true contrition for her errors. We urged her to believe the counsel of the
clergy and of the notable people who had instructed and taught her about many things
concerning her salvation, especially the words of the two venerable Preaching
Brothers who were then standing near her, and whom we had appointed to instruct
her continuously and zealously in order to address her with constructive
admonitions and valuable advice.

Then the Bishop and Vicar stated what had occurred; that
it was clear that Joan, in her obstinate foolishness, never truly abandoned her
errors and horrible crimes; but instead she had shown herself infinitely more
damnable by the diabolical nature and malice of her false imitation of
contrition, penitence and correction; by falsely using God’s holy name; and by
the blasphemy of His saints. By doing so, she has declared herself to be
obstinate, incorrigible, a heretic, relapsed in heresy, completely unworthy of
grace, and altogether unworthy of the communion that we had mercifully offered
to her in our previous sentence.

In view of everything that has been considered in this
matter, and after thorough deliberations and counsel with many educated people,
we proceeded to the final sentence in these terms:

In the name of the Lord, amen. Whenever the poisonous
virus of heresy obstinately attaches itself to a member of the Church and
transforms him into a limb of Satan, very diligent care must be taken to
prevent the filthy contamination of this wicked leprosy from spreading to other
members of the Mystical Body of Christ. The decrees of the holy fathers have
mandated that hardened heretics must be separated from the midst of the just,
rather than permit these malicious vipers to lodge themselves in the bosom of
Our Holy Mother Church, which then puts other members of the Church in great
danger.

Therefore, we, Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais,
and Brother Jean Le Maistre, Vicar of the distinguished Doctor Jean Graverent,
the Inquisitor of heretical Error and especially appointed by him in this case,
both competent judges in this trial, have declared by an objective judgment
that you, Joan, commonly called the Virgin, have fallen into many errors and
crimes of schism, idolatry, invocation of demons and many other misdeeds.

But the Church never closes her bosom to the wanderer who
returns. We thought that with a pure spirit and genuine faith you had cut
yourself off from these errors and crimes, because on a specific day you
renounced them, you swore in public, and you vowed and promised never to return
to these errors or heresy under any inspiration or in any manner whatsoever.
You chose to remain inextricably within the unity of the Catholic Church and
the communion of the Roman Pontiff, and this was indicated in great detail by
the formula you signed with your own hand.

However, subsequently, after this abjuration of your
errors, the author of schism and heresy has arisen in your heart, he has
seduced you and you have fallen again. How sorrowful! You have returned to
these errors and crimes just like a dog that returns to his vomit, and this is
sufficiently and completely clear by your willing confessions and statements. We
have concluded in our most distinguished deliberations that your previous denial
of these errors and fabrications was simply speech and not heartfelt.

Therefore, we declare that you have fallen again into your
former errors, and under the sentence of excommunication which you originally
incurred, we now decree that you are a relapsed heretic. By this sentence,
which we deliver in writing and pronounce at this tribunal, we denounce you as
a rotten member, and so that you will not infect other members of Christ, we
must cast you out of the unity of the Church, cut you off from the body of the
Church, and we must hand you over to the secular powers for judgment and
penalty; we cast you off, separate you, and abandon you, praying that this same
secular power, prior to your death and mutilation of your body, will moderate
its judgment toward you: if true signs of repentance appear in you, that they
may permit you to receive the Sacrament of Penance prior to your death.

Attestations by the notaries appointed in this trial:

I, Guillaume Colles, otherwise called Boisguillaume, Priest
of the Diocese of Rouen, by apostolic authority a sworn notary in the
arch-episcopal court of Rouen and in this trial, I attest that the
documentation of this trial has been correctly made with the original minutes,
and therefore I have signed this copy of the proceedings with my seal at the
bottom of each document; in witness of this, I have signed with my own hand,
followed by the two other notaries.

Signed: Guillaume Boisguillaume

And I, Guillaume Manchon, Priest of the Diocese of Rouen,
apostolic notary by imperial and pontifical authority, and sworn notary of the
arch-episcopal court of Rouen, and with others in this process, I confirm that
I was present with the other notaries during the documentation of this trial
and that the documentation was correctly made with the original register of the
trial. I have transcribed the trial with my own hand and therefore, with the
other notaries, I have affixed my signature as I was required.

Signed: Guillaume Manchon

And I, Nicolas Taquel, Priest of the Diocese of Rouen,
notary public by apostolic authority, sworn notary of the arch-episcopal court
of Rouen and called to participate in this process, I attest that, with the
other notaries, I heard and saw the documentation of these proceedings with the
original register of the trial, and that the documentation has been properly
made. With the other notaries, I have transcribed this trial with my own hand
and therefore I have affixed my signature as I was required.

Signed: Nicolas Taquel

Attached are the seals of the Bishop of Beauvais and the
Inquisitor.

Epilogue
by E.P. Sanguinetti

By February 1450, about twenty years after Joan’s death, Guillaume
Bouille, an advisor to King Charles VII and dean of the Faculty of Theology at
the University of Paris, began conducting a formal inquiry into her trial. Both
men recognized that because Joan had been condemned as a heretic and sorceress,
her reputation was not only a potential source of dishonor for the king, but
could create problems for his monarchy. Joan had not only played a decisive
role in securing the victory of France over England, but she was also directly
responsible for the king’s coronation and consecration in 1429 at the Reims
Cathedral.

Investigations into what occurred during Joan’s trial
initially began with depositions taken in 1450, which were followed by two sets
of depositions taken in 1452. Then, in 1455 and 1456, over one hundred people
provided testimony in the Rehabilitation Trial (or Nullification Trial) of Joan
of Arc.

On March 5, 1450, Bouille interviewed one of the Dominican judges
in Joan’s Condemnation Trial, Isambard de La Pierre. A notary made a record of
his statement, which included the following:

After Joan had made her abjuration and resumed wearing
men’s clothes, he and several others were present when she defended herself for
having returned to wearing men’s clothes, stating and affirming that the
English guards had committed, or enabled to be committed, much wrongdoing and
[sexual] outrage against her in prison when she was wearing women’s clothes;
also, he saw Joan crying, her face covered in tears, contorted and distressed
in such a manner that he felt pity and compassion for her. He said that in
front of all those who were present, when Joan was labeled an obstinate and
relapsed heretic, she stated, “If you, my lords of the Church, had brought me
to, and had kept me in your own prisons [Church prison facilities that employed
nuns as guards for women prisoners], perhaps it would not be this way for me.”
Furthermore, he states and testifies that, after the end of this session with
Joan, the Bishop of Beauvais then remarked to the Englishmen who were waiting
outside, “Farewell, be of good cheer, it is done!”  (1)

Also on March 5, 1450, Bouille interviewed Jean Massieu, who
served as one of the bailiffs during the trial:

On that day [of Joan’s abjuration], after dinner, in the
presence of the ecclesiastical council, she gave up the men’s clothes and put
on women’s clothes, as she had been ordered to do; it was then Thursday or
Friday after Pentecost, and the men’s clothing was put into a sack and placed
in the same room where she had been held as a prisoner. She remained under
guard in that location under the custody of five Englishmen, three of whom
stayed inside the room during the night and two of them stayed outside. … Then,
when the following Sunday morning came, which was Trinity Sunday, and she had
to get out of bed, she said to the Englishmen, her guards, “Unchain me, so I
can get up.” Then one of these Englishmen took away the women’s clothing she
had and they emptied the sack that contained the men’s clothing, and they
tossed this clothing upon her while saying to her, “Get up.” Then they put away
the women’s clothing in the same sack, and as she put on the men’s clothes they
had given to her, she said, “Sirs, you know that this is forbidden for me, and
without fail, I will not accept it.” But they would not give her anything else
to wear, and she continued arguing with them until the noon hour, and finally,
because she was compelled by necessity of the body to leave the room, she wore
this clothing. After she returned to her cell, the guards would still not give
her anything else to wear, regardless of any appeal or request that she made of
them.  (2)

On May 2, 1452, Jean Bréhal, who was the Inquisitor-General
of France from 1452 until 1474, interviewed the primary notary at the trial, Guillaume
Manchon, who stated that Joan was:

Dressed in men’s clothes and was complaining that she could
not give it up out of fear that during the night her guards would inflict some
[sexual] outrage upon her; and she had complained once or twice to the Bishop
of Beauvais, the Vice-Inquisitor and Master Nicholas Loyseleur that one of the
guards tried to violate her.  (3)

The Rehabilitation Trial officially opened at Notre Dame
Cathedral in Paris on November 7, 1455, when Joan’s mother, Isabelle,
accompanied by officials from the city of Orleans, arrived at the Cathedral
with a document that contained a mandate from Pope Callixtus III, which
Isabelle read aloud. The document detailed the fundamental legal errors of
Joan’s trial, including falsifying evidence used against her by embellishing
it, charging her with crimes the judges knew that she did not commit, using
deceptive tactics in attempts to mislead her into making statements deemed to
be heretical, not providing adequate defense counsel, and using tactics of harassment
and violence in the pursuit to condemn her.

On December 20, 1455, the new trial’s promoter issued a
declaration to call witnesses under threat of contempt of court if they did not
appear. The witnesses included soldiers who fought under Joan’s leadership,
citizens from Orleans who were acquainted with Joan after she ended the siege
of the city, childhood friends and family members from Domremy, as well as
individuals who were present during the Condemnation Trial.

Jean Moreau, Joan’s godfather, was present at her baptism
and knew Joan throughout her childhood. He testified on May 10, 1456, and
provided detailed accounts of Joan’s life in Domremy. Joan’s childhood friend,
“Little Mengette,” also testified during the Rehabilitation Trial about events
that occurred during Joan’s early childhood. Moreau’s testimony included a
report that described what he witnessed while in the crowd on May 24, 1431,
near the scaffold where the preacher Guillaume Erart was delivering his admonishing
sermon to Joan. Moreau stated that during Erart’s sermon, Joan responded to him,
saying:

[She] began wearing men’s clothes because she had to live
among soldiers, and among whom it was safer and more appropriate for her to be
in men’s clothes rather than women’s clothes, and that what she was doing, and
had done, she had done properly.  (4)

Manchon testified on May 12, 1456, saying:

[I] heard Joan complain to the Bishop and Earl of Warwick,
when she was asked why she wasn’t wearing women’s clothes, and they said it
wasn’t proper for a woman to wear men’s clothes, and that she wore stockings
firmly tied together with many cords; Joan said that she didn’t dare give up
the stockings nor keep them not firmly tied up because they, the Bishop and
Earl, knew very well, as they themselves had said, that her guards had
attempted to rape her a number of times, and that on one occasion when she had
cried out, the Earl himself came to her assistance at the sound of her cries,
and if he hadn’t arrived the guards would have raped her, and she complained
about this.  (5)

Also on May 12, 1456, Manchon recalled the interview with
Joan on May 28, 1431, regarding why she resumed wearing men’s clothes after the
first sentence:

She was asked why she had resumed wearing men’s clothes,
and Joan replied that she had done it for the protection of her virginity,
because she did not feel safe while wearing female clothing with her guards
present, who had tried to rape her, and which she had complained about many
times to the Bishop and Earl; and that the judges had promised her that she
would be placed in the custody of nuns in the Church’s prisons, that she would
have a woman with her, also saying that if the judges would be pleased to place
her in such a safe location where she would not be afraid, then she was
prepared to resume wearing women’s clothes.  (6)

After his initial testimony six years earlier, Massieu was
again interviewed on May 12, 1456, and he stated:

When Joan was accused of having relapsed, she replied that,
as she was lying in bed, her guards removed the women’s clothing from the bed
in which she was lying, and they gave her the men’s clothes; and although she
asked the guards to return the women’s clothing so that she could leave her bed
to go relieve herself, they refused to give it back to her, saying that she
would not receive anything to wear but the men’s clothes. She said the guards
knew perfectly well that the judges had prohibited her from wearing this
clothing, but they nevertheless refused to give her the women’s clothing they
had taken; finally, induced by bodily necessity, she put on the men’s clothes;
nor was she able to obtain any other clothing from the guards during all the
rest of the day, and so she was then seen in these men’s clothes by many
people.  (7)

On the day of Joan’s death, Martin Ladvenu, a Dominican
friar, heard Joan in the sacrament of Confession and administered the sacrament
of the Eucharist to her. Ladvenu testified on May 13, 1456, he “heard from Joan
that a certain high-ranking English lord visited her in prison and attempted to
violate her by force” and “this was the reason she had resumed wearing men’s
clothing after the first sentence.”  (8)

The final verdict of the Rehabilitation Trial was pronounced
on July 7, 1456. Among other statements that were included in the official
verdict is the following: “We, in session of our court and having only God
before our eyes, say, pronounce, decree and declare that the [Condemnation]
trial and sentence were tainted with fraud, slander, injustice, contradictions
and many obvious errors involving facts and laws, including the abjuration, the
execution and all their consequences; the trial is ruled to be null, invalid,
worthless, without effect and annihilated.”

The entire final ruling was read aloud, and then one of the
five original handwritten copies of the trial transcripts was ceremoniously
torn up. Celebrations were held throughout all of France, but particularly in
Orleans, where Joan’s victory, which ended the siege of the city, proved to be
the turning point in the Hundred Years War.

Documentation about Joan’s military achievements during the
Hundred Years War and the transcripts of her trials provide an extraordinary
level of detail about her life, particularly for a historical figure of the
fifteenth century. Various and sometimes opposing conclusions about Joan’s
gender identity, sexual orientation, and the origin of her Voices can be
reached based on the available information. Also, in literature and film, Joan
of Arc is often depicted as a Christ-figure due to parallels involving her
life, suffering, and execution, however, imagery from her trial transcripts
clearly presents Joan the Maid (the Virgin) as an icon of the Blessed Virgin
Mary.

Joan of Arc: Transgender?

Many Catholics, including those in the hierarchy of the
Church, believe that becoming a transgender person is a sin against nature
because they believe inherited chromosomes are the only biological variables at
work in determining or influencing gender identity. Scientific evidence increasingly
gives credibility to the notion that not becoming a transgender person
may, in fact, be the sin against nature. Concepts regarding the difference
between sex (female and male) and gender identity (a person’s perception of
whether they are female or male—or neither or both) have evolved over the last
thirty years. A predisposition for gender identity may be initially encoded in
inherited DNA at the moment of conception, but other factors, including
acquired memories and epigenetic processes, can influence a person’s perception
of their identity. Epigenetic processes involve variances in gene expressions
that occur over the course of life. The inherited DNA—females have XX
chromosomes and males have XY chromosomes—does not change, but the genes contained
in inherited DNA may be variably expressed or activated due to external factors
that include a person’s interaction with the environment as well as the
processes of biological maturation, such as when specific hormones are released
into the bloodstream during puberty.

An individual’s genome is their complete set of DNA
molecules, which contain the instructions needed to assemble all of the other
molecules that make each member of the species unique. The individual’s
epigenome (the word is derived from Greek, meaning “above the genome”) includes
the non-DNA molecules that can provide instructions to the genome regarding
what molecules to make, where in the body to make them, and when to make them. Epigenetic
factors can cause specific genes to be expressed, not expressed or partially
expressed. These epigenetic factors, triggered by environmental events, act as
instructions that add markers on the genome (but are not part of the DNA
itself) and can be replicated from cell to cell as cells divide over time.
These molecular markers, added onto the DNA, can be passed from parents to
offspring.  (9)

The variables that influence biological development and
maturation are typically grouped into two categories: heredity and environment,
but with advancements in the study of epigenetics, it’s clear that heredity and
the environment interact in ways that we have only recently begun to
understand. Whether gender identity and sexual orientation are derived from an
individual’s genome, epigenome, learning processes, or some combination of
those three factors remains to be resolved.

Becoming a transgender person can involve one or more of
three basic processes: identifying with the opposite sex and expressing
behavior that is typical for that sex within society; taking hormones or
hormone suppressing pharmaceuticals to augment the physiological
characteristics of the opposite sex; or undergoing gender reassignment surgery.

Opinions about the gender identity and sexual orientation of
Joan of Arc have been conveyed in theater, film, and literature. Excerpts from
Joan’s Rehabilitation Trial, such as those included above, have been used as a
type of defense against claims that Joan was a transgender person. However, by examining
the evidence that comes out of the transcripts in their entirety, one can draw
the conclusion that Joan was a transgender person.

Gender dysphoria, also referred to as gender identity
disorder, is a diagnosis used by physicians and psychologists to classify individuals
who experience difficulties in life because their sex (female or male) is
perceived to be misaligned with the way they desire to express themselves; the
desire is motivated by the dysphoria, as opposed to the desire being motivated
by peer pressure, other social pressures, or merely a decision to experiment.
The term dysphoria is derived from a Greek word meaning “difficult to bear” or
“unpleasant to experience,” and the difficulty or unpleasantness can be
categorized across a range from mild to intense anxiety or depression; it is
the opposite of euphoria, which comes from the Greek word meaning “pleasant to
experience” and which includes states that can range from mild to intense joy
or elation.

Many of Joan’s statements during her trial reveal an extreme
level of reluctance to give up wearing men’s clothes, even temporarily, so that
she could attend Mass and receive Holy Communion. If her sole reason for
wearing men’s clothes was to help protect herself from sexual abuse at the
hands of her English jailers, she would have no reason to refuse women’s
clothes for the purpose of going to Mass, especially considering how important
Mass was for Joan, who on one occasion went to Mass three times in one day at
the church of Saint Catherine de Fierbois. The transcripts of March 25 include
the following:

We told Joan that she had asked us several times,
especially yesterday, due to the solemnity of these past days and of this time,
if it would be permitted for her to attend Mass on Palm Sunday. That is why we
asked her, if we gave her permission, whether she would abandon wearing men’s
clothes and put on women’s clothes, as she used to do in the area of her
birthplace and as the women there were usually clothed.

Joan replied by asking us if she could attend Mass wearing
men’s clothes, as she was currently dressed, and if she could receive the
Eucharist on Easter Sunday. So we told her that if she were to respond to our
request, that is, to abandon men’s clothes, permission would be given. But she
replied that she did not have counsel on this matter from her Voices and
therefore could not yet wear women’s clothes.

Then we asked her if she would get advice from her saints
regarding wearing women’s clothes. She replied that it might well be permitted
for her to attend Mass as she is currently dressed, which she truly desired,
but with regard to changing from men’s clothes to women’s clothes, she could
not do it and it was not in her. After the court officials had urged her,
according to all the goodness and piety which she seemed to have, to wear clothes
appropriate for her sex, Joan answered that it was not in her to do it; but if
it was to be, it would be done soon. Then we told her to speak with her Voices
to find out if she could once again wear women’s clothes to receive the
Eucharist at Easter. Joan replied that as far as it was in her ability, she
could not receive the Eucharist by changing her clothes for women’s clothes.
She asked to be permitted to attend Mass in her men’s clothes, adding that this
attire did not burden her soul, and that wearing these clothes was not against
the Church.  (10)

Concerns about the accuracy of the Condemnation Trial
transcripts—whether they truthfully recorded Joan’s statements during the
trial—were addressed by several participants during the Rehabilitation Trial
who were also present during the Condemnation Trial, including the principal
notary, Manchon. Witnesses who were present at both proceedings testified that
the transcripts of Joan’s comments were accurately recorded. Manchon’s
testimony during the Rehabilitation proceedings included the following:

At the beginning of the case, during the five or six days
when I was writing down the Maid’s answers and excuses, the judges tried to
compel me to alter my words in translating them into Latin, thereby changing
the meaning of her statements into something different from my understanding of
them. And two men, acting under my lord of Beauvais instructions, were placed
in a window near the judges seats; and there was a serge curtain in front of
that window so that they should not be seen. These men wrote down and reported
everything that incriminated Joan and nothing that excused her. And I believe
that it was Loiseleur [who was concealed there]. And after the session, when a
comparison was made with what these two had written, their account was quite
different from ours and contained none of Joan’s defense. My lord of Beauvais
was greatly annoyed with me about this. And where the word Nota appears in the
reports of the case, that was where there were differences of opinion, and
where fresh questionings were necessary; and they found that what I had written
was true.  (11)

The language used by Joan regarding wearing men’s clothes
reinforces a belief that she experienced dysphoria regarding wearing women’s
clothes. Within the approximately 300-word passage referenced above, at least
five excerpts appear to indicate dysphoria: 1) she “truly desired” to attend
Mass wearing men’s clothes even though social norms for women in the 1400s
would have added considerable pressure on her to conform; 2) regarding wearing
women’s clothes she said “she could not do it;” 3) it was not “in her” to wear
women’s clothes; 4) she indicated that “as far as it was in her ability, she
could not receive the Eucharist by changing her clothes for women’s clothes;”
and 5) she said wearing men’s clothes “did not burden her soul,” implying that
perhaps wearing women’s clothes did burden her soul.

For readers interested in the source material for this 300-word
passage, the following text shows the original Latin transcripts, which were
copied by Quicherat from the handwritten originals and published in 1841 under
the title Procès de Condamnation et de Rehabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc and
the French translation by Pierre Champion, which is in Procès de
Condamnation de Jeanne d’Arc, Texte, Traduction et Notes, published in
1921.

Latin:

Ad quod dicta Johanna respondit requirendo quod
permitteretur audire missam in habitu virili in quo erat, et quod etiam posset percipere
sacramentum Eucharistiæ in festo Paschæ. Tunc eidem diximus quod ad petitum
responderet, videlicet an vellet dimittere habitum virilem, si hoc sibi
concederetur. Ipsa vero respondit quod de hoc non erat consulta, nec poterat
adhuc recipere dictum habitum. Et nos ei diximus an vellet habere consilium cum
Sanctis, utrum reciperet habitum muliebrem. Ad quod respondit quod permitti
poterat in hoc statu missam audire, quod summe optabat; sed habitum mutare non
poterat, nec etiam hoc erat in ipsa. Postmodum, dicti magistri exhortati sunt
eam quod, pro tanto bono et devotione quem videbatur gerere, quod vellet capere
habitum suo sexui congruentem. Quæ Johanna iterum respondit quod in ipsa non
erat hoc facere; et, si in ipsa esset, hoc esset bene cito factum. Fuit autem
sibi dictum quod loqueretur cum vocibus suis ad sciendum si resumeret habitum
muliebrem, ut in Pascha posset percipere viaticum. Ad quod respondit dicta
Johanna quod, quantum est de ipsa, non perciperet ipsum viaticum, mutando
habitum suum in muliebrem; rogabatque quod permitteretur audire missam in
habitu virili, dicens quod ille habitus non onerabat animam suam, et quod ipsum
portare non erat contra Ecclesiam.  (12)

French:

Et nous dîmes à ladite Jeanne que plusieurs fois,
particulièrement hier, elle nous avait demandé qu'à cause de la solennité de
ces jours et de ce temps il lui fût permis d'ouïr la messe, ce dimanche de la
fête des Rameaux; c’est pourquoi nous lui avons demandé, si nous lui accordions
cela, si elle voulait abandonner l’habit d'homme et recevoir l’habit de femme,
ainsi qu’elle avait accoutumé au pays de sa naissance, et comme les femmes de
son pays ont coutume de le porter. A quoi Jeanne répondit, nous requérant qu’il
lui soit permis d’ouïr la messe dans cet habit d’homme où elle était, et
qu’elle pût recevoir le sacrement d’eucharistie à la fête de Pâques. Or nous
lui dîmes qu’elle répondît à notre demande, savoir qu’elle voulut bien
abandonner l’habit d’homme, si cela lui était accordé. Mais elle répondit
qu’elle n’avait point conseil sur cela, et ne pouvait encore prendre ledit
habit. Et nous lui demandâmes si elle voulait avoir conseil de ses saintes pour
recevoir habit de femme. A quoi elle répondit qu’il pouvait bien lui être
permis d’ouïr la messe en cet état, ce qu’elle désirait souverainement; mais,
changer d’habit, elle ne le pouvait, et cela n’était pas en elle. Après que les
dits maîtres l’eussent exhortée, pour tout le bien et dévotion qu’elle semblait
avoir, à vouloir bien prendre habit convenable à son sexe, ladite Jeanne a
répondu qu’il n’était pas en elle de le faire; et que si c’était en elle, ce serait
aussitôt fait. Alors il lui fut dit qu’elle parlât avec ses voix pour savoir si
elle pouvait reprendre l’habit de femme pour recevoir le viatique à Pâques. A
quoi Jeanne répondit que, autant qu’il était en elle, elle ne recevrait pas
ledit viatique en changeant son habit contre habit de femme; et elle demandait
qu’il lui soit permis d’ouïr la messe en habit d’homme, disant en outre que cet
habit ne chargeait point son âme, et que de le porter, ce n’était point contre
l’Église.  (13)

Coming to a conclusion regarding whether Joan or any other
historical figure was a transgender person is problematic because the available
facts can be interpreted in different ways. We wouldn’t expect to have explicit
statements by Joan that she found traditional femininity “difficult to bear” or
“unpleasant to experience,” but she made frequent statements at the trial that
can be interpreted in that light, including the following accusation and
response during the March 27 session of the Condemnation Trial:

Article 16: Joan, after her capture at the castle of
Beaurevoir and at Arras, was repeatedly and charitably admonished by noble and
distinguished persons of both sexes to stop wearing men’s clothes and to wear
clothes decently appropriate for her sex. This she absolutely refused, and
still obstinately persists in her refusal to do, as well as the other duties
appropriate for her sex; in all things she behaves more like a man than a
woman.

Joan’s Response: To this sixteenth article, Joan admits
that she was admonished at Arras and Beaurevoir to wear women’s clothes, and
that she refused and still refuses to do so. As for the other womanly duties,
she says there are enough other women to do them.

Joan also indicated during the March 12 interrogations that
even under circumstances where she would not be at risk of sexual assault, she
would not only continue to wear men’s clothes, but by doing so, she would be
setting a constructive example for French society:

Asked whether she thought she was doing something wrong
when she wore men’s clothes, she answered no; and even at this moment, if she
were back with her own party, it seemed to her that it would be to the great
good of France for her to do as she did before her capture.

Also, the following is from the March 17 session, when Joan
indicated that she would continue to wear men’s clothes even after she was
released from prison:

She said she would put on women’s clothes if we let her go
[from prison]. So we asked her if wearing women’s clothes under those
circumstances would please God, since God commanded her to wear men’s clothes.
She answered that if we permitted her to go because she wore women’s clothes,
she would do so, but then would immediately put on men’s clothes and do what
our Lord asked her to do.

The issues that Joan faced regarding men’s clothes stem
primarily from the biblical text of Deuteronomy 22:5, which states, “A woman
must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your
God detests anyone who does this.”

During the Rehabilitation Trial, the judges interviewed
witnesses who were present when Joan arrived at Chinon wearing men’s clothes.
She travelled to Chinon to see the king, and she was questioned extensively by
specialists in theology over a three-week period in the nearby town of
Poitiers. The written record of the Poitiers inquiry has never been recovered
and may have been deliberately destroyed, but the documentation was referred to
at the Condemnation Trial during the March 3 session:

We asked her, regarding the first time she spoke with the
king, whether the king asked her if it was by revelation that she had changed
her attire from wearing women’s clothes to men’s clothes. She replied, “I have
answered this before; I do not recall whether I was asked this specific
question, but my reply was written down at Poitiers.” Asked whether officials
of her own party who examined her—some over the course of a month and others
over the course of three weeks—had questioned her about changing her attire
from wearing women’s clothes to men’s clothes, she answered, “I do not recall,
but they asked me where it was that I began to wear men’s clothes and I told
them it was at Vaucouleurs.”

The following testimony was given at the Rehabilitation
Trial by Brother Seguin de Seguin, a Dominican Professor of Theology who was
also Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Poitiers:

I saw Joan for the first time at Poitiers. The king’s
council was assembled in the house of the Lady La Macée, and the Archbishop of
Reims, then Chancellor of France, was there. I was summoned, as were Jean
Lombart, Professor of Theology of the University of Paris; Maitre Guillaume le
Maire, Canon of Poitiers and Bachelor in Theology; Maitre Guillaume Aymerie, Professor
of Theology and  of the Order of Saint Dominic; Brother Pierre Turrelure;
Maître Jacques Maledon; and many others whose names I do not remember. The
members of the king’s council told us that we were summoned, in the king’s
name, to question Joan and to provide our opinions about her. We were sent to
question her at the house of Maître Jean Rabateau, where she was lodging. We
went there and interrogated her.

Among other questions, Maitre Jean Lombart asked her why
she had come; the king wanted to know what had motivated her to come here to
see him. She answered, in a grand manner, that “there had come to her, while
she was pasturing the cows, a Voice, which told her that God had great
compassion for the people of France, and that she must travel through France.”
On hearing this, she began to cry; the Voice then told her to go to
Vaucouleurs, where she would find a Captain who would conduct her safely into
France and to the king, and that she must not be afraid. She had done what the
Voice had ordered her to do, and she was able to travel here to see the king
without encountering any obstacles.

At this point, Guillaume Aymerie asked her this question:
“You assert that a Voice has told you that God has willed to deliver the people
of France from the catastrophe in which they are now in; but, if it is God’s
will to deliver them, then why is it necessary for you to have soldiers?” Joan
replied, “In God’s Name! The soldiers will fight, and God will give the
victory.” Maître Guillaume was pleased with this answer.

Then I, in my turn, asked Joan what dialect the Voice
spoke. She replied, “A better one than yours.” I speak the Limousin dialect.

I then asked her, “Do you believe in God?” She replied, “In
truth, more than yourself!” I said, “But God wills that you should not be
believed unless there appears some sign to prove that you should be believed,
and so we will not advise the king to trust in you and to risk an army based
only on your simple statements. She replied, “In God’s Name! I have not come to
Poitiers to show signs, but send me to Orleans, where I shall show you the
signs by which I have been sent.” She added, “Give me men in such numbers as
may seem good, and I will go to Orleans.”

Then she foretold to us—to me and to all the others who
were with me—that the following four things would happen, and which afterwards
did occur: first, that the English would be destroyed, the siege of Orleans
would be raised, and the town delivered from the English; second, that the king
would be crowned at Reims; third, that Paris would be restored to his dominion;
and fourth, that the Duke of Orleans would be brought back from England. I who
speak, I have in truth seen these four things accomplished.

We reported all this to the council of the king, and we
were of the opinion that, considering the extreme necessity and the great peril
of the town, the king might make use of her help and send her to Orleans.

Besides this, we inquired into her life and morals, and
found that she was a good Christian, living as a Catholic, never idle. Also, so
that her manner of living might be better known, women were placed with her who
were commissioned to report to the council regarding her activities and
behavior.

As for me, I believed she was sent from God because, at the
time when she appeared, the king and all the French people with him had lost
hope, and no one thought of anything else except to save himself.   (14)

Based on this and other testimony from the Rehabilitation Trial,
if there were any qualms about Joan wearing men’s clothes, the issue was likely
addressed using criteria set by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica
(Summary of Theology), which he wrote in the thirteenth century. In the Summa,
Aquinas indicated that it was not sinful “for a woman to wear man’s clothes, or
vice versa… on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from
enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some similar motive.”  (15) Dressing for military combat certainly would
be covered by this exemption, but dressing for Mass would not apply here. The
March 15 Condemnation Trial transcripts convey Joan’s emotional state regarding
her clothes and her desire to attend Mass: “As urgently as she could, she
implored us to allow her to attend Mass in the clothes she wore, without any
change.” Also, Joan’s decision to wear her hair cut short above her ears and,
as noted in the transcripts, “styled like a vain young man,” reflects a
behavior and choice that goes beyond any military necessities, particularly in
light of her fondness for wearing luxurious clothing, a fact noted during her
canonization process as indicative of a lack of interest in asceticism.

Scientific studies investigating the basis of gender
dysphoria generally search for causes related to psychological as well as
biological factors, including inherited genes, prenatal exposure to various
hormones, and the development and plasticity of the brain over the course of
life. A review of case report literature published in 2012 found evidence to
support conclusions that genetic as well as non-genetic factors may contribute
to the development of gender dysphoria. In an analysis of data on monozygotic (identical)
twins and dizygotic (non-identical) twins, one study looked at 561 children,
all under twelve years old, who visited a clinic in Canada between 1976 and
2011 and reported gender dysphoria, including twenty-five who were twins—there
were no cases where both twins had gender dysphoria. Another study reviewed
data on 147 people who went to a clinic in Serbia, including two who had
non-identical twin siblings; neither of the two twin siblings had gender
dysphoria. A third study looked at 450 people who were treated at a Belgian
clinic between 1985 and 2011, including six who were twins—only one set of
identical twins had gender dysphoria, and both were female-to-male transgender.
When this data from the three clinics, which does not support a conclusion of
genetic factors playing a role in gender dysphoria, was combined with data from
seventeen case studies, the authors did find evidence that genetic factors were
likely to be one factor among other, non-genetic factors in the development of
gender dysphoria: of the identified twenty-three monozygotic female and male
twins, nine (39.1%) experienced gender dysphoria while none of the twenty-one
same-sex dizygotic female and male twins had gender dysphoria.  (16)

Many people have difficulties understanding the biological
differences between gender and sex until they’re confronted with direct
evidence, such as a case involving a transgender student at a Chicago-area high
school:

The mother wrote that she and her husband once believed
that “simple anatomy” separated a boy from a girl. But she said that after her
[male] child called herself a girl at age 4 and wanted to wear girls’ clothing,
they questioned their understanding.  (17)

Within the Catholic Church, there are divergent opinions
about the contributions that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
persons can make with regard to the spiritual growth of the Church. Many
members of the Church feel either hopeful or dismayed by the outreach Pope
Francis has expressed toward the LGBT community. However, the Pope often makes
statements that can be interpreted in different ways. In an article for The
New York Times, Laurie Goodstein wrote, “Pope Francis has been sending
mixed messages about his position on homosexuality, gender and same-sex
marriage in the more than two years since he was elected.”  (18) John Allen, who covers the Vatican for Crux, wrote, “Parsing the
words of Pope Francis is a notoriously hazardous undertaking, as he tends
sometimes to say things that seem almost deliberately open to multiple interpretations.”
(19) While those observations are true, there
are unmistakable signals being sent by the Pope that veer radically from what
could have been envisioned in the Church three years ago.

In one example, on December 8, 2014, the Pope telephoned
Diego Neria Lejarraga, who was born a woman but at the age of forty-eight had
gender reassignment surgery. Before the phone call, Neria had written a letter
to the Pope describing the issues that confront transgender people, including
Neria’s experiences with fellow parishioners who had rejected him at his church
in Plasencia, Spain. After the call, a priest at Neria’s parish reportedly
referred to Neria as “the devil’s daughter.” After that incident, the Pope then
telephoned Neria again, this time on Christmas Eve, to invite him and his
fiancée to a private meeting, which occurred January 2015, at Casa Santa Marta,
the Vatican City guesthouse.

In a more public event in 2015, Pope Francis solemnly washed
and kissed the foot of a transsexual, Isabel Lisboa, on Holy Thursday, when the
Catholic Church commemorates the Last Supper of Christ, the day before his
execution on Good Friday. One of the Church’s official media platforms, the
Vatican Television Center, prominently featured the Pope washing and kissing
Lisboa’s foot, as well as her reception of Holy Communion during the Mass,
leading many to believe that the Church, in its official capacity, was
attempting to send a message to the faithful about how the Church should openly
welcome all Catholics and all people who want to embrace the faith. The
reception of Holy Communion by Lisboa, conspicuously televised, added some
weight to the notion that the Church may act assertively to change its
relationship with the LGBT community.

The Holy Thursday foot-washing ceremony is a re-enactment of
events recorded in Chapter 13 of the Gospel of John. Jesus washes the feet of
his disciples to set an example of humility, saying, “You do not realize now
what I am doing, but later you will understand.” After washing the disciples’
feet, Jesus said, “Do you understand what I have done for you? You call me
‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. But now that I, who
am your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you should also wash one
another’s feet. I have set this example so that you should do this as I have
done for you.” The Holy Thursday ceremony has been contentious for Pope Francis
since 2013, when he included women in the ceremony, and again in 2014, when he
included Muslims. The Church has liturgical rubrics, official rules, which
state that only men (presumably only Christian men) can be selected to
participate in the Holy Thursday foot-washing ceremony. In his role as the
Church’s chief legislator, the Pope is within his prerogative to implement
changes in the liturgical rubrics, but these types of changes have not yet been
codified, and so the recent Holy Thursday events have caused a minor uproar
among conservatives.

Two key issues confronting the Catholic Church today involve
its relationship with the LGBT community and whether divorced and remarried
Catholics can receive Holy Communion. From a theological perspective, the two
issues are related to the extent they both deal with the Church’s application
of its teaching about mortal sin and how such sins preclude people from
worthily receiving Holy Communion. Being in a state of mortal sin implies that
individuals, should they happen to die while in a state of mortal sin, would
self-exclude themselves from heaven and condemn themselves to hell by
deliberately rejecting God.

Issues involving the Church’s relationship with the LGBT
community, and whether divorced and remarried Catholics can receive Holy
Communion were debated at the Synod of Bishops held October 4-25, 2015, in
Vatican City. After those discussions, a formal document was published by the
Synod. Pope Francis is reviewing the report and will publish his own document,
probably an Apostolic Exhortation, which will present his thoughts and
decisions. The 2015 meetings served as the conclusion to a process that began
in 2014, during the Church’s Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod
of Bishops, commonly known as the Synod on the Family, which was held in
October of that year in Vatican City. A draft interim document issued October 13,
2014, prior to the final document, attracted controversy, in part, because it
included the following statement:

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the
Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to
them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a
Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of
providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without
compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?  (20)

Other parts of the draft interim report addressed the
“positive aspects” of non-martial cohabitation and civil [non-Catholic]
marriages—a stance that would indicate an evolution, some say revolution, in
the Church’s pastoral approaches, which are guidelines and rules for applying
doctrine in the everyday lives of Catholics.

When the October 13 draft was released, the Catholic News
Service, operated by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, published an
article, Family Synod Midterm Report: Welcome Gays, Nonmarital Unions. The
article leads with the following sentence: “In strikingly conciliatory language
on situations contrary to Catholic teaching, an official midterm report from
the Synod of Bishops on the family emphasized calls for greater acceptance and
appreciation of divorced and remarried Catholics, cohabitating couples and
homosexuals.”  (21)

When the final report was issued on October 18, references
to cohabitating couples were not as materially revised as the language related
to the “gifts and qualities” of homosexuals, which was replaced by a statement
that “men and women with a homosexual tendency ought to be received with
respect and sensitivity.”  (22) Since the 2014
Synod meetings, disagreements among factions of bishops have arisen because
many people perceived discordance between the Church’s doctrines and the type
of “pastoral applications” being envisioned.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, who is President of the
Pontifical Council for the Family and responsible for the Church’s World
Meetings of Families, stated, “Clearly, what the Catholic Church is striving
for is a new, more authentic flourishing of the family, and with it all of
society,” and the type of family envisioned by the Church is one where “the
relationship between genders is reworked with full respect for masculinity and femininity.”
(23) Paglia made those comments at an event held
in conjunction with the U.N.’s annual Day of the Family, where he also said
that differences of opinion regarding families had become “unproductively
ideological” and that “it is important to realize the family is not an ideology.”
Afterward, in an interview broadcast May 21, 2015, Paglia expanded on those
comments in his non-native English:

Everywhere you have some signs, in the sense, I think that
we are to enlarge our vision, we have to be sure that the Pope really does, in
order to push a new spring of families, in the sense we have to avoid some
too-ideological perspectives; we have to increase in our pastoral attitude,
because now is no time only to do some theological description. The Pope wants
to push the Church and the believers to see the reality of families. We have to
show the mercy of God for everyone, we need families, we need all families. You
know, the doctrine can be enlarged, we can go deeply. John XXIII used to say,
it’s not the Gospel that changes, but us, we understand, but us understand
better the Gospel; this has to be during the three weeks in the discussion
among bishops.  (24)

Paglia was referring to a fundamental position of the
Catholic Church: the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ does not change, but
the Church, as an institution and within each member, can and should grow over
time in understanding the Gospel.  (25) The
growth occurs by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Expressing greater openness toward homosexuals in the Church
as well as allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion
is viewed by many as being part of a plan to change doctrine merely so that it
adapts to the culture, as opposed to being part of a plan to enlarge doctrine
because the Church is growing in its understanding of the Gospel due to
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Others assert that the main issues are not
about doctrine but only about the language used when giving pastoral or
spiritual guidance; for example, some people say it does more harm than good to
refer to the use of artificial contraception as an “intrinsically evil”
practice, or to say that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.” Still
others point out that the Synod meetings were also meant to address a much
larger scope of issues. Other items on the agenda included the break-up of
families due to migration, which occurs for a variety of reasons; refugees
fleeing war-torn areas of the world; migrants needing to search for jobs
outside of their home countries while leaving other family members behind; and
victims of religious persecution in the Middle East and parts of Africa. Also
in Africa, polygamy is common in many areas and presents a significant issue
for the Church. If a man with three wives and nine children wants to enter the
Church, how does that happen? If the man must choose one wife, then what
happens to the other wives and children in terms of financial and emotional
support, and what should be done if all of the family members want to enter the
Church?

In the United States and Europe, the two issues of greatest
importance involve the Church’s relationship with the LGBT community and
allowing Holy Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics. The issues are
perceived differently by two fundamental factions within the Synod and across
the Church. The general perception of one faction is represented by the views
of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who firmly believes Catholicism is headed down a
dangerous path of accommodating pagan lifestyles.  (26) The other faction’s position is generally reflected by the views of Archbishop
Heiner Koch, who is Chairman of the German Bishops’ Commission for Marriage and
Family. Koch supports initiatives to have the Church recognize same-sex unions
and has said, “Any bond that strengthens and holds people is in my eyes good,
that applies also to same-sex relationships.”  (26)

Müller leads an organization within the Church, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which “examines new teachings
and new opinions in whatever way they are spread, it promotes studies in this
area, and… it condemns those teachings found to be contrary to the principles
of the faith, after, however, having heard the view of the Bishops.”  (27)  Also, Müller’s viewpoint is supported by
Cardinal Raymond Burke, who stated the 2014 Synod report was “a gravely flawed
document and does not express adequately the teaching and discipline of the
Church and, in some aspects, propagates doctrinal error and a false pastoral
approach.”

Koch, on the other hand, supports the views of Cardinal
Walter Kasper, who is the foremost proponent of revising the Church’s
traditional annulment process to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to
receive Holy Communion. Pope Francis, after reading Kasper’s book, Mercy,
in 2013, referred to Kasper as a “superb theologian” (28), although some sources translate the Italian as “clever
theologian.”  (29) Regardless of which
interpretation is correct, Pope Francis subsequently convened an Extraordinary
Consistory on the Family in February 2014 and invited Kasper to give the
keynote address, which lasted most of the morning. An afternoon session of
Q&A and in-depth discussions followed, and later the Pope commented that
Kasper gave “a beautiful and profound presentation.”  (30)

Both of the primary factions, conservative and progressive,
point to comments made by Pope Francis as evidence that he is of the same mind
on current issues; however, the Pope has consistently appointed reform-minded
individuals to leadership positions in the Church, including appointing Koch as
Archbishop of Berlin in June 2015.  (31) In
contrast, Burke indicated on October 18, the final day of the 2014 Synod, that
the Pope had informed him he would no longer be the head of the Church’s top
court, the Apostolic Signatura.  (32)

When changes in Church teaching are being discussed,
conflicts can arise about what it means to have an orthodox perspective on
possible changes. “Orthodox” here is not related to the Eastern Orthodox Church
or Orthodox Judaism, but simply having an orthodox perspective on canon law,
doctrine, and other matters. The word orthodox comes from a combination of two
Greek words, orthos, meaning right, true, or straight, and dokein,
meaning to think, or doxa, meaning opinion or belief. In the Catholic
Church, maintaining orthodoxy does not mean resisting change; it means
embracing change whenever the Church augments its teaching, regardless of
whether the change is preferred by various individuals and factions in the
Church. If Pope Francis enlarges the Church’s teaching in a way that isn’t
aligned with Müller’s current views, then Müller, to maintain orthodoxy, would
be required to support the teachings of the Pope, who is head of the CDF as
well as the Church.

After Ireland’s May 2015 referendum that endorsed same-sex
marriage, Kasper indicated the vote would raise the prominence of the issue at
the 2015 Synod meetings, saying that previously “it was only a marginal topic,
but now it becomes central.”  (33) Koch’s support
for Church recognition of same-sex unions also raises the issue of Holy
Communion because Catholic homosexuals in same-sex relationships—as well as
divorced and remarried Catholics and cohabitating heterosexual couples—are
viewed as objectively living in a state of mortal sin.

Kasper is a distinguished theologian in the Church and has
explained his views on Holy Communion in light of established teaching on
mortal sin:  even though the Church has the authority to classify sins
objectively as mortal, the Church and no member within the Church—including the
Pope—can ever make a judgment regarding whether any specific individual has
indeed committed a mortal sin, even if that person engages in homosexual sex,
has had multiple abortions, or habitually misses Mass on Sundays. Many people
in the Church expressed dismay at Pope Francis when he said, “If someone is gay
and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”  (34) But the Pope was merely affirming a
fundamental truth of Catholic doctrine stated in the Catechism of the
Catholic Church: “Although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave
offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.”  (35) Deferring to God to make these judgments is
required because even though a person may appear to be engaged in mortal sin
objectively, the person’s actual guilt, subjectively, may be much less (venial
sin) or even perfectly sinless, because only the person engaging in the
activity can know whether they are guilty of mortal sin. The following text
from the Catechism summarizes the teaching on mortal sin (the italicized
words are in the source material):

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must
together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is
also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” Grave matter
is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to
the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not
bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.” The
gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must
also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself
graver than violence against a stranger. Mortal sin requires full knowledge
and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character
of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent
sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness
of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a
sin. Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability
of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of
the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings
of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of
the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed
through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.  (36)

All three conditions—grave or serious matter, full
knowledge, and complete consent—must be met for a person to be guilty of
committing a mortal sin. This means a woman who is pressured into having an
abortion by a boyfriend, husband, or anyone else, is not guilty of mortal sin
because the coercion restricts the freedom to choose and is therefore not
complete consent. A person’s ability to make a free-will decision, which is
required to meet the complete consent criterion, can be compromised, and as a
result, guilt of mortal sin can be completely removed by factors such as mental
illness, drug addiction or “the promptings of feelings and passions.”

The Church is often viewed as over-emphasizing the serious
nature of sexual sins and relatively de-emphasizing the equally serious nature
of non-sexual sins such as greed, envy, and pride. That over-emphasis stems
from the role that free-will (complete consent) plays in deciding to commit a
sin: the experience of sexual lust more quickly leads to a loss of self-control
and diminished free will, or freedom, to make a rational decision not to engage
in sinful behavior.

The sin of pride does not attract as much attention as the
sexual sins, but the sin of pride is universally recognized by Catholic
theologians as the most serious of all sins. It involves placing oneself above
God and includes judging people to be guilty of mortal sin even when those
people are homosexuals in same-sex relationships, women who have had abortions,
or divorced and remarried Catholics who have not had an annulment of their
previous marriage.

Also, the requirement to have full knowledge of whether any
particular action is a mortal sin establishes a standard of culpability that is
higher than most people assume. Missing Mass on Sundays is objectively a mortal
sin, yet less than twenty-five percent of adult Catholics in the United States
attend Mass every week.  (37) It is reasonable to
assume that most of these individuals receive Holy Communion when they do go to
Mass even though they have not been to Confession to receive absolution from
sins that are objectively mortal. In this case, it is also reasonable to assume
the majority of these Catholics are not guilty of mortal sin even though they
deliberately choose to skip Mass without a valid reason and they have a
purely intellectual level of knowledge that missing Mass is a mortal sin.

Evidence that a person has full knowledge of whether
something is a mortal sin comes from the individual’s conscience, which only
that person is privy to. As a result, if there is any shadow of doubt in the individual’s
conscience regarding whether they have committed a mortal sin, then they cannot
be guilty of a mortal sin because doubt implies having less than full knowledge;
the exception to this involves “hardness of heart,” which means the person’s
conscience is no longer receptive to being informed by the Holy Spirit about
how to judge their own behavior, which is a definitive sign the person is in a
persistent state of mortal sin unless mitigating factors, such as mental illness
or drug addiction, are present.

Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago linked the issues of inviolability
of a person’s conscience with the reception of Holy Communion—not only for
divorced and remarried Catholics, but also for homosexuals in same-sex relationships.
Cupich, a reform-minded progressive, spoke about counseling Catholics in
second, invalid marriages as well as same-sex couples, saying, “people come to
a decision in good conscience… [and] the conscience is inviolable. And we have
to respect that when they make decisions, and I've always done that.”  (38)

Although a person’s outwardly observable behavior may be
judged as objectively sinful, it is still only the subjective state, which is
known only to God, which determines actual sinfulness. Any person who truly
cares about doing good, avoiding evil, and searching for the truth is on the
path of developing a properly formed conscience, even when that conscience is
at odds with the official teaching of the Church. The key role of the
individual person’s conscience in Catholic life was clarified during the Second
Vatican Council and addressed in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in
the Modern World. Commenting on that document and its teaching with regard
to the individual’s conscience, Joseph Ratzinger, who later became Pope
Benedict XVI, stated:

Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical
authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before
all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical
authority. Conscience confronts with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one
which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of
the official church.  (39)

Michael Lawler and Todd Salzman summarized Catholic teaching
on conscience in the Jesuit magazine, America, and wrote:

Thomas Aquinas, in his book of Sentences (IV, 38, 2, 4),
established the authority and inviolability of conscience in words similar to
Father Ratzinger’s: “Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authorities, in
ignorance of the true facts, impose a demand that offends against his clear
conscience should perish in excommunication rather than violate his
conscience.” For any Catholic in search of truth, no stronger statement on the
authority and inviolability of personal conscience could be found, but Aquinas
goes further. He insists that even the dictate of an erroneous conscience must be
followed and that to act against such a dictate is immoral.  (40)

A key theme in the life of Joan of Arc involves her
insistence on obeying her conscience in the face of Church authorities who
threatened her, even with torture and execution. Her persistent claim that God
alone, not the Church, had final authority over her actions led George Bernard
Shaw, author of the play, Saint Joan, to refer to Joan as one of the
first Protestant martyrs. But Joan did submit to the authority of the Church,
except with the caveat that she served God first if her conscience informed her
to do so, as noted in Article 61 of the seventy accusations made against her:

When asked if she believes she is subject to the Church on earth,
namely Our Holy Father the Pope, to the cardinals, archbishops, bishops and
other prelates of the Church, she answered yes, our Lord being served first.
Asked whether her Voices requested her not to submit to the Church Militant on earth
or its judgment, she said that she does not merely answer us by saying anything
that comes to her mind, but she answers according to the Voices’ instructions,
and they do not forbid her to obey the Church, our Lord being served first.

Lawler and Salzman discuss two key approaches to the
development of conscience: 1) conforming one’s conscience to the Church’s
teaching even when personal experience or science appears to be at odds, and 2)
the idea that Church doctrine is an aid to conscience development, and conscience
is not only at the service of doctrine. The latter of those two positions is
the only approach compatible with the historical and spiritual advancement of
the Church and its doctrine, which develops over time.

John Henry Newman was the foremost intellectual leader of
the Oxford Movement in the 1830s, which aimed to demonstrate that the Church of
England was divinely founded—not as a Protestant denomination, but as a branch
of the Church founded by Christ. Newman’s studies of the Early Church led him to
conclude that various Catholic doctrines opposed by Protestants were not
corruptions or additions to divine revelation in sacred scripture, but were
genuine developments of doctrine:

According to Newman’s theory, everything essential to the
faith was present embryonically in the Gospel, but many elements, even the
fundamental doctrine of the Trinity, emerged only gradually. All such
development had to be an organic growth from the original seed, harmonizing
with previous expressions of the faith.  (41)

Newman’s research into the historical events of the Early
Church and its development of doctrine led him to write, “To be deep in history
is to cease to be a Protestant.”  (42) Echoing
Newman’s insight that authentic doctrine develops over time via inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, as opposed to merely changing to adapt to the culture,
Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the bishops’ conference of Germany,
stated:

[Doctrine] doesn’t depend on the spirit of time but can
develop over time. … Saying that the doctrine will never change is a
restrictive view of things. … The core of the Catholic Church remains the
Gospel, but have we discovered everything? This is what I doubt. … We cannot
say that since you are homosexual, you cannot experience the Gospel. This is
impossible to me.  (43)

Pope Francis voiced similar views in an interview published
in America magazine:

In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual
persons who are “socially wounded” because they tell me that they feel like the
Church has always condemned them. But the Church does not want to do this.
During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person
is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this,
I said what the Catechism says. Religion has the right to express its
opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it
is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.

A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I
approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: “Tell me: when God
looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love,
or reject and condemn this person?” We must always consider the person. Here we
enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanies persons,
and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to
accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the
priest to say the right thing.  (44)

In June 2015, Bishop Johan Bonny of Antwerp was appointed by
the Vatican as a delegate to the October Synod on the Family. Bonny supports ecclesiastical
recognition of same-sex relationships and said:

Personally, I find that in the Church more space must be
given to acknowledge the actual quality of gay and lesbian couples; and such a
form of shared-life should meet the same criteria as found in an ecclesiastical
marriage. … Indeed, we need to seek a formal recognition of the kind of
relationship that exists between many gay and lesbian couples.  (45)

Bonny’s statement regarding the “actual quality of gay and
lesbian couples” provides a basis for asserting the true ideal for Christian
marriage is not based on biology, but on the spiritual, agape quality of
the relationship. Comparing same-sex couples with heterosexual couples, it is
evident that many gays and lesbians live the truths of Christianity to a
greater quality than heterosexuals, including expressing a reverence for the
Church and its sacraments in ways unseen in many heterosexuals. This example of
living true Christianity is part of what was inferred in the language of the
2014 Synod interim report, which stated “homosexuals have gifts and qualities
to offer to the Christian community.”

Cardinal Marx, speaking of the unique opportunity enabled by
Pope Francis, stated, “The doors are open, wider than they have ever been since
the Second Vatican Council. The synod debates were just a starting point.
Francis wants to get things moving, to push processes forward. The real work is
about to begin.”  (46)

Pope Francis, referring to a heresy called Pelagianism, described
his vision for Church reform during an address he gave at the Fifth National
Ecclesial Convention in Florence, Italy:

Pelagianism, the Pope told the faithful gathered in
Florence’s Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Flower, “prompts the Church not to be
humble, selfless and blessed. And it does so with the appearance of being a
good.” Such an approach, he added, “brings us confidence in structures,
organizations, in perfect planning because it’s abstract.” But often “it leads
us also to take a controlling, hard, regulatory style,” he said. “The law gives
to the Pelagian security to feel superior, to have a precise orientation. This
is its strength, not the light of the breath of the Spirit.” “In facing ills or
the problems of the Church,” the Pope went on, “it is useless to look for
solutions in conservatism and fundamentalism, in the restoration of practices
and outdated forms that aren’t even able to be culturally meaningful.”
Christian doctrine, he added, “is not a closed system incapable of generating
questions, concerns, interrogatives, but it is alive, unsettles, animates. Its
face isn’t rigid, its body moves and develops, it has tender flesh: that of
Jesus Christ.”  (47)

Statements such as those by Marx and Pope Francis are often
seen as attempts to open up topics for discussion that have already been
settled doctrinally. Some Catholics assert that while canon law can and should
be modified over time, doctrine cannot change, but that position is at odds not
only with Newman’s analysis of how doctrine develops over time, but also at
odds with the Catechism and Christ’s instructions to the apostles. After
the last of the apostles died, nothing can be added to public revelation, “yet even
if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it
remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the
course of the centuries.”  (48) Also, Christ
founded the Church and gave to Peter and the apostles as well as their
legitimate successors the authority to develop doctrine over time via
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Christ, in John 16:12-15, said to the apostles:

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.
He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell
you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will
receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine.
That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to
you.”

A key question coming out of the Synod concerns the
relationship between the Church’s doctrine and its pastoral practices. This
relationship poses a dilemma for Kasper’s proposal regarding Holy Communion for
divorced and remarried Catholics, but he maintains his proposal does not
require any change in the Church’s doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage.
Many in the Church, however, believe his approach is treacherous because it
appears to disconnect doctrine (marriage is indissoluble) from pastoral
practice (a process that would allow Holy Communion for divorced and remarried
Catholics). Opponents of Kasper’s proposal also believe it sets a dangerous
precedent for the Church because it appears to be merely capitulating to the
realities of modern culture.

Cardinal Robert Sarah, head of the organization on Divine
Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, perceives a disconnection in the
approach of Kasper, stating, “It is not possible to imagine any sort of rupture
between magisterium [doctrine] and pastoral care. The idea that would consist
in putting the magisterium in a pretty box, separating it from pastoral
practice, which could evolve according to circumstances, fashions and passions,
is a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology.”  (49)

Kasper’s proposal, which has been referred to by some in the
Church as a corruption of doctrine, can be seen equally as an organic
development of pastoral practice based on a well-established Church teaching:
guilt of mortal sin is always subjective because it involves the individual
person’s conscience; it implies an intentional act of free will; and it
requires full knowledge of the sin’s gravity. During an interview with Raymond
Arroyo of EWTN News, Kasper provided an explanation in his non-native English:

Kasper: First of all, the indissolubility of marriage for
me is the faith of the Church, and because it’s the word of Jesus Christ you cannot
create exceptions, but it’s a question of how to apply the word of Jesus to
concrete situations; it’s a question of, and I thought the Church has the
authority to bind and to loose, and the Church can in certain cases make use of
this authority.

Arroyo: So you’re distinguishing between doctrine and
pastoral practice, are they two separate things?

Kasper: No, they are not separate; this would be doctrine;
practice must be found in the doctrine, but you cannot deduce directly from a
dogma to a concrete practice.

Arroyo: Right, but in this case though, when you say there
is an indissoluble marriage, and someone is divorced and then found somebody
else, and then they come to church and say I want the sacraments, Cardinal
Sarah this week said, you have a first marriage that is ratified and
consummated, now have a second union of some sort, and when these people come
forth and we allow them to have Communion, he says it’s a heresy, a dangerous
schizophrenic pathology. You would say what?

Kasper: Well, that’s a strong statement, very strong, but
I, no, I cannot agree with this statement because, well, what makes impossible
the access to sacraments is to live in grave sin, that’s a canon law, but grave
sin is not only a grave material [grave matter] but there must be the
conscience and the intentionality, there must be the circumstances. The concept
of grave sin is a very complex one, and therefore it needs a discernment
case-by-case whether there is the situation of grave sin or not.

Arroyo: But there seems to be this dual-track though,
because you’re saying you want to preserve the indissolubility of marriage, but
the application of Communion and how and to whom it is distributed might be
another issue over here.

Kasper: No, no, it’s not another issue, and when this man
or this woman is not in the personal situation of grave sin, and this happens…

Arroyo (interrupting): They’re not in a situation of grave
sin?

Kasper: Objectively, but if there is [grave sin]
subjectively, that’s a problem. Grave sin implies the personal conscience,
implies intentionality of the will, and therefore it needs a judgment of a
priest who has the experience and…

Arroyo (interrupting): But not a tribunal; you don’t like
the idea of the nullity [annulment] process, the canonical process.

Kasper: No, no, no, this is a different thing. Of course
this can help in certain cases, this nullity process, but the Church always
distinguishes between the forum internal and the forum external, and I think
the discernment, whether a person, a concrete person lives in grave sin or not,
that’s a question of the forum internal, not the forum external.  (50)

Use of the terms “forum internal” and “forum external” is
sometimes tangled up with matters of conscience regarding subjective and
objective aspects of sin. In the Church’s Code of Canon Law pertaining to
governance, the forum describes where an ecclesiastical act occurs. Catholic
marriages and annulments take place in the public, external forum, whereas
going to the sacrament of Confession takes place in the private, internal
forum.

So-called “internal forum solutions” were previously
discussed to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion, but
they differed from Kasper’s. One approach was called an internal forum solution
although it did not involve the internal forum of Confession. Instead, it
involved the individual’s “sincere judgment of conscience that their first
marriage was invalid.”  (51) One sharp rebuttal
to that approach was expressed in the following terms: “It would be purely
academic to hypothesize about the existence of cases in which moral certitude
could be reached only in the internal forum, that is, in conscience; such would
be so rare that they should be considered practically nonexistent.”  (52) Other opinions are not quite as restrictive.
Archbishop Cupich seemed to allude he uses a type of internal forum solution
during a press briefing at the Synod.  (38) Various opinions on internal forum solutions were summarized by Father Edward
McNamara, Professor of Liturgy and Dean of Theology at Regina Apostolorum University
in Rome:

Authors of this theory differ as to the definition and
application of this supposed solution. In synthesis, it is a pastoral response
made by a person, with the help of a priest, in which the person becomes
convinced in conscience of the invalidity of a previous marriage even though an
external judicial determination regarding this validity cannot be resolved.
This conviction would thus allow a return to the sacraments.

However, opinions can be quite diverse as to how to apply
this proposed solution. Some authors insist that this solution is not granted
by a priest but only acting under his guidance. Others explicitly say that it
is a decision made by an appropriate priest made without recourse to the
tribunal.

Likewise, others sustain that before the internal forum can
be invoked, it is necessary for the person to have attempted to recur to the
external forum (marriage tribunal) but with no process going forward due to
procedural or other difficulties.

Others sustain that there might be cases where the person
can decide even without ever contacting the tribunal if there are good reasons
for not doing so.  (53)

The Pope himself appeared to mediate such an internal forum
solution for an Argentine woman, Jacqueline Sabetta Lisbona, who wrote a letter
to the Pope in September 2013 in which she explained her situation. A Vatican
spokesperson confirmed that the Pope telephoned her on April 21, 2014, and even
though she was in an invalid marriage, she “spoke with the Pope, and he said
she was absolved of all sins and she could go and get Holy Communion because she
was not doing anything wrong.”  (54)

Kasper, responding to a question about why an annulment
process isn’t necessary to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive
Communion, explained:

Marriage is an icon, an image of the alliance of God with his
people, and notice that in holy scripture, how often the people of God
abandoned him, and also Jesus was rejected by his people, then he substituted
himself, went to the Cross even to give them another chance. … He gave the
Church, his apostles, the authority to forgive and not to forgive, to bind and
to loose, and all this, this is all a sign of mercy, it’s not only the category
of human justice you can apply here, that you must, the Church must act
according to the action of God and of God’s mercy, and the Church is a
Sacrament of Mercy, it means sign and instrument of the mercy of God, that’s
our Catholic understanding of the Church, and if God gives, acts in this way,
the Church can do it also.  (50)

Marriage is a sacrament in the Church, and it cannot be
undone, but a marriage can be annulled if one or both people weren’t competent
to enter the marriage for one or more of several reasons. For example, even
though a couple received the sacrament, it is not a valid marriage if at least
one person consented to the marriage without “the intention to marry for life,
to be faithful to one another and be open to children” or “intend the good of
each other.”  (55) There are other reasons the
marriage may not be valid and can be annulled, including the presence of a
psychological disorder at the time of marriage. However, the annulment process
is complicated and lengthy:

Several steps are involved. The person who is asking for
the declaration of nullity—the petitioner—submits written testimony about the
marriage and a list of persons who are familiar with the marriage. These people
must be willing to answer questions about the spouses and the marriage. The
tribunal will contact the ex-spouse—the respondent—who has a right to be involved.
The respondent’s cooperation is welcome but not essential. In some cases the
respondent does not wish to become involved; the case can still move forward.
Both the petitioner and the respondent can read the testimony submitted, except
that protected by civil law (for example, counseling records). Each party may
appoint a Church advocate who could represent the person before the tribunal. A
representative for the Church, called the defender of the bond, argues for the
validity of the marriage. After the tribunal has reached a decision, it is
reviewed by a second tribunal. Both parties can participate in this second
review as well.  (55)

Kasper’s proposal would radically streamline this process in
most cases by allowing a person to instead discuss their situation with a
parish priest. To circumvent situations such as allowing Holy Communion for a
man who has merely left his wife for a younger woman, Kasper explained:

I am for discernment situation by situation. I never said
everybody who is divorced and remarried can go to the sacraments. Every
situation is different and we need a confession, fathers with experience who
can speak with the people. It’s a whole process; and then to come to a
discernment of the situation to help also the people, to have a discernment
about the situation, and then perhaps he can give the absolution.  (50)

In Catholicism, same-sex marriage is typically viewed as a
non-starter because of the understanding that marriage is not only an image of
the relationship between God and His People, but also an image of the
relationship between a Bridegroom and His Bride. In the Old Testament period,
the prophets consistently described the relationship between God and the Jews
in terms of the Bridegroom (God) and His Bride (the Jews). The last prophet,
John the Baptist, is not only a transitional figure between the Old and New
Testaments, but he also introduced an amplification of this marriage language
by proclaiming the Messiah (Jesus Christ) was also the Bridegroom. In the New
Testament there’s a clear continuity of this imagery; Jesus is referred to as
the Bridegroom, and the Church is the Bride of Christ. The imagery also alludes
to the intimacy a believer may realize by receiving Holy Communion: union with
God, because Communion in the Catholic Church is literally, not symbolically, Christ’s
body, blood, soul, and divinity. The union takes place primarily on a spiritual
level, but marital sexual love is seen as an iconic representation of the level
of intimacy that is possible to have with God through the sacraments,
particularly with Holy Communion.

In her autobiography, Story of a Soul, Saint Thérèse
of Lisieux (1873 -1897) described her First Holy Communion this way:

I don’t want to enter into detail here. There are certain
things that lose their perfume as soon as they are exposed to the air; there
are deep spiritual thoughts which cannot be expressed in human language without
losing their intimate and heavenly meaning. … Ah! how sweet was that first kiss
of Jesus! It was a kiss of love; I felt that I was loved, and I said: “I love
You, and I give myself to You forever!” There were no demands made, no
struggles, no sacrifices; for a long time now Jesus and poor little Thérèse
looked at and understood each other. That day, it was no longer simply a look,
it was a fusion; they were no longer two, Thérèse had vanished as a drop of
water is lost in the immensity of the ocean. Jesus alone remained; He was the
Master, the King. Had not Thérèse asked Him to take away her liberty, for her
liberty frightened her? She felt so feeble and fragile that she wanted to be
united forever to the divine Strength!  (56)

Similar sentiments aren’t uncommon among devout Catholic
women, but this imagery can’t be applied to heterosexual males, which
highlights the inadequacy of extending the biological basis of heterosexual
marriage as a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church. The
type of intimacy that Saint Thérèse describes isn’t sexual because union with
God occurs primarily on the spiritual level. Metaphors of sexual intimacy can
be used as a primitive prototype or typology that points to a much deeper level
of intimacy, but the locus of spiritual intimacy occurs in the soul. Saint Teresa
of Ávila (1515 - 1582) described it this way in her book on mystical prayer, The
Interior Castle:

I began to think of the soul as if it were a castle made of
a single diamond or of very clear crystal, in which there are many rooms, just
as in heaven there are many mansions. … Let us now imagine that this castle, as
I have said, contains many mansions, some above, others below, others at each
side; and in the center and midst of them all is the Chiefest mansion where the
most secret things pass between God and the soul.  (57)

Saint Catherine of Siena (1347 - 1380) began to have
mystical experiences when she was six years old and made a vow of virginity
when she was seven. She was very attractive and had numerous would-be suitors,
so at the age of fifteen, to discourage boyfriends and prevent her parents from
arranging a marriage, she cut off her hair. For the next three years, she lived
as a virtual hermit in a small room inside her parents’ home. At the age of
nineteen, after undergoing a period of arduous temptations, she had a mystical
encounter with Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary, during which she said she
became spiritually espoused to Christ.

Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, Saint Teresa of Ávila, and Saint
Catherine of Siena are Doctors of the Church—a title given only to individuals
who have demonstrated an extraordinary level of theological insight through
their lives and their writings. Saint Edith Stein (1891 - 1942), who may be the
next woman named a Doctor of the Church, was an atheist and received a
doctorate in philosophy with a dissertation under Edmund Husserl. She decided
to enter the Catholic Church after reading Saint Teresa of Ávila’s
autobiography, The Life of Saint Teresa of Jesus. For readers interested
in the autobiography of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, Story of a Soul, many
editions are available, but the most accurate translation is the version
published by the Institute for Carmelite Studies (ICS) and translated by John
Clarke.  (56)

A fault in applying the biological basis of heterosexual
marriage as a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church
involves eros (erotic love) and agape (self-sacrificial love). It
is not eros that defines the relationship between Christ and the Church,
but agape. Even though eros or erotic love can be a significant
part of spirituality, it’s completely devoid of any redeeming value without agape,
which is the type of self-sacrificial love that endures forever, regardless of
circumstances that may change. Christ provides the ultimate example of agape,
not only because his love endures forever, regardless of circumstances, but
because he set an extreme example of it: the love of God is not only eternal,
it is also the type of love willing to die for the beloved and willing to die
in the most excruciating and humiliating way imaginable—physically tortured and
executed as a common criminal, even when the beloved cares nothing for the
lover. That is the model of Catholic marriage, and it is a model that very few
people can live up to.

Additionally, the marital union is also meant to reflect the
union and relationship that exists within the Trinity: the communion within the
Trinity is perfect and complete and is marked by a giving and receiving of
love, but the love is agape, not eros. Paragraph 239 of the Catechism
includes the following:

The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of
parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man [humanity].
But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can
disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall
that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man
nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood,
although he is their origin and standard.  (58)

In the Creed, which is a list of core beliefs essential to
the faith, the Holy Spirit is described as “proceeding from the Father and the
Son,” and that phrase is typically interpreted as the Holy Spirit being a
manifestation of the exchange of love between the Father (God) and the Son
(Christ). The word “Father” is used for God even though God the Father is
neither male nor female.  (59) Christ referred to
God as the Father, saying, for example, “The Father and I are One.” Using the
term “Father” is typically viewed as merely a reflection of the male-dominated
culture of the time, but in Catholicism, it is a distinction that alludes to
the integral role of the Blessed Mother (Blessed Virgin Mary) in the process of
redemption.

Many Catholics who are opposed to same-sex marriage assert
there is a procreative dimension central to marriage, even in cases of
infertility, and the procreative dimension must be affirmed in every marital
act, which also precludes the use of artificial contraception. In the
conception of a child, the two parents directly participate with God in the
creation of a new life with an eternal soul. However, the procreative sexual
love of eros without the eternally self-sacrificial love of agape
is deficient in terms of reflecting the communion that occurs in the Trinity.
While the procreative dimension of marriage is a strong argument to use in opposition
to same-sex marriage, a stronger argument in favor of same-sex marriage is that
agape more perfectly reflects life within the Trinity, especially
because God the Father is neither male nor female.

The first Papal Encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI, Deus
Caritas Est (God is Love) has one overarching theme: Eros is
perfected by agape. The following is an excerpt:

According to Friedrich Nietzsche, Christianity had poisoned
eros, which for its part, while not completely succumbing, gradually
degenerated into vice. Here the German philosopher was expressing a widely held
perception: doesn’t the Church, with all her commandments and prohibitions,
turn to bitterness the most precious thing in life? Doesn’t she blow the
whistle just when the joy which is the Creator’s gift offers us a happiness
which is itself a certain foretaste of the Divine? But is this the case? Did
Christianity really destroy eros? Let us take a look at the pre-Christian
world. The Greeks—not unlike other cultures—considered eros principally
as a kind of intoxication, the overpowering of reason by a “divine madness”
which tears man [humans] away from his [or her] finite existence and enables
him [or her], in the very process of being overwhelmed by divine power, to
experience supreme happiness. All other powers in heaven and on earth thus
appear secondary: “Omnia vincit amor” says Virgil in the Bucolics—love
conquers all—and he adds: “et nos cedamus amori”—let us, too, yield to
love. In the religions, this attitude found expression in fertility cults, part
of which was the “sacred” prostitution which flourished in many temples. Eros
was thus celebrated as divine power, as fellowship with the Divine.  (60)

Aquinas defined sodomy as “copulation with an undue sex,
male with male, or female with female” and asserted it was “contrary to right
reason” and “contrary to the natural order of the venereal act [sexual
activity].”  (61) Merriam-Webster defines sodomy
as “anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex.” In the Summa
Theologica, Aquinas classified sodomy and other activities as sins
contra naturam (sins contrary to nature, or sins against nature). God is
seen as the author of nature, including human nature, which is a special
category of nature that possesses the ability to use reason as a means to make
judgments. According to Aquinas, sins against nature are the most grievous of
all types of sin because, in the act of violating nature, an injury is done to
God, the author of nature.  (62) But in cases
where same-sex attraction or gender identity is determined or predisposed by
the genome or epigenome, then not being a homosexual or not being
a transgender person would be the sin against nature.

During the thirteenth century, Aquinas applied logic and
reason to matters of faith in a groundbreaking manner. He was often criticized
by conservative Catholics during his lifetime for incorporating truths derived
from purely secular or pagan sources, particularly Aristotle’s logic and
philosophy. For Aquinas, faith and reason could not contradict each other, even
though many truths of the infinite, far-superior God were beyond the reach of a
finite human mind.

Would Aquinas revise his list of behaviors that constitute
sins against nature if he had indisputable proof that same-sex attraction is
determined or predisposed by the genome or epigenome? Aquinas was a rigorist
with regard to aligning the tenets of Catholicism with logic and reason, and he
categorized his sins against nature not only based on biblical texts but
also—to align faith and reason—on thirteenth century observations that have
since been proven to be inaccurate, specifically, that homosexuality does not
occur in animal species. He saw sexual intercourse to be an inclination that
humans and animals had in common:

There is in man an inclination to things that pertain to
him more specially, according to that nature which he has in common with other
animals: and in virtue of this inclination, those things are said to belong to
the natural law, which nature has taught to all animals, such as sexual
intercourse.  (63)

Aquinas set a precedent in the Church’s ever-growing
understanding that there can be no incongruity between faith and reason, and
his observation that humans and animals shared some behavior patterns prefigures
later developments involving the theory of evolution.

Church doctrines, too, can evolve over time, and sometimes
the Church develops doctrines that are at odds with the positions of its
preeminent theologians. Aquinas, for example, discounted what is now a required
belief of Catholicism: Mary’s Immaculate Conception, which declares that Mary
was the only human who was conceived without original sin.

Looming factors include the likelihood that same-sex
attraction will be found to have biological determinants. If that is the case,
then God can be viewed as its author. Alternative explanations to account for
such a genetic determination or predisposition could also include an
interpretation that same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria are based on
“genetic defects” or illnesses, but that poses even greater problems for the
Church because the Church does not deny access to the sacraments due to
illnesses or genetic disorders.

Science of Attraction and Repulsion

The perception of anything as attractive, repulsive, or
neutral is determined primarily by three variables: 1) inherited instincts
encoded in DNA at the moment of conception, 2) acquired memories, which can also
modify inherited instincts, and 3) illness. Three categories of experiments
illustrate the variables at work.

The first category involves a change in perception caused by
illness, and the specific study referenced here is Predator Cat Odors
Activate Sexual Arousal Pathways in Brains of Toxoplasma Gondii Infected Rats
by Patrick House, Ajai Vyas, and Robert Sapolsky.  (64) The findings of this study have been replicated in numerous experiments
that have explored this paradoxical behavior in rats.

When rats are infected by a common parasite called toxoplasma
gondii, the rat’s perception of stimuli associated with cats, a natural
predator, is modified so that what was once perceived as repulsive is later
perceived as attractive. Rats typically exhibit fear and avoidance behaviors
when their noses absorb odors that reveal cat urine is in the environment.
However, after an infection by toxoplasma gondii, the rat’s perception
of cat urine changes from being repulsive to attractive. Instead of fleeing
from the sensory information of cat urine, the rats actively pursue it and
explore it.

Rats perceive different degrees of threat or danger in
different cat odors because the values of those odors (repulsive or very
repulsive) are encoded in the rats’ DNA. After becoming infected with the
toxoplasma parasite, rats still differentiate between the scent of cat urine
and other odors associated with cats, and the rats will still perceive those
other, non-urine cat odors, as threatening and repulsive.

The toxoplasma infection alters the rat’s perception of cat
urine because a change occurs in the transmission and routing of electrical
signals that travel throughout various parts of the rat’s brain. Electrical
signals generated by the absorption of sensory information x can travel
along three basic paths in the brain: a) pathway that results in the perception
of x as attractive; b) pathway that results in the perception of x
as repulsive; and c) pathway that results in the perception of x as
neutral or meaningless. The attractive pathway and repulsive pathway can be
active to varying degrees at the same time and for the same type of sensory
information x, but typically, one pathway is much more active than the
other when processing information about the meaning of non-neutral sensory
information x.

Neutral sensory information can be perceived as either
meaningless “noise” that doesn’t have an attractive or repulsive value, or
meaningful information that doesn’t have an attractive or repulsive value.

After a rat becomes infected, toxoplasma parasites migrate
to the rat’s brain and form spherical cysts that are approximately 50,000
nanometers in diameter, which is about the width of a strand of hair. The
infection causes microscopic cysts to form throughout the brain but with a
preference for regions of the limbic system, which processes sensory
information associated with the perception of a) threats or repulsive sensory information
and b) opportunities or attractive sensory information.

While it’s not known if the increased density or prevalence
of the cysts in the limbic system (compared to other parts of the brain) is
responsible for the shift in perception of cat urine from being repulsive to
attractive, what is known is that within two weeks after getting infected, the
cysts are prevalent in the rat’s brain. Within six weeks after getting
infected, the rat’s perception of cat urine has changed from being repulsive to
attractive.

Prior to the infection, the pattern of electrical signals
that transmits the sensory information of cat urine travels along the repulsive
pathway through the amygdala and into the hypothalamus; as a result, the rat
will avoid, flee, and prefer to escape from areas where the odor of cat urine
is present. After the infection, the pattern of electrical signals that
transmits the sensory information of cat urine travels along the attractive
pathway through the amygdala and into the hypothalamus; as a result, the rat
will approach, explore, and prefer to be in areas where the odor of cat urine
is present. The two pathways, repulsive and attractive, run parallel to each
other and are in close proximity to each other, but the two pathways process
two opposite types of information, repulsive and attractive.

A second category of experiments focuses on the role that
genetic factors play in attraction and repulsion. The research discussed here
is based on the work of Cornelia Bargmann, and a more encompassing overview of
related work is discussed in Genetic Contributions to Behavioural Diversity
at the Gene-Environment interface by Andres Bendesky and Cornelia Bargmann.
(65)

This area of research involves a roundworm, a nematode,
called Caenorhabditis elegans (or C. elegans). C. elegans
is normally very attracted to the scent of diacetyl, which is a key nutrient
that the worm needs to sustain its life. Diacetyl is the worm’s favorite food,
and it is a natural by-product of fermentation. It contributes to the smell and
taste of butter, as well as some alcoholic beverages like beer and wine. When
people drink chardonnay and say it has a buttery taste, it’s because some
winemakers promote the flavor and feel of butter in the wine, and they do it by
promoting the production of diacetyl. French wine drinkers sometimes refer to
these American chardonnays as butter bombs.

When the worms smell diacetyl, they are attracted to those
diacetyl molecules. Research on the worms reveals that when they have a
specific mutation in their DNA (a mutation in the gene that enables the worms
to sense diacetyl), the worms can no longer detect the scent of diacetyl. As a
result, an environmental stimulus that’s intrinsically important to the
survival and well-being of the worm can no longer be sensed and perceived when
the worm has that mutation.

Even though this species of worm doesn’t have a
well-developed nervous system that includes anything remotely resembling a
brain, it has the equivalent of an attractive pathway and repulsive pathway.
However, unlike rats and other vertebrates that have a bundle of neurons (nerve
cells) that make up the attractive pathway and repulsive pathway, the worm has
individual neurons that function as its attractive pathway and repulsive
pathway because C. elegans has only 302 neurons in its entire nervous
system. Because of this very low number of neurons, it’s “relatively” easy to
manipulate the worms’ genes and measure the results.

A gene in the worm called odr-10 is responsible for
making the sensory receptor that enables the worm to detect the sensory
information produced by diacetyl. In a normal worm, the odr-10 gene is
expressed in a neuron that processes attractive information, but when
experiments enable the odr-10 gene to be expressed in a neuron that
processes repulsive information, the worms are repulsed by the scent of
diacetyl—a paradoxical response similar to the behavior of the rats that become
attracted to the scent of cat urine.

A third category of experiments focuses on the role that learning
and acquired memories play in the perception of stimuli as attractive or
repulsive. The research discussed here is based on the classical work conducted
by Ivan Pavlov. Even though Pavlov’s work was done in the early 1900s, the fundamental
methods he established continue to be used by neuroscientists today.

Pavlov was initially studying the physiological processes
involved in the digestion of food in dogs, but he inadvertently discovered the
psychological processes involved in learning and memory formation. He was
awarded a Nobel Prize in 1904 for his work with the dogs, and he had just begun
to publish data on learning and memory processes. From that time forward, until
his death in 1936, Pavlov shifted the focus of his research from the
physiological processes involved in digestion to the psychological processes
involved in learning and memory formation.

To prepare the dogs for his original digestion experiments,
Pavlov and his team of researchers performed surgical procedures on the dogs
that enabled the scientists to collect saliva secreted in the dogs’ mouths as
well as other fluids generated in their stomachs. More than a hundred years
ago, when cruelty to animals was not given as much thought as it is today,
Pavlov thoughtfully considered the animals’ well-being. He stated his
researchers strictly observed “all the precautions taken by surgeons in respect
to their patients” when they did the operations on the dogs. In the speech he
gave when he received his Nobel Prize, he said, “our healthy and happy animals
did their laboratory work with real gusto; they always eagerly moved from their
cages to the laboratory and readily jumped onto the tables where our
experiments and observations were conducted.”  (66)

The surgical procedures involved inserting metal tubes into
two areas of the dogs’ digestive system, one tube near the salivary glands and
another tube into the stomach. The tubes enabled saliva and other fluids to be
diverted from the digestive system and collected in containers that were
attached to the dogs. The tube to the stomach also allowed the researchers to
put food directly into the dog’s stomach without first having the food go
through the dog’s mouth.

After each experimental session, the containers could be
removed from the dogs. The researchers then measured the fluids for volume and
also analyzed the chemical composition of the fluids, looking for the presence
of various chemicals that facilitate the digestion process. During the
intervals between experiments, when the containers were detached from the dogs,
the metal tubes were sealed using removable plugs. Pavlov said the dogs lived
relatively normal lives, typically more than eight years after the surgeries,
“without ever showing any deviation from normal health.”  (66)

When the original digestion experiments began, the
researchers would put various substances into the dogs’ mouths—things like
bread, meat, milk, salt, and mustard—and then measure and analyze the
composition of the digestive fluids. Over the course of the first few
experimental sessions, the dogs salivated only after food was brought into the
laboratory. However, after the dogs experienced a few of the experimental
sessions, saliva started to flow into the containers before any food was
brought into the laboratory area to begin the sessions.

Pavlov and his research team were initially puzzled about
why that would happen. However, they soon came to the conclusion that the dogs
must have learned something new about the environment that they didn’t know
when the experiments first began: that the researchers were going to feed them.
A visual stimulus, seeing people in lab coats, which previously had no special
meaning for the dogs, had acquired a new meaning. The dogs began to perceive a
new value in a visual stimulus that previously had no special value to the
dogs. Visual sensory information that was previously perceived as relatively
meaningless “visual noise” was later perceived to be important or meaningful.

Before discussing Pavlov’s experiments, it’s helpful to
understand the difference between sensing information and perceiving
information. While the dogs’ eyes sensed the visual information (people in lab
coats) in the same manner (by processing light waves) both before and after the
initial experimental sessions, it was the dogs’ perception of the people in the
lab coats that changed. Perception is the flexible part of the equation while
sensation is not. Sensation conforms to the physical composition of the sensory
information, while perception conforms to the flexible content of memories in
addition to the physical composition of sensory information and inherited instincts.
DNA-based inherited instincts are malleable too, but only over generations of a
species’ development via natural selection. When the dogs learned that people
wearing lab coats would be feeding them, a change in dogs’ perception occurred
because of the memories that were encoded in the dogs’ brains.

The eyes and ears of animals and humans can do nothing more
than process sensory information in the form of light waves and sound waves.
Functionally speaking, the eyes process light waves like a video camera and the
ears process sound waves like a microphone. The eyes and ears process sensory
information that enters the body, and then the brain further processes that
information by adding other information previously acquired via the formation
of memories and the presence of inherited instincts.

Another approach to understanding the difference between
sensing information and perceiving information is to consider what happens when
a person is watching television and there happens to be a dog or a cat nearby.
If the animal is also looking at the television screen, the person and the
animal are both seeing and processing the same light waves and hearing and
processing the same sound waves. The light waves act on the person’s eyes and
the animal’s eyes in an identical fashion. The sound waves act on the person’s
ears and the animal’s ears in an identical fashion. Both, animal and human,
sense the environment identically, but each perceives the environment in
radically different ways because the contents of the person’s memories are
radically different compared to the contents of the animal’s memories. The
contents of the person’s memories are radically different because of the
radical difference between the intellectual capabilities of humans and animals,
which stems from differences in inherited DNA.

Sensation is then the process used by humans and animals to
absorb sensory information in the environment, and perception is the process
used by humans and animals to interpret sensory information.

Pavlov and his team of researchers were initially surprised
when they saw the results of their dog psychology experiments. During the early
1900s, scientists didn’t believe that psychological processes could have such a
large influence on physiological and biological processes. While it seemed
obvious that the physical and chemical composition of food could cause a dog to
salivate when a) food was tasted by the tongue and b) food was seen by the
eyes, it didn’t seem logical that visual sensory information unrelated to food
(merely seeing people in lab coats and with no food in the area) could cause
the same physiological response as sensing and perceiving food with the tongue
and the eyes. At the time of Pavlov’s experiments, scientists used the term psychical
stimulation to describe how the subjective perception of reality could
influence objectively measurable physiological or biological processes.

Even more surprising than the measurements of psychical
stimulation was the flexibility with which the dogs’ responses could be
manipulated. Working through several experimental designs, the research team
began documenting many of the fundamental laws of learning and memory
formation, and Pavlov later became known as one of the founding fathers of the
science of psychology. Pavlov and his team clearly demonstrated how specific
sensory variables could be manipulated to bring about desired psychological,
physiological, biological, and behavioral responses in the dogs. Later
experiments, up until the present day, confirm all of these systematic methods
or manipulations, which result in learning and memory formation, work the same
way in humans and animals.

In the first set of experiments, the research team
established that the dogs began salivating solely in response to seeing people
in lab coats, without any meat or other food present in the laboratory. During
a second phase of experiments, they began “teasing” the dogs by showing them a
piece of meat at a distance but not feeding the dogs. As expected, the dogs
responded by producing large volumes of highly concentrated saliva.

However, after several teasing sessions, the researchers
observed more unexpected results. They discovered that repeatedly teasing the
dogs with the sight of meat but not feeding them resulted in salivary reactions
that grew weaker and weaker over time until the volume of saliva finally
dropped to zero. The dogs had now learned something completely different about
the sensory information: seeing people in lab coats, as well as seeing meat
itself, was no longer perceived as important or attractive.

The meaning of the sensory information “meat” had changed.
What the dogs previously interpreted or categorized as meaningful, high-value
information (the sight of meat) later acquired a different meaning and became
to be perceived as low-value information or noise. The perception of sensory
information that the dogs’ DNA predefined as being important to their survival
(the sight of meat) was easily manipulated by the formation of new memories. A
key finding from these experiments is that a few minutes of memory formation
can easily alter the perception of sensory information that had been
methodically ingrained in DNA over the course of generations of a species’
evolution interacting with the environment.

The researchers also found that for a given time period (for
example, three hours, three days, or three weeks), if the intervals between
episodes of teasing were short, the salivary response diminished rapidly (short
intervals between experiences enabled rapid or more effective learning). If the
intervals between teasing sessions were long, the salivary response diminished
more slowly (long intervals between experiences led to slower or less effective
learning). But the response always dropped to zero if the dogs weren’t able to
physically taste the meat during the repeated teasing sessions.

More unexpected results followed. The variable saliva
response only applied to the specific type of food being shown to the dogs. For
example, when the response to meat dropped to zero, teasing the dogs by showing
them a piece of bread produced a strong response that generated a high volume
of saliva. When the response to bread dropped to zero after repeated visual
stimulation, the dogs’ response to the sight of milk was very strong. The dogs
clearly were able to perceive and differentiate that what was “true” for one
type of food, meat, for example, was not necessarily true for other types of
food, such as bread or milk.

In these experiments, the dogs (or the dogs’ brains) were
interpreting (or translating) patterns of light waves being absorbed by their
eyes. Information that previously was interpreted as “high value” was later
interpreted as “low value” or meaningless noise.

One final note about the saliva collected in the experiments
with Pavlov’s dogs. Saliva contains enzymes that accelerate the conversion of
chemical elements within food into nutrient products, which are then more
readily accessible by cells in the body. Because Pavlov’s researchers had been
analyzing the chemical composition of the saliva generated in response to the
dogs’ interactions with substances such as meat, bread, milk, and mustard, the
researchers knew, for example, that dry bread caused the production of
significantly larger volumes of saliva than did meat. They also knew that
substances disagreeable to the dogs, such as mustard, would result in a
different chemical composition of the fluid generated by the dogs’ salivary
glands. Unpleasant substances would promote the production of saliva that was
more watery, whereas, for meat, the fluid would be thicker or have higher
viscosity. They also measured and documented other qualities of the saliva such
as its degree of acidity.

In a rather surprising finding of Pavlov’s experiments that
involved teasing the dogs by showing them food items but not feeding them, the
researchers found that variations in the chemical composition of saliva
produced in response to the dogs experiencing the substances in their mouths
was, as Pavlov stated, “exactly duplicated in experiments using psychical
stimulation, that is, in which a given object is not brought into direct
contact with the mucous membrane of the mouth, but arouses the animal’s
attention from some distance.” In other words, the animal’s response to merely
seeing food x was identical to the animal’s response of actually tasting
that specific food in its mouth.

Finally, Pavlov was able to demonstrate that all of the
techniques used to change the way vertebrate animals perceived various aspects
of their environment were equally applicable and effective in humans. Also,
Pavlov clearly proved that intrinsically meaningless stimuli, such as the sound
of a bell, could be transformed into something perceived as attractive or
repulsive merely by methodically associating an inherently positive stimulus
(such as food) or an inherently negative stimulus (such as an electric shock or
a loud noise) with the inherently meaningless sensory information.

Generalizations about Homosexuality in Key Biblical
Texts

Homosexuals in same-sex relationships, like validly married
Catholics who divorce and remarry without an annulment, are viewed by the
Church to be objectively in a continual state of mortal sin. But, generally
speaking,  if the consciences of Catholics in such relationships do not inform
them that they are guilty of mortal sin, then they are not guilty of mortal sin
(subjectively) even though the Church views them to be in mortal sin
(objectively). The Church teaches that these Catholics may not receive Holy
Communion because:

Their state and condition of life objectively contradict
that union of love between Christ and His Church which is signified and
effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral
reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be
led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the
indissolubility of marriage.  (67)

Kasper’s proposal doesn’t directly address the situation of
same-sex couples, but the key common factor the two issues share is
straightforward: Catholics who are, in reality, not guilty of mortal sin are
being denied access to Holy Communion, which is “the source and summit of the
Christian life.”  (68) The justification for this
current pastoral practice involves the issue of scandal: if homosexuals in
same-sex relationships as well as divorced and remarried Catholics are
permitted to receive Holy Communion, then people will be scandalized, that is,
they may be encouraged to engage in objectively sinful behavior because the
Church would appear to be condoning objectively sinful behavior.

The issue of scandal can be traced to the words of Christ in
Matthew 18:6: “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in
me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung
around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” By “little
ones,” Christ is referring not only to children but to all Christians who are
in the process of developing properly formed consciences. The Church has a duty
to set an example regarding objectively sinful behavior, but in all matters, it
is more important to set the critical example of not judging others, which involves
the sin of pride.

Using Christ’s teaching on scandal as a means to exclude
homosexuals in same-sex relationships—as well as divorced and remarried
Catholics—from Holy Communion is a misapplication of the teaching. The context
of Christ’s admonishment on scandal involves a rebuke of intolerance. That
particular passage in the Bible happened to coincide with the Church’s
lectionary for readings at Mass on September 27, 2015, the day Pope Francis
celebrated the Closing Mass of the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia.
The corresponding Old Testament reading for the day was from the book of
Numbers 11:25-29, which also deals with intolerance among believers who want to
exclude people who don’t fit their expectations. The Pope addressed the topic
in his homily:

Here is the surprise: Moses and Jesus both rebuke those
closest to them for being so narrow! ... For Jesus, the truly “intolerable”
scandal is everything that breaks down and destroys our trust in the working of
the Spirit! ... Would that all of us could be open to miracles of love to
benefit our own families and all the families of the world, and thus overcome
the scandal of a narrow, petty love, closed in on itself, impatient of others!  (69)

The hypocrisy of the so-called scandal created by allowing
divorced and remarried Catholics as well as homosexuals to receive Holy
Communion is evident when considering Christ’s admonishment on judging others
in Matthew 7:1-5.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same
way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will
be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s
eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your
brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” when all the time there is a
plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye,
and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

In addition to rebuking people who are judgmental of others,
in Luke 6:36-38, Christ spoke about the spiritual benefits available to those
who refrain from being judgmental:

Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge,
and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.
Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good
measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into
your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

It is impossible to judge others because, regardless of
their outwardly observable behavior, it is impossible to know their motive or
intention. Also, there are the implications of Christ’s words regarding the way
He will judge people, expounded on by a Franciscan Friar, Father Leo Clifford:

Christ will look into your eyes and mine, and utter these
words: “Amen, amen, I say to you, what you did to those around you, you did to
Me.”… So, my dear friends, there is no escaping the logic that our every
thought, word and deed to our neighbor is to Our Lord. And our thoughts—what a
vast, thickly populated world our mind is, and what a very unkind world it can
be. I so easily push God off His Judgement Seat, and I sit there pronouncing on
others, though I have neither the knowledge nor the authority to judge anyone.
… And our words—oh what power we have with our tongues to bless and to curse,
to make people happy and to make them miserable. How often we slash Christ far
worse than the soldiers ever did at the pillar, with the haughty, unkind,
sarcastic things we say.  (70)

Regarding biblical texts related to the cities of Sodom and
Gomorrah (the word sodomy is derived from the name of the town of Sodom), two
key factors are often generalized or overlooked in a way that obscures the text
in Genesis 19:1-10: the incident involved attempted rape, and the intended
victims were not ordinary men, but angels, which is significant because of the
special status of angels in both the Old and New Testaments, and “in some early
Christian writings Jesus was Himself called an angel.”  (71)

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was
sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them
and bowed down with his face to the ground. “My lords,” he said, “please turn
aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and
then go on your way early in the morning.” “No,” they answered, “we will spend
the night in the square.”

But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and
entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and
they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city
of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where
are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have
sex with them.”

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing.” … “Get out of our way,”
they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play
the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot
and moved forward to break down the door. But the men [angels] inside reached
out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the
men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that
they could not find the door.

In the previous chapter of Genesis, Abraham has a dialogue
with God in which God tells Abraham the city will not be destroyed if there are
fifty, then forty-five, then forty, then thirty, then twenty, or even ten good
people in the city. In Genesis 19, it’s clear that the city was destroyed
because every man in the city was evil or corrupted: “all the men from
every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house.”

The city was later destroyed and the aftermath is depicted
as hell-like, “dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace,”
but the reason for its destruction was not homosexuality.

In explaining that the sins of Sodom were not related to
homosexuality, Ezekiel, the Old Testament prophet, allegorically compares Jerusalem
with Sodom and another town, Samaria, which Ezekiel refers to as two “sisters.”
Jerusalem is the Bride (God’s chosen people), and she has become
adulterous—she’s turned her back on the Bridegroom (God)—by breaking the
covenant between God and His chosen people. Ezekiel, speaking for God, in
16:49-50, says:

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her
daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor
and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I
did away with them as you have seen.

Rabbi Mendy Kaminker, editor of Beit Chabad, the
Hebrew edition of Chabad.org, provides additional background:

Scripture is characteristically sparse when telling us of
their failures, only saying that “the people of Sodom were bad, sinning to G-d
very much.” Talmudic and Midrashic sources give us a much fuller account of the
hair-raising wickedness and godlessness that characterized these towns. The
Sodomites enjoyed a relatively high standard of living. Regarding Sodom, the
Torah tells us that the entire plain was “well-watered … like the garden of
G-d,” and it follows that the crops were plentiful and good.

The selfish Sodomites did not want to share this bounty
with outsiders. To this end, they enacted laws and took great pains to repel
travelers. … Two maidens of Sodom met at the well, where they had both gone to
drink and fill up their water jugs. One girl asked her friend, “Why is your
face so pale?” Her friend answered, “We have nothing to eat at home, and are
dying of starvation.” Her compassionate friend filled her own jug with flour,
and exchanged it for her friend’s jug of water. When the Sodomites found out
about her act, they burnt her to death. A second tale: It was announced in
Sodom, “Whoever will give bread to a poor person will be burnt at the stake.”  (72)

Also, the following text of Genesis 18:20-21 is
misinterpreted as referring to homosexuality:

Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah
is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they
have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

Rabbi Kaminker provides this context for verse 21:

Plotit, the daughter of Lot, who was married to a prominent
Sodomite, once saw a poor man who was so hungry that he was unable to stand.
She felt sorry for him. From then on, she made sure to pass him every day on
her way to the well, and she would feed him some food that she had stashed in
her water jug. People wondered how the man managed to live.

Upon investigation, they discovered her act and prepared to
burn her. Before she died, she turned to G-d and cried, “Master of the world,
carry out justice on my behalf!” Her cries pierced the heavens, and at that
moment G-d said, “I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as
the outcry that has reached Me.”  (72)

Christ also explained the sins of Sodom in terms of not
having a welcoming attitude toward strangers, particularly immigrants. The “biblical
law specifically sanctified hospitality toward the ger (‘stranger’) who
was to be made particularly welcome ‘for you were strangers in a strange land
[Egypt].’”  (73) In Matthew 10:11-15, Christ
said:

Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some
worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. As you enter the home,
give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if
it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or
listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.
Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of
judgment than for that town.

Those who assert the story of Sodom is fundamentally about
homosexuality must also examine the words of Christ referenced above and their
basis in both the Old and New Testament, first in Leviticus 19:34 and then
Christ’s words in Mark 12:28-31:

Leviticus 19:34: The foreigner residing among you must be
treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in
Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

Mark 12:28-31: One of the teachers of the law came and
heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked
him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” “The most
important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God,
the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this:
‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

During the First Vatican Council of 1869-1870, the Church
stated, doctrinally, that there was a harmony between faith and reason and
that, by reason alone, people could come to a knowledge of the truth that God
exists. Since the Second Vatican Council of 1962-1965, and increasingly articulated
by all of the Popes since then, there is the clear assertion that there can be
no disconnection between faith and reason. For example, reconciling the theory
of evolution with biblical texts can occur because the Church uses multiple
approaches for biblical analysis, including rhetorical and narrative analysis, approaches
that use sociology and cultural anthropology, as well as a historical-critical
method that excludes the possibility that the texts were divinely inspired.

One of the methods used by the Church is strictly literal,
the fundamentalist approach, which claims that the Bible should be interpreted
literally in all its details. However, relying solely on the fundamentalist
approach to interpret the Bible is viewed to be seriously deficient according
to the Vatican’s Pontifical Biblical Commission:

Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration
of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths
included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths
is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this
approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal
points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and
salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of
critical research. … Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy
of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns
historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes
material which from the start never claimed to be historical. … Finally, in its
attachment to the principle “Scripture alone,” fundamentalism separates the interpretation
of the Bible from the tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically
developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith. … The
fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look
to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these
people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of
telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to
each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism
actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life
a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the
biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.  (74)

Solely relying on the fundamentalist approach, which is
unconcerned about reconciling faith and reason, is the root cause of
maintaining a false certitude with regard to the sinful nature of
homosexuality. If same-sex attraction is determined or influenced by the genome
or epigenome, fundamentalists will still reject the relevance of any such
scientific evidence with regard to interpreting biblical texts. Even more
egregious is the tendency to interpret any biblical text in isolation, out of
the context of the entire canon of scripture.

By using multiple methods for analysis of the Bible, the
Church can, unlike fundamentalist denominations, more readily adapt its
teaching to maintain congruity between faith and reason, as illustrated by the
following comments made by Pope Benedict XVI on the theory of evolution:

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States,
a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and
evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives:
those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution,
and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This
antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific
proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and
which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the
doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great
philosophical question: where does everything come from?  (75)

Perhaps the most rational argument against homosexual sex
comes from the theory of evolution—because heterosexual sex is the only type of
sex that enabled evolution to move forward. However, it is now the consensus
among evolutionary biologists that the upward trajectory of evolution stopped
with the arrival of behaviorally modern humans between 200,000 and 50,000 years
ago. Anatomically modern humans evolved between 400,000 years and 200,000 years
ago. If the long, 3.85 billion year history of biological evolution has reached
its apex with the appearance of modern humans, then human homosexual sex can’t
be viewed as discordant with the overall trajectory of evolution because
heterosexual sex is no longer required to move biological evolution forward.

Was Joan of Arc a Lesbian?

Claims that Joan was a lesbian typically stem from two
sections within the transcripts of her Condemnation Trial and Rehabilitation
Trial. In the Condemnation Trial, Joan appears to have taken the initiative in
wanting to spend two nights in bed with Catherine de La Rochelle to see the
lady-in-white, whom Catherine claimed to appear as an apparition. Testimony
during the Rehabilitation Trial by Marguerite la Touroulde indicated the two
women shared a bed nearly every day for three weeks. First, a note about the
following segment of the Condemnation Trial transcripts of March 3:

Joan asked this Catherine if the lady-in-white who appeared
to her came every night, saying that she would, to see her, sleep in the same
bed with Catherine; and she went to bed with her and stayed up until midnight,
but saw nothing, and then went to sleep.

In the morning, Joan asked Catherine whether the
lady-in-white had come to her.  Catherine replied that she had, while Joan was
sleeping, but that she had not been able to awaken Joan.

Then Joan asked if the lady might not come another night,
and Catherine answered yes; so Joan slept during the day, so that she might stay
awake the whole night.

That night she stayed in the bed with Catherine and watched
all night, but saw nothing. Throughout the night Joan often asked Catherine
whether the lady-in-white would come, and Catherine answered, “Yes, soon!”

The text above is translated as faithfully as possible from
the French. For readers comparing this translation to W.P. Barrett’s English
translation of 1932, it’s important to note that Barrett’s translation is
obfuscated to some degree. For example:

Barrett’s translation—and she slept with her, and watched
till midnight, saw nothing, and went to sleep.

Sanguinetti’s translation—and she went to bed with her and
stayed up until midnight, but saw nothing, and then went to sleep.

Quicherat’s translation—et y coucha et veilla jusqu'à
minuit, et ne vit rien; et puis s’endormit.

A second example regarding the use of exclamation marks:

Barrett’s translation: “Yes, presently.”

Sanguinetti’s translation: “Yes, soon!”

Quicherat’s translation: “Oui, bientôt!”

These notes are important for some critics because English
translations of the source material often muddle or omit text from Quicherat’s
source.  The following text is from the Rehabilitation Trial transcripts
documenting the testimony of Marguerite la Touroulde, widow of Réné de
Bouligny, advisor to the king:

She was in my house for three weeks, sleeping, eating, and
drinking there. And almost every night I slept with Joan, and I never saw or
noticed anything uncanny about her. But she behaved and continued to behave
like an honest and Christian woman. She confessed very often, gladly heard the
Mass, and often asked me to go to Matins; and at her request I did go and took
her there several times.  (76)

Matins refers to Catholic liturgical prayers that end at
dawn. The word Matins is derived from the Latin name for a Greek goddess
Leucothea, white goddess, or goddess of the morning, also known as
Aurora. (77) Although Catholic tradition eliminated any connection
to the pagan origins of the word Matins—and nothing in the source text
indicates otherwise—the white goddess is reminiscent of the lady-in-white, or
white lady, referred to by Catherine de La Rochelle.

Regarding whether Joan had any non-orthodox beliefs or
practices, according to Touroulde’s testimony, she and Joan spoke about
non-canonical texts that Joan perceived to be sacred but were not recognized as
such by the clerics who examined her at Poitiers. Joan, according to Touroulde,
responded to some of the clerics’ questions by saying, “There is more in our
Lord’s books than in yours.”  (76) One
unambiguously unorthodox practice of Joan involved her leadership of men, not
only in the battlefield but also in religious practices. Jean de Dunois,
affectionately known as “the Bastard of Orleans,” testified that Joan led, not
merely participated in, the daily cyclical prayers that Catholics refer to as
the Divine Office or the Liturgy of the Hours:

It was her habit every day, at Vesper time or at dusk, to
retire into a church and have the bells rung for almost half an hour. Here she
gathered the mendicant friars who followed the royal army, and at that hour she
said her prayers and made these mendicant friars sing an anthem to the Blessed
Virgin, the Mother of God.  (78)

Touroulde’s testimony is often used to support claims that
Joan was a lesbian, and a disconcerting portion of her testimony is omitted in
a popular English translation that is replicated numerous times on the web; the
text that is omitted is the following:

I saw her several times in the bath and in the hot-room,
and so far as I could see I believe that she was a virgin.  (76)

Latin source text: Dicit insuper quod eam pluries vidit in
balneo et stuphis, et, ut percipere potuit, credit ipsam fore virginem.  (79)

French translation:  Elle déclare en outre qu’elle vit
plusieurs fois Jeanne au bain et dans les étuves; elle croit, comme elle a pu
le constater, qu’elle était vierge.  (80)

The Latin word stuphis may be translated as “steam
bath” or alternately as a geologic thermal spring, such as a source of hot
sulfur spring water. For readers interested in the location where the omitted
text should appear in Touroulde’s testimony, the following material provides
the context, with the omitted text in italics:

Jeanne was very liberal in almsgiving, and willingly
succored the poor and indigent, saying that she had been sent for their
consolation. And I saw her several times in the bath and in the hot-room,
and so far as I could see I believe that she was a virgin. I have no doubt
that she was virgin. According to my knowledge she was quite innocent, unless
it be in warfare. She rode on horseback and handled the lance like the best of
the knights, and the soldiers marveled.  (81)

Joan’s time in bed or in the baths with Marguerite la
Touroulde or time in bed with Catherine de La Rochelle doesn’t provide
conclusive evidence that Joan was a lesbian primarily because bedding was
relatively scarce in the fifteenth century and it was not uncommon for women to
share a bed. However, it is reasonable to ask why Touroulde would state, “so
far as I could see I believe that she was a virgin.” That, too, isn’t
conclusive because testimony from the Rehabilitation Trial revealed that Joan
not only was examined on several occasions regarding her virginity, but she
sometimes challenged others to inspect her if they didn’t believe it, so she
may have offered to “prove” her virginity to Touroulde solely to establish the
fact.

While individual historical facts are inadequate to make any
definitive conclusions about Joan’s sexual orientation, when viewed in their
entirety, it is reasonable to make the assertion that Joan was a lesbian,
particularly in light of several statements made by Joan, which are assumed to
be referring to the apparitions of Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret, but
instead could be referring to Catherine de La Rochelle and Marguerite la
Touroulde:

March 12 Session:

We asked whether she spoke to our Lord when she promised
Him to keep her virginity, and she answered that it was quite enough to promise
her virginity to those who were sent from Him, namely Saint Catherine and Saint
Margaret.

This statement is problematic because shortly after Joan
makes this assertion, she stated, “the first time she heard her Voice she vowed
to keep her virginity as long as it would please God, and that she was 13 years
old or about 13 years old at the time,” which is prior to the time she reports
promising her virginity to Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret.

March 17 Session:

Asked why she so happily looked at this ring when she was
going into battle, she answered that it was out of pleasure and in honor of her
father and mother, and because, having her ring on her finger and in her hand,
she touched Saint Catherine who appeared before her. Asked what part of Saint
Catherine she had touched, she said, “You will get no answer from me.”

Asked if she had ever kissed or touched Saint Catherine or
Saint Margaret, she answered she had touched them both. We asked if Saint
Catherine or Saint Margaret had a fine fragrance and she answered that it is
good to know that they did. Asked whether, when embracing Saint Catherine or
Saint Margaret, she felt heat or anything else, she said that she could not
embrace them without feeling and touching them.

Also, Article 1 submitted to the assessors on April 5
included the following:

Moreover, the so-called Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret
instructed Joan, in the name of God, to take and wear men’s clothes; and Joan
has worn them, and still wears them, stubbornly obeying this command to such an
extent that Joan has declared that she would rather die than abandon wearing
these clothes.

Karen Sullivan analyzed the Condemnation Trial transcripts,
testimony from the Rehabilitation Trial and other documentation and concluded
that Joan likely attributed the names of Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret to
her Voices primarily because she was repeatedly asked to assign identities to
Voices that were previously perceived by Joan as “Voices from God” and not
specific saints.  (82) Sullivan’s analysis shows
that, initially, Joan resisted characterizing her Voices as originating from
saints until the judges in her trial led or prompted her to assign identities
to the Voices. Joan’s initial descriptions unmistakably assigned the origin of
the Voices as coming from God. For example, on February 22, during the second
session of the trial:

She said that at the age of 13 she first heard a Voice from
God, to help her and to guide her. She said the first time she heard the Voice
she was very frightened. … She said that a characteristic of the Voice was that
it was admirable, and she believed it was sent from God. When she heard the
Voice for the third time she said she knew that it was the Voice of an angel;
she also said this Voice always protected her well, and that she understood it
well.

On the same day, Joan revealed that she heard more than one
distinct Voice, but she often referred to their origin in the singular, Voice:

She said that on her journey she passed through Auxerre and
she attended Mass in the principal church there. From that time forward she
said she frequently heard her Voices, including the one already mentioned. … Joan
said that there is not a day that goes by when she does not hear this Voice;
and that she needs the Voice very much. She said she never asked the Voice for
any final reward except only the salvation of her soul.

February 24, Third Session:

She said she firmly believes—as firmly as she believes in
the Christian faith and that the Lord redeemed us from the pains of hell—that
the Voice comes from God and by His command. Asked whether this Voice, which
she says appears to her, comes as an angel or directly from God, or whether it
is the Voice of one of the saints, she answered, “This Voice comes from God; I
believe I will not tell you everything about it; and I am more afraid of
failing the Voices by saying what is displeasing to them than of answering you.
On this question, I beg you to grant me a delay.”…

Asked if she saw anything else with the Voices, she
replied, “I will not tell you everything, I do not have permission, nor does my
oath touch on that. This Voice is good and worthy, and I am not bound to answer
you.” … When we asked whether the Voice could see and whether the Voice had
eyes, she answered, “You will not learn that yet,” and she added that there was
a saying among little children that “men are sometimes hanged for telling the
truth.”

It was during the fourth session on February 27 that Joan
attributed her Voices to Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret in response to a
question, “whether the Voice that spoke to her was that of an angel or a saint,
a male or a female, or straight from God.” Also during the fourth session:

We asked her whether it was a long time ago that she first
heard the Voice of St. Michael, and she said, “I do not speak of St. Michael’s
Voice, but of his great comfort.”

During the fifth session on March 1, Joan provided some
contradictory and nebulous statements about her Voices, revealing that she was
struggling to characterize her Voices in the precise terms demanded by the
judges:

Asked how she knew whether her apparition was a man or a
woman, she said she knew for certain because she recognized them by their
Voices and they revealed themselves to her. … When asked what part of them she
saw, she said the face. Asked if the saints that appear to her have hair, she
said, “Yes, it is very good to know that they have hair.” … We asked whether
their hair was long and flowing down, and she answered, “I do not know.” She
added that she didn’t know whether they appeared to have arms or other body
parts. She said that they spoke very well and beautifully, and she understood
them very well. Then we asked how they spoke if they had no other body parts,
and she answered, “I leave that to God.”

Sullivan noted that “it was to St. Catherine that several
chroniclers compared Joan after she responded brilliantly to the clerics who
examined her at Poitiers,” and “Catherine of Alexandria and Margaret of Antioch
resemble Joan in that they were also virgins who emerged in public life out of
obedience to the Christian God and who, despite their youth, their sex, and
their lack of familial or social support, became powerful in their societies.”  (83) Devotions to both saints were widely popular
during Joan’s lifetime, and although embellished stories developed surrounding
the lives of the two saints, both are believed to be historical persons. It’s
reasonable to conclude that if Joan decided to name her Voices after two
saints, then Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret would be likely choices.
However, statements made by Joan indicating she not only promised her virginity
to Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret, but also touched and embraced them gives
credibility to the notion that Joan could have been surreptitiously referring
to Catherine de La Rochelle and Marguerite la Touroulde.

Sullivan further tested her theory by examining evidence
from numerous sources, including testimony from witnesses in the Rehabilitation
Trial and accounts written by chroniclers, many of whom had first-hand contact
with Joan. The results of the analysis fully support her theory that Joan
attributed the names of Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret to her Voices
because she was repeatedly asked to assign identities to Voices that Joan
perceived as coming from God. A summary of her analysis in the following
paragraph is based on Sullivan’s chapter in Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc,
edited by Bonnie Wheeler and Charles T. Wood.

The Duc d’Alençon, a close associate of Joan, recalled that
Joan “declared herself sent by God.” A chronicler associated with Alençon wrote
that Joan said she was sent to King Charles “on the part [on behalf] of God.” Marguerite
la Touroulde said Joan “came on the part [on behalf] of God.” Jean de
Nouillompont, one of the individuals who escorted Joan from Vaucouleurs to see
the king, said Joan told him that “my Lord” requested her to undertake her
mission. Bertrand de Poulengy, another escort, recalled Joan saying “her Lord”
requested her to travel to the king. Henri LeRoyer (who owned a house where
Joan lodged on her way to see the king), Dunois (the Bastard of Orleans), Simon
Charles (president of the Courts of Finance under the king), and Father John
Pasquerel (Joan’s confessor), all reported that Joan referred to “God, my
Lord,” as the source of her Voices. Gobert Thibaut, a squire in service to the
king, reported that Joan said she came at the request of “the King of Heaven”
to end the siege of Orleans. François Garivel, one of the king’s counselors,
reported that Joan said she was sent by “the King of Heaven” to help the
dauphin [King Charles] as well as end the siege of Orleans and ensure the
dauphin could travel to Reims for his coronation. Colette Miliet, who visited
Joan in Orleans; her husband, Pierre; Guillaume Cousinot (author of Chronique
de la Pucelle and a key historical source on the siege of Orleans); and the
author of the Journal d’un siege d’Orleans (an anonymous account of
events related to ending the siege of Orleans), all reported that Joan referred
to “Messire” as the source of her inspiration; messire is Old French and
is translated as my sire or my Lord.

During the canonization process, which the Catholic Church
carries out to examine the life of an individual who is being considered for
official, public recognition and honor as a saint, numerous character flaws
were documented against Joan, including faults involving morality. Until 1983,
the canonization process used an adversarial trial system, and the person
appointed to oppose the cause for sainthood was referred to as the Devil’s
Advocate (DA). The system is no longer adversarial but still involves gathering
voluminous documentation about the person’s life.

Henry Ansgar Kelly analyzed documentation from Joan’s
beatification and canonization process and referenced the following from DA
Augustine Caprara, who was concerned that “she boasted of her virginity,
challenging her interrogators to have her inspected.”  (84) Caprara also found Joan to be guilty of immodesty by not being careful
enough about exposing her body around men “because the Duc d’Alençon testified
that he saw her beautiful breasts at times.”  (84) DA John Lugari noted, “the same is true of John d’Aulon, who could glimpse
her nipples when helping her to arm.”  (85) Other testimony from the Rehabilitation Trial noted by Lugari during the
canonization process included the following anecdote provided by Jean Marcel:

I have heard that the Duchess of Bedford had Joan examined
to see whether she was a virgin or not, and that she was found to be a virgin.
And I heard also from Jeannotin Simon, a tailor, that the Duchess of Bedford
ordered him to make a woman’s tunic for Joan, and that when he tried it on her,
he softly put his hand on her breast. She was annoyed and slapped Jeannotin’s
face.  (86)

DA Alexander Verde noted the following, as summarized by
Kelly (the DA is also referred to as the Promoter of the Faith):

Moving on to Joan’s lack of humility, the Promoter cites
another Consultor, who believes that not enough has been made of the objections
about Joan’s love of luxurious clothing, her horses [she had several horses],
and so on, and the not always humble way in which she dealt with her judges. It
all shows an attitude much different from that of the saints.  (87)

Also, there were more serious problems discussed and
documented by the DAs, including the abjuration signed by Joan to escape being
burned at the stake. While signing the document under such pressure is
completely understandable, it is nevertheless a clear failure in the type of heroic
virtue that is found in people who are canonized. DA Verde also raised
suspicions about her Voices, stating, “Who knows whether she did not suffer
some hallucination and cultivated it as consonant with her own genius.”  (88)

Joan’s path to canonized sainthood began in 1869 when the
Bishop of Orleans sent a formal petition to Rome. Initial investigations into
Joan’s case began five years later due to delays caused by the Franco-Prussian
War. Between 1874 and 1888, two consecutive bishops oversaw approximately
ninety sessions spanning three separate investigations, after which the case
was accepted by Rome’s Sacred Congregation of Rites. Documentation from the
first DA, Caprara, is dated 1892, and the next significant event occurred in
1894:

The title of Venerable is first attributed to Joan in the
decree of the Congregation of Rites approving of the introduction of her cause,
“after the voice and writing of the Promoter of the Faith, Augustine Caprara,
had been heard,” [in] a decree dated January 27, 1894, and signed by the pope
himself on that day. … Later in 1894, the Sacred Congregation of Rites
published a longish history of Joan of Arc in which no whisper of blame is to
be heard.  (89)

Two volumes of documentation were published in 1901 that
address concerns raised by the second DA Lugari, who asserted “the principle
obstacle to Joan’s consideration for sainthood is her reliance on her own judgment
in the matter of her revelations.”  (90) However,
in Joan’s defense, the “Defender Minetti spends a great deal of time showing
that Joan consistently attempted to have her case removed from the prejudicial
court of the bishop of Beauvais and brought to the pope.”   (90) Defender is the title given to the individual who opposes the DA.

An extraordinary event occurred in the next phase of the
canonization process. The Catholic Church does not make pronouncements that a
person being considered for sainthood “failed to qualify.” Processes may
continue for decades, and centuries may pass because the individual does not
progress further from the title of Venerable. However, between April 19, 1902,
when DA Verde wrote a 24-page attack on Joan’s character, and February 12,
1903, when the Defender Minetti wrote a 367-page response that was supplemented
by a 198-page Expositio Virtutum (Exposition of Virtues) document, headlines
such as the following appeared in U.S. newspapers:

Will Not Be Canonized: Morals of Joan of Arc Were Not Those
of a Saint  (91)

Joan of Arc: Canonization Denied to Her  (92)

Joan of Arc Not to Be Canonized  (93)

The story published under the first headline listed above
appears on page two of The Indianapolis Journal, dated November 10, 1902:

BALTIMORE, Md., Nov 9—Rome has advised ecclesiastical
circles here of the decision of the Congregation of Rites that Joan of Arc, the
Maid of Orleans, shall not be canonized, and in so deciding has stigmatized the
name of the famous girl in a startling manner. The principal reason for which
canonization is denied is the alleged discovery of facts against her moral
character which precluded the possibility of according to her saintly
reverence.

The congregation has also announced that Joan of Arc was
guilty of the grave fault of attacking Paris on a feast of the Blessed Virgin,
in signing a confession to the effect that she had no divine commission to
deliver France from her enemies, and that her claims to such distinction were
fraudulent and a prevarication. The confession was made, according to the
English, in the hope that she might be saved thereby from the ignominious death
at the stake which she afterwards suffered.

The proclamation of the reasons has caused surprise here,
as it is felt that they will seriously offend religious elements in France,
where Joan of Arc is regarded as a national patron saint, on the same plane
with St. Patrick in Ireland and St. George in England and St. James in Spain.
The practical aspersion of her character in France as a saint, it is generally
believed, will prove a play into the hands of the present French Ministry,
engaged as it is in suppressing the religious orders.

The Roman curia has never been partial to Joan of Arc. The
agitation to have her canonized began during the later years of Napoleon III,
and it is alleged that had he remained on his throne and continued to maintain
an army in the eternal city for the protection of the temporal rights of the
Papacy the matter would have been settled in her favor long ago. But with the
overthrow of Napoleon and the withdrawal of the French troops from Rome, which
ended in the seizure of the city by the Italians and the conquest of the states
of the church, the question dragged along until the accession of Pope Leo XIII,
who at once saw the importance of pleasing the French Catholics and identifying
French national sentiment with Catholicism.

Queen Victoria, at the head of the English nation, whose
ancestors had condemned Joan of Arc at the stake, was asked if she had any
objections to offer, it is said, to the Maid of Orleans being canonized, and on
a negative reply being received the process of canonization was begun. Joan of
Arc was accordingly “beatified,” which is the first step toward canonization,
and is now termed “blessed.”

That the Queen of England, a Protestant, should have been
consulted by the Vatican relative to the canonization of a Catholic saint, may
appear extraordinary, until it is remembered that the Maid of Orleans was
regarded as a witch by the English and that her “martyrdom,” as the French
people believed, for freedom’s sake, as well as that of conscience, is the
chief ground on which her canonization was asked.

The French people have now, it is said, learned for the
first time that the Queen was consulted before the beatification of Joan of
Arc, and indignation is felt because of it.

As far as known Joan of Arc left no descendants. She had a
brother, and from him are descended the Marquises and Counts De Maleysie, one
of whom is married to an American girl, Miss Sterns, of New York, who would
have figured prominently at the canonization ceremonies in St. Peter’s, Rome.

The following text is from Harper’s Weekly, dated April
11, 1903, and is written in a tabloid style:

About three months ago the Congregation of Rites at Rome
announced its resolution to deny canonization to Joan of Arc, giving, among its
several reasons for its actions, a declaration to the effect that after a
careful consideration of all evidence presented both for and against the fair
Joan, it was impossible to arrive at any other conclusion but that the dame in
question was not entitled to the surname of “maid” accorded to her by her
admirers. … This declaration by the Congregation of Rites that Joan of Arc was
not entitled to the qualification of “maid” lends a new importance to the
pretensions put forward by several French noblemen, of a more or less authentic
character, to include her among their ancestors. … It is only fair to add,
however, that the general public has always been agreed that Joan of Arc left
no descendants—at any rate of a legitimate character.  (93)

Regarding the news reports quoted above, which relate “the
discovery of facts against her moral character” and a “declaration by the
Congregation of Rites that Joan of Arc was not entitled to the qualification of
‘maid,’” it’s clear the primary sources for the news reports implied that Joan
was not a virgin. However, because there was so much evidence that Joan was, in
fact, a virgin, it’s possible that DA Verde and others may have concluded that
Joan consummated a relationship with a woman.

Although there is no evidence Joan consummated a
relationship with Robert de Baudricourt, her response to the accusation made in
Article 11—as well as other comments by Joan that she was willing to give up
her virginity if it was the will of God—appears to support the possibility that
she had a relationship with Baudricourt that was more than friendship but which
may or may not have been sexual. The charges specified in Article 11 were
written by the trial judges and the story could have been embellished or
entirely fabricated by Baudricourt.

Article 11:

Joan, having entered into intimate relations with Robert de
Baudricourt, boasted to have told him that after having accomplished everything
revealed to her by God, that she would have three sons: the first would be
Pope, the second emperor, and the third king.

After hearing this, the captain said to her, “Now then, I
would like to give you a child since they’re going to be such powerful men,
because I’m worth as much or more and I would be better off.” To which Joan
replied, “Gentle Robert, no, no, this is not the time; the Holy Spirit will
find a way!” Robert confirmed and repeated this conversation in many places,
including in the presence of clerics, lawyers and notable persons.

Joan’s response:

To this eleventh article, Joan answered by referring us to
the answers she made elsewhere on this subject; and as for having three
children, she never boasted about it.

Joan’s statements regarding a willingness to give up her
virginity if it was God’s will indicates that Joan probably had heterosexual
inclinations and may have been bisexual. Additionally, the following evidence
indicates Joan may have been “gender fluid.”

Joan’s extreme reluctance to give up wearing men’s clothes,
even for the purpose of attending Mass, was reflected in the transcripts of the
March 15 session: “As urgently as she could, she implored us to allow her to
attend Mass in the clothes she wore, without any change.” Yet, despite being
adamant about remaining in men’s clothes at all times, Joan expressed a
willingness to change into women’s clothes but only for specific women:

March 3 Session:

We asked her whether she was requested to stop wearing
men’s clothes at the castle of Beaurevoir, and she replied, “Yes, that is true,
and I answered I would not stop wearing men’s clothes without getting God’s
permission.” She said the Demoiselle of Luxembourg and the Lady of Beaurevoir
offered her a woman’s dress, or the cloth to make one, and they told her to
wear it, however, Joan replied that she did not have God’s permission and it
was not yet time. When asked if Messire Jean de Pressy and others at Arras did
not offer her women’s clothes, she said that he and many others had often asked
her to wear a woman’s dress. Asked whether she believed she would have done
wrong or committed a mortal sin by wearing women’s clothes, she replied that
she did better to obey and serve her sovereign Lord, namely God. However, she
said that if she had to wear a woman’s dress, she would rather have done so at
the request of those two ladies than of any other ladies in France, except the
queen.

Joan’s path to sainthood mirrors a contemporary culture
that’s often cited for a lack of morality and an inability to coalesce around a
common set of principles that define the difference between good and bad
behavior. But Joan’s situation reflects the reality of many Catholics who are
often referred to by Pope Francis as people on the margins—those who live on
the outskirts of the Church. These individuals are striving to live a life of
love but feel they are second-class members of the Church because they aren’t
officially permitted to receive Holy Communion even though they are not subjectively
guilty of committing a mortal sin. These members of the Church include many
divorced and remarried Catholics, homosexuals in same-sex relationships, and
others who are in some way nonconformist but nevertheless love Christ and love
the Church. Perhaps Joan of Arc will eventually be viewed as the patron saint
of Catholics who were driven out of the Church by the haughtiness of
holier-than-thou hypocrites.

Origin of Joan’s Voices

Academic peer pressure typically discourages serious
researchers from discussing the possibility of supernatural intervention when
accounting for phenomena such as the origin of Joan’s Voices. A thorough and
balanced analysis is difficult because the realms of supernatural activity and
divine inspiration are considered off-limits. However, undergraduate students
in English composition courses are not quite so deterred, and Victoria
Yuskaitis has effectively analyzed both sides of the main arguments regarding
Joan’s Voices—divine inspiration versus mental illness—and has written a
concise report that summarizes the conclusions as well as the limitations of
both arguments. It’s freely available on the web under the title, Joan of
Arc: Inspired or Insane, at the Lycoming College website.  (94)

In her March 17 testimony, Joan indicated she touched and
embraced Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret. Strict secularists would interpret
such statements as either delusions or lies. However, it’s useful to look at
reports that indicate the ability or inability—to have or try to have—sensory
contact with apparitions.

In one example, there are statements made by two people
asserting it was impossible to touch an apparition that was reported to occur
on August 21, 1879, in Knock, Ireland. Fifteen people reported seeing the Blessed
Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph, and Saint John the Evangelist, who appeared in front
of a gable wall at the Knock Parish church. Documentation of the event noted
that “the witnesses watched the apparition in the pouring rain for two hours,
reciting the Rosary. Although they themselves were saturated, not a single drop
of rain fell on the gable or vision.”  (95) One witness, Patrick Hill, reported the following:

I distinctly beheld the Blessed Virgin Mary, life size,
standing about two feet or so above the ground clothed in white robes which
were fastened at the neck. … At times she appeared, and all the figures
appeared, to move out, and again to go backwards; I saw them move; she did not
speak; I went up very near; one old woman went up and embraced the Virgin’s
feet, and she found nothing in her arms and hands; they receded, she said, from
her.  (96)

The woman mentioned above, Bridget Trench, reported:

When I arrived there I saw distinctly the three figures, I
threw myself on my knees and exclaimed, “A hundred thousand thanks to God and
to the glorious Virgin that has given us this manifestation.” I went in
immediately to kiss, as I thought, the feet of the Blessed Virgin, but I felt
nothing in the embrace but the wall, and I wondered why I could not feel with
my hands the figures which I had so plainly and so distinctly seen.  (96)

An example of a tangible apparition was discussed by Marija
Pavlovic-Lunnetti, one of six individuals who have reported seeing apparitions
of the Blessed Virgin Mary since June 24, 1981. The following quote is from a
talk given March 24, 2004, at Corpus Christi Basilica in Manchester, England:

We prayed the Rosary and Our Lady appeared. The moment She
appeared She said we could all get close to Her and touch Her. We said, “How is
it possible, only the six of us can see you and nobody else can?” Our Lady
said, “Take their hands and get them close to me.” And so we did. And Our Lady
allowed that everybody touched Her. Everybody felt something when they touched
Our Lady. Some cold, or warm, or perfume of roses, or like an electric shock,
and they all believed that Our Lady was really present.  (97)

Conchita Gonzalez of Garabandal, Spain, experienced more
than 2,000 apparitions of the Virgin Mary, almost all occurring between June 18,
1961, and January 20, 1963. (90) Gonzalez kept a
diary of her experiences, and her diary is included in an analysis conducted by
Father Joseph A. Pelletier, which is freely available on the web under the
title, Our Lady Comes to Garabandal. Gonzalez was twelve years old when
the apparitions began, and other children were sometimes involved. Pelletier
wrote:

It [kissing] was a maternal gesture that was repeated quite
often in subsequent apparitions at the conclusion of the ecstasy. The children
were observed placing themselves in a position to receive or give a kiss to the
vision. Occasionally they lifted each other, without any effort, to reach Our
Lady. This would usually take place before or after a final sign of the cross,
after which the apparition would end.  (98)

Natural and supernatural explanations have been offered to
account for Joan’s Voices and reports of apparitions. Natural explanations typically
focus on hallucinations associated with conditions such as schizophrenia or
epilepsy. The visible lights that Joan referred to may be indicative of epileptic
seizures. Also, temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) has been associated with reports
of paranormal experiences, including visions and accurate premonitions. The
Epilepsy Foundation hosts a Community Forum at epilepsy.com, which includes
comments such as the following:

While I was sitting in the waiting room I kept going into
these hallucinations, they felt like I was being kissed by the Gods, as you
explain it. I felt overwhelming sensations that felt like God was letting me
know that he was right there next to me while I was seizing. He was telling me
to not be so mad all the time, and that he was keeping an eye on me. I’m Roman
Catholic, but I don't practice my faith a lot.”  (99)

My first ecstatic seizure came hot on the heels of several
really bad CP seizures—I couldn't seem to come out of them and then had the
best experience of my life (until very recently). I'll call it my “God” moment
but won’t go into details other than to say I fully understand why people become
convinced that God exists.  (99)

This is my first post and I do not know where to start. … 3
months ago my 22 yr. old daughter suffered a grand mal seizure. … Now, here
comes the strange part, last week she had a period of intense concern and after
a short sleep woke up to what can only be described as a changed soul—extremely
intuitive and spiritual.   She has always been very in tune with people’s
moods/problems but now these have taken on a whole new life. She sees people’s
auras and accurately describes each person’s colour (she has not done any
research on people’s auras as she had always thought this to be “hippy
dippy”!!). Her descriptions so far have been 100% accurate and she also appears
to know about traumas that have happened to people that she meets that have had
far reaching effect and impact on their lives. I think she feels that she has
become a healer of some sort and says that she feels much more relaxed now—much
happier. My other daughter has been completely “freaked out” by her sister’s
change and feels that this is just part of her seizures and fears that her
brain has been damaged. Has anyone heard of something like this?   (99)

How accurate are people with TLE and their predictions? My
most recent one was terribly hard on me (and those that love me) but incredibly
accurate. … I was right about things that I in no way could possibly have
known. Has anybody else had predictions that were too accurate to be luck?   (100)

I find it fascinating how many people who suffer from TLE
also had psychic experiences from their earliest days. Hopefully one day the
worlds of the paranormal and science will converge and we’ll be able to
understand the “why” behind such interesting phenomenon as premonitions coming
true, out of body experiences, etc.   (100)

I’ve never joined one of these talk-back things before, but
I feel compelled to join this one. … This is truly the agony and the ecstasy!
Have a seizure and find religion. Who would a’ thunk it. I have truly found
G-d. I convinced a room full of psychiatrists that G-d was in the room and that
I was talking to him and that I was neither psychotic nor grandiose. I was
dying and had a near death experience that is the best thing has ever happened
to me in my life. I speak to Him often and he came to me and touched me and
gave me life. Yes I was seizing.   (99)

It’s often easy to use a natural explanation to account for
something that appears to be supernatural. Natural explanations are credible
insofar as they align with reported events, but some events defy any type of
natural explanation. Near-death experiences (NDEs) are often dismissed as being
hallucinations, however, at least one category of NDEs can’t be explained away
as hallucinations. These NDEs involve fully anesthetized surgery patients who
are later able to report precise details about activities that occurred in the
operating room. The reports are subsequently verified by physicians and other
medical staff as being completely accurate. These patients typically describe
the behavior of people in the operating room in rigorous detail, and can often describe
the activities of people outside of the hospital—for example, indicating the
routes driven by relatives traveling to the hospital during the time the
patient is in surgery.

Other aspects of NDEs that defy natural explanation include
reports of experiences that are consistent across a wide range of people
regardless of their age, cultural background, geographic origin, religion, or
lack of religion. Mona Simpson, the sister of Steve Jobs, was with him at the
moment he died, and she recalled his NDE:

Steve’s final words, hours earlier, were monosyllables,
repeated three times. Before embarking, he’d looked at his sister Patty, then
for a long time at his children, then at his life’s partner, Laurene, and then
over their shoulders past them. Steve’s final words were: OH WOW. OH WOW. OH
WOW.  (101)

The capital letters were written by Simpson and appeared in The
New York Times in an editorial titled, “A Sister’s Eulogy for Steve Jobs,”
in which she wrote, “Even as a feminist, my whole life I’d been waiting for a
man to love, who could love me. For decades, I’d thought that man would be my
father. When I was 25, I met that man and he was my brother.”  (101)

Also, despite skepticism on the subject of auras, there are
testimonies that are difficult to discount, such as the following recollection
of a survivor of a plane crash involving a flight scheduled to fly from
Singapore to Los Angeles. The pilots attempted a takeoff during a typhoon and
used the wrong runway. The crash killed eighty-three of the 179 people on
board, and one of the survivors, an irreligious person, recounted his
experience to Oprah Winfrey, who relayed it in the following words:

As he was leaving the plane, he said, all the bodies were
on fire on the plane, and he looked back and he saw that auras were coming up
out of the bodies, up out of the flames, and that he wasn’t a religious person,
but he learned in that moment that he wanted—and that some auras were brighter
than others—and that he said “I want to live my life so that my aura is always
bright.”  (102)

Throughout the history of the Church, mysticism has played a
vital role in the lives of individual Catholics as well as in the Church as an
institution. As defined by the Catholic Encyclopedia, mysticism:

Implies a relation to mystery; in philosophy, mysticism is
either a religious tendency and desire of the human soul towards an intimate
union with the divinity, or a system growing out of such a tendency and desire.
As a philosophical system, mysticism considers as the end of philosophy the
direct union of the human soul with the divinity through contemplation and
love, and attempts to determine the processes and the means of realizing this
end. This contemplation, according to mysticism, is not based on a merely
analogical knowledge of the Infinite, but as a direct and immediate intuition
of the Infinite. … [The Church] teaches that, what man [or woman] cannot know
by natural reason, he [or she] can know through revelation and faith; that what
he [or she] cannot attain to by his [or her] natural power he [or she] can
reach by the grace of God. God has gratuitously elevated human nature to a
supernatural state.  (103)

Mathilde Bertrand-Boutlè was a French mystic who wrote under
the pseudonym, Lucie Christine. She described her mystical union with God in
the following words:

All that can be said is that this august Majesty takes
possession of the soul and ravishes her by a charm as great as the reverence
with which it inspires her. And the soul, beside herself, is filled with awe at
the sight of such greatness and yet feels drawn to it by an irresistible force;
she finds therein her happiness, she sports in God as in a boundless universe,
and she tastes in him, her first Principle and her last End, a rest to which
nothing human can be compared. She feels herself penetrated by this divine nature,
she feels that in it she lives and in it alone she has her being, her love is
inflamed for the adorable Being who is her life, she feels that he possesses
her more than she possesses her own self, and all her strength dissolving in
him, like a drop of water in a boundless ocean, it appears to her that her love
and her life are one!  (104)

Mystical experiences in Catholicism include the types
described above, which involve, to varying degrees, union with God during
prayer. Other experiences such as those described by Joan involve visible
phenomena perceived as apparitions, which may or may not be accompanied by
audible messages. Other types of messages—interior locutions—are inaudible, not
processed through the ears. Gonzalez described an interior locution she
received from the Blessed Virgin Mary in her diary:

“Conchita, do not doubt that my Son will perform a
miracle!” I heard it interiorly, as clearly as if through my ears and even
better than if it had been through words. It left me with a peace and joy even
greater than that experienced when I saw her. … I no longer experienced any
doubts about anything. … The locutions did me so much good, so very much good,
for it was as if the Blessed Virgin was within me. What happiness! … I prefer
the locution to the apparitions, because in the locution I have her within me.
Oh, what happiness when I have the Blessed Virgin in me! … I prefer to have
Jesus in me, Jesus who will give me the cross to purify me, and through my
crosses will permit me to do something for the world with the help of God, for
by myself I can do nothing.  (105)

One explanation regarding why messages received via interior
locutions don’t pass through the ears involves the role of the “Indwelling
Trinity” in communicating those messages.  (106) Similarly, the same is true for the Blessed Mother within. An essential truth or
required belief (dogma) of Catholicism is that the Blessed Virgin Mary was
bodily assumed into heaven in “a singular participation in her Son’s
Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians.”  (107) As a result:

Pope Benedict XVI writes that “precisely because Mary is
with God and in God, she is very close to each one of us. While she lived on
this earth she could only be close to a few people. Being in God, who is
actually ‘within’ all of us, Mary shares in the closeness of God.” Our Lady
“knows our hearts, can hear our prayers, can help us with her motherly
kindness. She always listens to us and, being Mother of the Son, participates
in the power of the Son and his goodness.”  (108)

Gonzalez described another type of locution as “that voice
of interior happiness which speaks without words.” Many types of experiences in
this category have been noted by mystics in the Church, and Gonzalez described
a rare version accompanied by an interior force that often led her and other
girls to walk—often backwards while in an ecstatic state—to a wooded area in
Garabandal called The Pines, where a large number of apparitions were
experienced and witnessed by others:

When we had finished the Rosary and had failed to see her,
we said: “We shouldn’t be surprised or sad, as the apparition has always
occurred later in the day.” Since she didn’t come, we went to our homes and did
the things they asked us to do around the house.

When the hour approached at which we had seen the Blessed
Virgin for the first time on Sunday, our parents, because they now believed
more in the apparitions, said to us: “You should go and say the Rosary at the cuadro
[wooden frame erected at The Pines to keep crowds from disturbing the
visionaries].”

“But we haven’t been called yet,” we replied. They were
puzzled and said: “But, how are you called?”

We told them that it was like an interior voice, but that
we did not hear it with our ears, nor did we hear ourselves called by name. It
is a feeling of joy. There are three calls. The first is a weaker feeling of
joy. The second is a little stronger. But the third one makes us very excited
and very happy. Then the apparition occurs.

We only depart for the site of the apparition at the second
call, for, if we leave at the first, we have to wait there a long while because
there is a long delay between the first and the second call.  (98)

Interior locutions range across a spectrum from subtle
“movements of the heart” perceived during prayer to the extraordinary example
described above. At the more subtle end of the spectrum, movements of the
heart shouldn’t be misinterpreted as a reference to something purely
sentimental in nature. The Catechism defines prayer, in part, as the
“raising of one’s mind and heart to God.”  (109) “According to Sacred Scripture, it is the heart that prays. If our heart is far
from God, the words of prayer are in vain.”  (110) Also, from the Catechism:

The heart is the dwelling-place where I am, where I live;
according to the Semitic or Biblical expression, the heart is the place “to
which I withdraw.” The heart is our hidden center, beyond the grasp of our
reason and of others; only the Spirit of God can fathom the human heart and
know it fully. The heart is the place of decision, deeper than our psychic drives.
It is the place of truth, where we choose life or death. It is the place of
encounter, because as an image of God we live in relation: it is the place of
covenant.  (111)

Catholicism teaches that the heart is where the will
or decision-making capabilities, the intellect, the body with its passions, and
the soul, intersect. Pope Benedict XVI described heart during the
twenty-sixth World Youth Day, 2011, held in Madrid, Spain. The Pope’s
description of the heart referenced a part of the Mass where believers are
called to lift up your hearts:

In the language of the Bible and the thinking of the
Fathers, the heart is the centre of man [and woman], where understanding, will
and feeling, body and soul, all come together. The centre where spirit becomes
body and body becomes spirit, where will, feeling and understanding become one
in the knowledge and love of God. This is the “heart” which must be lifted up.
But to repeat: of ourselves, we are too weak to lift up our hearts to the
heights of God. We cannot do it. The very pride of thinking that we are able to
do it on our own drags us down and estranges us from God. God himself must draw
us up, and this is what Christ began to do on the cross. He descended to the
depths of our human existence in order to draw us up to himself, to the living
God.  (112)

Movements of the heart are typically described in terms of
joy, but they can also involve negative or unpleasant feelings. Saint Ignatius
of Loyola referred to movements of joy, hope, and peace as consolations,
and movements of sadness, fear, and anxiety as desolations. How to
interpret and respond to these movements is the subject of a book by Timothy M.
Gallagher, The Discernment of Spirits:

All who have preceded us in the journey of faith have
experienced such movements of the heart, and they, like us have made choices in
response to these movements, accepting or rejecting them. … I realized that
Ignatius here provides an unparalleled resource for overcoming what is
generally the major obstacle faithful persons encounter in their efforts to
grow spiritually: discouragement, fear, loss of hope, and other troubling
movements of the heart. … My aim, then, is to offer an experience-based
presentation of Ignatius’s rules for discernment of spirits in order to
facilitate their ongoing application in the spiritual life.  (113)

Discerning movements of the heart and learning how to
respond to them are keys to growth in prayer, which is meant to be a dialogue
as opposed to a one-way communication. Growth in prayer typically moves along a
continuum throughout life, beginning with vocal prayer (saying or
thinking about the words that form the prayer), then progressing to two types
of mental prayer. The first type involves meditating (thinking more
deeply and for longer periods of time) about, for example, the words written in
sacred scripture as well as events in the life of Christ, the Blessed Mother,
and holy people and angels mentioned in the Bible; this includes meditating on
their roles, their activities, and the events where they appear in sacred scripture.

Unlike vocal prayer or meditative prayer, contemplative
prayer involves mystical, two-way communication between the person praying and
God, the Blessed Mother, a saint, or a holy angel. The Church refers to these
received messages as private revelations, which are distinguished from public
revelation. Public revelation includes sacred scripture and the apostolic tradition
that was established prior to the time the last of the apostles died. The
purpose of private revelation, which includes phenomena such as Joan’s Voices,
apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and interior locutions, is to provide
the evidence that people need to experience the reality of the Gospel of
Christ. These private revelations enable the person to move from a purely
faith-based relationship with God to an experiential relationship with God.

Vocal prayers, especially when prayed silently in the mind
instead of verbally, can develop into meditative and contemplative (mystical)
experiences. The Rosary, for example, can be purely a vocal prayer, but it also
encourages the person praying it to meditate on various events in the life of
Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary that pertain to redemption. There are five
key events in each of the four overarching mysteries of the Rosary—Joyful,
Luminous, Sorrowful, and Glorious—and an overview of the mysteries and of the
Rosary itself is found in Saint John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter titled Rosarium
Virginis Mariae (Rosary of the Virgin Mary). Each “decade” (ten beads or
ten prayers of the Hail Mary) in the five-decade Rosary is associated with an event
to meditate upon, and the meditation can progress from merely thinking about
the events to vividly imagining you are a witness or a participant in the
events. That particular approach to prayer, which may develop into a mystical
experience, is based on the writings of Saint Ignatius of Loyola, who founded
the Society of Jesus (Jesuits). While placing oneself in the context of a
historical event can facilitate a mystical encounter with Christ or the Virgin Mary,
having such an approach to prayer isn’t necessary to experience interior locutions;
in fact, the approach isn’t well-suited for many people.

Claims of apparitions—visual encounters with supernatural
beings—are easily discounted, but some claims are strengthened by credible
testimonies and objectively documented events. Randall Sullivan, a journalist
who was a contributing editor at Rolling Stone magazine for twenty years,
wrote an extensive account of Marian apparitions reported by several people in
Scottsdale, Arizona. In his book, The Miracle Detective, Sullivan reported
the Scottsdale apparitions began in September 1987 with Gianna Talone, age
thirty:

She told herself it was a dream that first time: It was
after midnight and she was lying in bed when a young woman, beautiful beyond
belief, appeared out of thin air and began praying over her. She could see the
woman quite clearly, Gianna said, slim and of medium height, wearing a white
robe and a semi-sheer veil, with long dark hair, steel-blue eyes, a porcelain
complexion, ruby lips, and rosy cheeks. The fingers of the two hands pressed
together in front of her were long and perfectly tapered, Gianna noticed; the
young woman did not speak, but smiled radiantly, then disappeared.  (114)

Like other visionaries in the Scottsdale apparitions, Talone
initially thought she “had gone mad” when, two months after seeing Mary on
three consecutive nights, “she heard a voice, a male voice, quite clear and
perfectly distinct, say, ‘The Lord seeks favor upon you, for you have cried for
the Lord.’”  (114) Talone also reported a vision
of the Blessed Mother in which Mary requested a prayer group of young adults
aged eighteen to thirty-three be formed at Saint Maria Goretti parish:

She had been shown six young people, one of them herself,
kneeling at an altar, Gianna explained. The others were Steve and Wendy Nelson,
Susan Evans, plus two others, Mary Cook and Jimmy Kupanoff. Off to the side
were two other young women: one standing, whom she recognized as Stephanie
Staab, and another on her knees, whom she did not remember seeing before.  (115)

Within weeks, each member of the core group experienced
apparitions or locutions that led them to the parish church to join the prayer
group, which eventually grew to more than a thousand members. A few days after
Talone described her vision to Father Jack Spaulding at Saint Maria Goretti
church, Spaulding recalled a visit to his office by Staab:

The first words out of Stephanie’s mouth were almost the
same ones Gianna had opened with, the priest recalled: “Father, I think I may
be losing my mind.” She had been hearing a voice, Stephanie explained, the
voice of a woman who had instructed her to copy out a lengthy disquisition.
When the priest read the several pages she handed him, he was visibly shaken
[by] … the most moving treatise on conversion of the heart that he had ever
read.  (116)

A week later Spaulding received another visitor, Steve
Nelson, who said, “I think I’m going crazy.” “Let me finish,” the priest
interrupted. “You’ve been hearing a woman’s voice.”  (117) Another person in the group, Evans, described her initial experience—an
interior locution from Jesus:

She had been sitting with her family at a friend’s wedding
reception, Susan told Spaulding, when she heard a male voice ask, “Would you
give up your family for Me?” She looked around the circle of her relations,
then answered, “Yes, Lord.”  (118)

Kupanoff, another member of the group, said, “the Virgin had
spoken to him in his heart, and that he had experienced a conversion.”  (115)

Talone had discussed her vision with Cook, that she saw Cook
in her vision, but Cook “found the whole idea really frightening, and didn’t
want to believe it, anyway… I didn’t want it to be real, and I knew it wasn’t
for me.”  (119) Cook had had three abortions and
“seemed to careen from one destructive relationship to the next, barely pausing
between.”  (115) Two weeks later, Cook moved
from Arizona to Wisconsin, but within two more weeks, she moved back to Arizona
and discussed her experience with Spaulding:

Soon after arriving in Wisconsin, Mary explained to the
priest when she came in that afternoon, she had heard a woman’s voice. She knew
it was the Blessed Mother, asking her to return to Arizona and join the prayer
group, yet despite this, she had refused. The Virgin asked again though,
requesting that she go back to Scottsdale and meet with Spaulding. The moment
she said yes, Mary explained, a sense of peace welled up within her.  (119)

The Scottsdale apparitions involving eight individuals and
Talone have been investigated by the Church separately from apparitions and
messages Talone reported in Emmitsburg, Maryland. The Church officially rules
on apparitions to be in one of three categories: supernatural; not
supernatural; or no conclusive evidence to support a ruling of supernatural or
not supernatural. The Scottsdale apparitions have been designated in the third
category, as inconclusive. In October 1989, Father Ernest Larkin of the Investigative
Commission of the Diocese of Phoenix stated, “We don't think that these are
hoaxes or that there is any attempt to deceive anybody. We simply maintain that
there is not enough evidence to say that these are miracles.” Father Robert
Faricy, a theologian and Emeritus Professor of Spirituality at the Pontifical Gregorian
University in Rome, stated, “Personally, as anyone can, we believe strongly in
the authenticity of the Scottsdale apparitions and messages. Furthermore, as
Roman Catholics we submit our observations and convictions in obedience to the
Church and subject to official judgment.”  (120)

Arriving at contemplative, mystical prayer typically doesn’t
happen overnight, but it is possible to easily experience mystical prayer—where
the person praying has a direct experience with God, the Blessed Virgin Mary,
other people in heaven, as well as angels, including having conversations where
the person praying asks a question and waits in contemplative silence for an
answer. Faith is the catalyst that makes the experiences possible; the
individual must come to the realization that they are completely inadequate to
“complete the transaction” on their own.

Sacred art can play a major role in an individual’s
spiritual development because it can stimulate the heart in ways that words
cannot. Regarding the role that statues, images, and other sacred objects can
have in spiritual development, the Church teaches that such objects are sacramentals:

Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in
the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church’s prayer, they prepare us to
receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it. For well-disposed members of
the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost
every event of their lives with the divine grace which flows from the Paschal
mystery of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. From this source all
sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is scarcely any proper use
of material things which cannot be thus directed toward the sanctification of
men [and women] and the praise of God.  (121)

The use of sacramentals to facilitate direct encounters with
God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, saints, and angels is disparaged by many people
in the Church for being akin to superstition, pure sentimentality, or perhaps
even a practice best reserved for lower-class Catholics. Austen Ivereigh’s biography
of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical
Pope, includes a humorous anecdote illustrating the dichotomy that exists
within the Church regarding sacramentals. In Buenos Aires, Argentina, when Pope
Francis (then Jorge Bergoglio), was head of the Jesuit College, Colegio Máximo
de San José, and in charge of the formation program for Jesuit seminarians and
priests, many intellectuals were horrified by aspects of the program:

He encouraged a style of popular religiosity among the
students, who would go to a chapel at night and touch images! This was
something the poor did, the people of the pueblo, something that the
Society of Jesus [Jesuits] worldwide just doesn’t do. I mean, touching
images … what is that? And the older ones, praying the Rosary together in
the gardens. Look, I’m not against that, but I’m not in favor either. It’s just
not typical of us. But it became normal at the time.  (122)

There is a great deal of polarization on this issue and
related activities, with perhaps a 50/50 split among the Church hierarchy as
well as in the pews, with half viewing these practices as antiquated at best,
and the other half—those touching the images and praying the Rosary—viewing the
practices and objects as effective mediums to cross the gap between the natural
and supernatural worlds.

Simply stated, “In a sacramental religion material things are
doorways to the spirit.”  (123) The icon or the
sacramental is the vehicle through which God or a saint in heaven becomes present
to us. When a person prays with the intention of entering into a two-way
dialogue with God or a saint and uses an icon or a sacramental object as an
integral part of the prayer, the subject and the object can become united by
the grace of God. The degree or level of unification between the person praying
and God or a saint can range from a subtle movement of the heart to an ecstatic
state where the person is oblivious to their surroundings.

Catholicism defines the soul as “intellect + will,” and
“intellect + will = mind.” In mental prayer, the soul, the mind, is not bound
by the limitations of space and time, which is why Saint Ignatius of Loyola
could recommend using one’s mind to vividly imagine themselves in an encounter
with Christ or the Blessed Virgin. Also, prior to the death of the biological
body, the soul and the body are inextricably united, so the act of touching
an image can, by the grace of God, facilitate a connection. Discerning whether
the connection is real or purely an act of one’s imagination may be difficult
during early stages in the development of a prayer life, but a daily practice
of prayer, whether it is twenty minutes or three hours, is key to accurate
discernment.

Pope Benedict XVI addressed the question of images and
statues at length in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, stating:

These images, too, do not show just the “surface of the
skin,” the external sensible world; they, too, are intended to lead us through
mere outward appearance and open our eyes to the heart of God. … What power of
inward devotion lies in the images of the Mother of God! … Such images are an
invitation to prayer, because they are permeated with prayer from within.  (124)

On the topic of “praying to” statues and images, the
practice was first formally addressed at the Church’s Second Council of Nicaea
in 787. The word iconoclast is typically defined as a person who attacks
cherished beliefs or institutions, but the origin of the word is derived from
the Greek eikonoklastēs, meaning to break or smash religious
statues.

Iconoclasm was an eighth-century movement to rid the Church
of perceived idol worship, but the Church addressed the misunderstanding at
Nicaea by stating the obvious: the person who is honoring or venerating a
statue or image is directing their honor and veneration to the individual
represented, not the image. It is similar to the non-religious practice of
viewing a picture of a loved one who has passed away, or kissing the picture;
the intention is obviously directed to the person and not the image.

Sacramentals offer a way to move beyond abstract theology to
develop relationships with God, the Blessed Mother, and others in heaven.
Relics can also be valuable aids to developing a practice of prayer, and three
types of relics are recognized:

In the Catholic Church, relics fall into one of three
categories: A first-class relic is the physical bodily remains of a saint or
blessed like bones, blood and hair; a second-class relic is a personal
possession [of the deceased], such as clothing, devotional objects, handwritten
letters or even furniture; and a third-class relic is an object that has
touched a first-class relic.  (125)

The power of relics, through the grace of God, has been
witnessed and described innumerable times, and belief in the power of relics is
biblically based in the Old and New Testaments. In 2 Kings 2:14 Elisha used the
clothing of his deceased mentor Elijah to clear a path, or part the waters, of
a river that he needed to cross. In Matthew 9:20-21 a woman was physically
healed by touching the clothes of Christ as he passed by, and in Acts 19:11-12
parts of the clothing of Saint Paul, as well as pieces of cloth that he
touched, were used to mediate physical healings and drive away evil spirits.

Relics derive their power from the grace of God, which is
poorly understood because the word grace doesn’t convey its power to
modern audiences. For secularists, who don’t recognize supernatural phenomena,
the best translation of “grace” would be energy. The grace of God is
seen to work through the bodies of saints, in part, because the body is a
dwelling place of the Trinity, and it is that indwelling that transforms,
divinizes, and glorifies the body in a manner such that it becomes a channel
for the grace of God.

The potential of mystical prayer to enable two-way
communications between the saints in heaven and those of us here on earth
applies to non-canonized as well as canonized saints. The primary differences
between a canonized and non-canonized saint are the following: all people in
heaven are saints, but canonized saints are officially viewed as role models
who exemplified the highest standards of holiness and divinization during their
lives. As a result, they are given special honor by the Church, which allows
public veneration of the particular saint, including veneration of their relics.
Canonized saints are recognized as valuable intercessors, and their efficacy as
intercessors is ordinarily proven during the canonization process by evidence
of miraculous interventions that are rigorously documented.

Two-way dialogues with non-canonized saints are not only
possible but desirable. In terms of mystical prayer, “talks” with loved ones who
have passed away are sometimes easier to establish due to the saint’s
familiarity. Having a relationship with a saint, and deepening that
relationship, is key to advancing in prayer, so the more familiar the
individual is with a saint, the easier it is to establish a connection. While
it would be inappropriate to venerate the relics of a non-canonized saint,
those relics—a piece of clothing or other personal object handled by the
deceased loved one—can predispose the person praying to receive the grace of
God that enables contacts to be made. The experiences are beneficial because
they remove doubts about the existence of life after death and encourage people
to devote more of their time and energy to the spiritual aspects of life prior
to their own death.

Regarding praying to the saints in heaven, the Latin phrase ora
pro nobis (pray for us) is a more accurate characterization, which is in
perfect alignment with the typical Protestant practice of asking a friend or
loved one to pray for, or intercede for, oneself or others. However, unlike the
vast majority of Protestant denominations, Catholicism teaches there is no
“wall of separation” between those living on earth and the saints in heaven, as
well as those in purgatory who are being purified, or divinized, in a process
that strips away any vestiges of unholy attachments; in essence, stripping away
any vestiges of selfishness and lack of love. This organic unity among
believers across earth, heaven, and purgatory is referred to as the communion
of saints, which is one of the core tenets of Christianity listed in the
Apostle’s Creed. The belief has a substantial basis in many biblical texts,
including Hebrews 12:1, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great
cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that
so easily entangles.” The phrase cloud of witnesses is a reference to
non-visible or supernatural beings and their ability to assist believers on
their journey to heaven, which is a journey to perfection via divinization.

Joan of Arc: Icon of Christ and the Blessed Virgin
Mary?

Joan has been cast as a Christ-figure in literature and
film, perhaps most prominently in the 1928 film, The Passion of Joan of Arc,
directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer. However, information from the trial
transcripts clearly presents imagery that Joan is equally, or more so, an icon
of the Virgin Mary.

Catherine Le Royer, who hosted Joan during her stay in
Vaucouleurs, testified during the Rehabilitation Trial that Joan firmly
believed she was “the Virgin” who was prophesied to restore the kingdom of
France:

She said—I heard her say it—that she must go to the place
where the Dauphin was: “Have you not heard the prophecy that France was to be
ruined by a woman and restored by a virgin from the marshes of Lorraine?” I
remembered having heard that, and I was flabbergasted.  (126)

The woman who “ruined” France was Isabeau of Bavaria, who
became Queen of France when she married King Charles VI. She acquired
increasing political power as the king’s mental health progressively
deteriorated and stood in for him when the Treaty of Troyes was signed in May
1420. The treaty, signed during a critical period in the Hundred Years War,
specified that the English king would inherit the French crown when Charles VI
died, putting an end to the kingdom of France.

The prophecy that “France was to be ruined by a woman and
restored by a virgin” parallels the biblical story that humanity was ruined by
the first woman (Eve) through original sin, but later restored through the
Blessed Virgin Mary (the New Eve). A Church tradition that began in the second
century recognized the Blessed Virgin Mary as the New Eve while Jesus was seen
as the New Adam: the deifying grace that was lost via original sin was again
made available to humans through Jesus and Mary.

In the Bible, Genesis 3:15 contains the prophecy that a
woman (Mary) and her seed (Christ) would eventually crush Satan, who was given
power over humanity through original sin. The sin involved, figuratively
speaking, eating an apple that was the fruit of “the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil.” In terms of the theory of evolution, this would be understood
as the development of humans to the point of acquiring knowledge of good and
evil, a state of cognitive development beyond what was possible in lesser developed
forms of life. The acquisition of this type of knowledge coupled with the
capacity to make free-will decisions is seen by the Church as indicative of the
presence of a human soul.

Free will implies a greater level of functioning than what
was described previously in the experiments involving cats, rats, worms, and
dogs. Free will implies the ability to make a decision that is not solely a
function of the “inputs” of inherited DNA, acquired memories, or an illness.
Aligning this with evolution—acquiring greater levels of intelligence and the
ability to make free-will decisions—would coincide with the appearance of
behaviorally modern humans between 200,000 and 50,000 years ago. Mitochondrial
Eve, genetically the most recent common ancestor of all humans, lived
approximately 200,000 years ago.  (127)

Durand Laxart, Joan’s uncle by marriage to a cousin of
Joan’s mother, also testified that Joan believed she was the miraculous virgin
foretold by the prophecy:

I went myself to fetch Joan from her father’s house and
took her away with me, and she told me that she wanted to go to France, to the
Dauphin, to have him crowned. She said, “Was it not said that France would be
ruined through a woman, and afterward restored by a virgin?”  (128)

The prophecy referenced here is noted in Mark Twain’s book
as originating with Merlin, the legendary wizard associated with stories of
King Arthur, but the prophecy is legitimately attributed to the Venerable Bede,
a Catholic historian and Doctor of the Church, who wrote the Ecclesiastical
History of the English People in the eighth century.

Joan later denied being this prophesied virgin during the February
24 session of the Condemnation Trial, but her denial came immediately after the
judges interrogated her about her activities at the Ladies’ Tree, where
sorcerers were believed to gather:

She added that when she came to see the king, several
people had asked her if there was not in her part of the country a wooded area
called the Oak-Wood, because there was a prophecy that a young girl would come
out of this wooded area and perform miracles. Joan said that she put no faith
in that.

During her canonization process, Joan’s lack of complete
honesty with her judges was noted as one factor against her practice, or
display, of heroic virtue.  (129) However, Joan
was understandably reluctant to cast herself as a participant with the
non-Catholic spiritualists that her judges characterized as sorcerers. The idea
that Catholics and other types of spiritualists would have gathered together at
the Ladies’ Tree is not unusual in the history of the Church. Catholics have
always been involved in syncretistic practices, which incorporate or
accommodate aspects of different spiritualties into religious practices or
beliefs. The degree to which syncretistic practices are harmful can only be
decided on a case-by-case basis. In a 1994 article, Catholicism Confronts
New Age Syncretism, Bernard Green, wrote:

This syncretistic mentality is widespread in the Church
today. Witness the following description of the program of a respected
Midwestern Catholic center for spirituality:

Readings are selected every day from the sacred texts of
Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, and Islam, as well as Christianity. On occasion,
ancient festivals of the Celts or Saxons are remembered, and members dance
around a maypole or fire-pit in the fields or forest. … The Chapel is visually
stimulating and instructive. … Icons of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Risen
Christ are placed side by side with statues of Buddha, Lord Vishnu and Moses.  (130)

A significant amount of Joan’s spiritual formation,
particularly those aspects related to her embrace of mystical experiences,
probably occurred at the Spirits’ Tree or Ladies’ Tree. In the transcripts, the
tree is sometimes called the “Ladies’ Tree” and at other times it is referred
to as the “Fairies’ Tree.” In this book, the term Spirits’ Tree or Ladies’
Tree is used instead of Fairies’ Tree because there’s a lack of
clarity in the source material about whether the term fairies refers to
spirits—something supernatural, preternatural or metaphysical—or instead refers
to “women who were skilled in magic.” Also, the term “fairies” is not commonly
understood in modern culture. The Old French fae or faerie described
something “enchanted,” and in Old French romance literature, “women were called
Fays who had to do with enchantment and charms and knew the power and virtue of
words, of stones, and of herbs.”  (131)

Jean Morel’s deposition during the Rehabilitation Trial
included the following statement about the Ladies’ Tree:

As for the tree that was called the Ladies’ Tree, I have
sometimes heard that ladies who cast spells—fairies they used to call
them—used to come in the old days and dance under that tree. But people
do say that since they read the Gospel of Saint John there they do not come
anymore. … Joan the Maid and the other girls went there sometimes, and she
behaved just like the others.  (132)

Joan’s childhood friend, Hauviette, testified:

That tree has been called the Ladies’ Tree since olden
times, and they say that long ago the ladies they call fairies went
there. But I have never heard of anyone who saw one.  (133)

In Joan’s testimony from the February 24 session, she didn’t
speak of ladies or fairies but instead referred to spirits:

She said sometimes she would go playing with other young
girls at the tree, making garlands for Our Lady of Domremy there. Often she
heard the elderly people say, although not those of her family, that spirits
frequently appeared near this tree. She heard a certain Joan—the wife of mayor
Aubery of Domremy, her godmother—say that she had seen the spirits, but she
herself doesn’t know whether it is true or not. As far as she knew, she said,
she never saw spirits at the tree. Asked if she saw them elsewhere, she said
she does not know at all. She had seen young girls putting garlands on the
branches of the tree, and she herself sometimes hung garlands there with the
other girls; sometimes they took them away, and sometimes they left them there.

During the March 1 session of her trial, Joan said her first
apparition involved an appearance of Saint Michael the archangel, who gave her
the message that she must save the kingdom of France. The term angel
refers to a spirit as well as a messenger. Later, Joan’s
testimony during the March 13 session, and recorded in Article 51 of the
seventy articles of accusation against her, included the following:

When asked why the angel came to her rather than to another
person, she answered, “It pleased God to drive back the king’s enemies through
a simple virgin.”

That statement by Joan, whether she knew it or not, was a
reference to a Catholic understanding of the role that the Blessed Virgin Mary
plays in “driving back the king’s enemies” as reflected in the Genesis 3:15
prophecy. The Church teaches the process of vanquishing Satan and the ability
of humans to become divinized began at Calvary, site of Christ’s crucifixion,
and Mary was an integral part of God’s plan for this redemption of humanity
because God “assumed our human nature” through Mary. It is this incarnation or
“enfleshment” of God in the person of Jesus Christ that is the source of
redemption because it involves the transformation and divinization of human
nature; and because Mary is the medium through which the incarnation takes
place, Mary and Jesus, together, enable the redemptive process. Statues and
images of Mary often show her standing on a globe of the earth with her bare
feet crushing a serpent, which represents Satan. The Catechism describes
the role of divinization in redemption:

The Word [God] became flesh to make us “partakers of the
divine nature.” [2 Peter 1:4] “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son
of God [Jesus] became the Son of man: so that man [and woman], by entering into
communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship [or daughtership],
might become a son [or daughter] of God.” [Saint Irenaeus] “For the Son of God
became man so that we might become God.” [Saint Athanasius] “The only-begotten
Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so
that he, made man, might make men [and women] gods.” [Saint Thomas Aquinas]  (134)

Saint Louis de Montfort, a preeminent Mariologist who lived
in the eighteenth century, referred to the Blessed Virgin Mary as “Daughter of
God the Father,” which indicated a triune relationship between Mary and the
Trinity because Mary is also seen as the Mother of God and the Spouse of the
Holy Spirit (whose union with Mary resulted in the conception of God in the
form of a human). Joan’s remarks during the March 12 session include the
following:

Asked if her Voices called her daughter of God, daughter of
the Church, or daughter great-hearted, she said that prior to the military
assault on the city of Orleans and every day since, when they have spoken to
her, they have often called her “Joan the Virgin, Daughter of God.”

The letter Joan dictated to a scribe that was sent to the
English military prior to her attack that ended the siege of Orleans included
the statement, “She comes in God’s name to establish the Royal Blood.” The
reference to Royal Blood parallels Christ’s blood, which established the
Kingdom of Heaven, and the letter also includes the statement, “You will not
keep the Kingdom of France from God, the King of Kings and Blessed Mary’s Son.”
In the same letter, Joan includes a reference that she, the Virgin, along with
her good soldiers, will vanquish the forces that oppose the Kingdom of France:

Know well that the King of Heaven will send a greater force
to the Virgin and her good soldiers than you in all your assaults can overcome;
and by these defeats shall the favor of the God of Heaven be seen.

The reference to Joan and her good soldiers parallels the
role that Mary and her good soldiers have in bringing about the fulfillment of
the Kingdom of Heaven by promoting devotion to Mary and her role in salvation
history. The reference prefigures Marian groups such as the Militia of the
Immaculata, a movement founded by Saint Maximilian Kolbe in 1917 that promotes
a total consecration to Mary to facilitate spiritual renewal in believers as
well as within the culture; the Blue Army, now known as the World Apostolate of
Fatima, which seeks to encourage people to learn, live, and spread the messages
that the Virgin Mary delivered in a series of apparitions in Fatima, Portugal; and
individuals who have followed Montfort’s plan for a total consecration to Mary:

In all circumstances they will have recourse to her as
their Advocate and Mediatrix with Jesus Christ. They will see clearly that she
is the safest, easiest, shortest and most perfect way of approaching Jesus and
will surrender themselves to her, body and soul, without reserve in order to
belong entirely to Jesus.  (135)

Joan of Arc: Icon of Suppression of Women in the
Church?

If Christ is the Bridegroom (male or masculine), and the
Church is the Bride of Christ (female or feminine), it is ironic that the
hierarchy of the Church, for all practical purposes, is made up entirely of
men. In the hierarchy of the Church, it is not a requirement that Cardinals be
priests, so it would seem beneficial to the Church to move to some sort of
parity, at a minimum, of women Cardinals. This would not only help enable the
Church to reach a higher level of perfection in terms of becoming more
feminine, but it would also provide the necessary integration of the laity into
the life of the entire Church, which was one of the major objectives specified
by the Second Vatican Council. Also, considering that prelates would dominate
all other positions in the hierarchy, it would not be unreasonable to
transition to a College of Cardinals made up entirely of lay people and women
religious (sisters and nuns).

The recent popes have been criticized by some for saying the
question of allowing women in the priesthood is a settled issue. Individuals
and groups who advocate for women in the priesthood often assume the priesthood
provides access to power because priests not only manage almost all of Church
governance, but also because the priesthood is the only path to the power of
the Papacy. Saint Thérèse of Lisieux wrote the following about her vocation (the
capital letters were written by the saint):

To be Your Spouse, to be a Carmelite, and by my union with
You to be the Mother of souls, should not this suffice me? And yet it is not
so. No doubt, these three privileges sum up my true vocation: Carmelite,
Spouse, Mother, and yet I feel within me other vocations. I feel the vocation of
the WARRIOR, THE PRIEST, THE APOSTLE, THE DOCTOR, THE MARTYR. …

I feel in me the vocation of the PRIEST. With what love, O
Jesus, I would carry You in my hands when, at my voice, You would come down
from heaven. And with what love would I give You to souls! But alas! while
desiring to be a Priest, I admire and envy the humility of St. Francis of
Assisi and I feel the vocation of imitating him in refusing the sublime dignity
of the Priesthood.  (136)

Saint Thérèse wrote that all of her desires concerning her
vocation “caused me a veritable martyrdom” because “considering the mystical
body of the Church, I had not recognized myself in any of the members described
by St. Paul, or rather I desired to see myself in them all.” (137) She was then inspired to understand there is
one vocation that is much more powerful than the priesthood: to become the
embodiment of Christ Himself by becoming Love—agape, self-sacrificial
Love:

I have found my place in the Church and it is You, O my
God, who have given me this place: in the heart of the Church, my Mother, I
shall be Love. Thus I shall be everything, and thus my dream will be
realized.  (138)

Thérèse’s inspiration, God is Love, is reflected
biblically in 1 John 4:7-8:

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from
God. Everyone who loves has been born of God [born again] and knows God. Whoever
does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Saint Augustine, preaching on that biblical passage, stated:

Once for all, then, a short precept is given you: Love, and
do what you will: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace;
whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love
correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: let the root of love be
within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.  (139)

Also, the preeminence of love is reflected in Romans
13:9-10:

The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You
shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever
other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your
neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the
fulfillment of the law.

One form of suppression of women in the Church that is
overlooked involves the Virgin Mary. On the day Joan of Arc first appeared
before her judges, the bailiff or usher, Jean Massieu, announced, “The woman
commonly called the Virgin [is] imprisoned within the limits of this castle.”

Many non-Catholics would find it absurd to believe the
Catholic Church could suppress the Blessed Virgin Mary, primarily because the
Church is often accused of radically over-emphasizing the role of Mary in the
process of redemption. However, hesitation by the Church to dogmatically define
the Blessed Virgin Mary as Co-Redeemer (as well as Mediatrix and Advocate)
is a form of suppression of the Virgin Mary as well as a suppression of the
feminine within the Church. The title Mediatrix means Mary distributes
the graces of salvation with Jesus, and the title Advocate means she
intercedes for people and their needs.

Recognition of Mary as Co-Redeemer is supported by Church
doctrine, and Saint Pope John Paul II officially referred to Mary as the
Co-Redemptrix on several occasions (references are documented at the website
FifthMarianDogma). Cardinal Ratzinger, prior to his papacy as Benedict XVI, also
indicated that the concept of Mary being Co-Redemptrix was correct, and he
acknowledged that several million people had petitioned the Vatican to declare
a dogma recognizing Mary as Co-Redeemer.  (140) However, he believed language difficulties would lead to misinterpretation even
though the prefix co- does not mean equal but instead means with.
The suffix -trix, derived from Latin, means female, recognizing
the truth that a woman was not only integral but necessary to the process of
the redemption of humanity designed by God.

Catholicism is often misunderstood as promoting the worship
of Mary, but the Church teaches that God alone is worthy of worship (latria
in Latin). A distinction is made regarding the saints, such that the saints are
worthy of honor and veneration (dulia), but Mary is worthy of a special
class of honor and veneration (hyperdulia). The distinctions are
important because they avert unorthodox practices such as characterizing Mary
as a goddess to be worshipped while simultaneously recognizing her special role
in salvation history. The Catholic doctrine differentiating between latria
and hyperdulia implies that it would be a mortal sin, idolatry, to
worship Mary. For example, the Old Testament prophet Jeremiah admonished people
for worshipping an ancient sky goddess named the Queen of Heaven. Mary is not
recognized as a goddess by the Catholic Church, and the Marian title Queen
of Heaven is meant to convey Mary’s unique role in the plan of redemption,
not to recognize her as a goddess.

The Blessed Virgin Mary’s role in redemption was addressed
by Pope Pius XII in his 1954 encyclical, Ad Caeli Reginam, proclaiming
the Queenship of Mary:  (141)

In accomplishing this work of the redemption, the Most
Blessed Virgin Mary was certainly closely joined with Christ … was associated
with Jesus Christ, the very principle of salvation, by divine plan, and indeed
in a way similar to that in which Eve was associated with Adam … and if she was
joined with her Son, even on Golgotha [site of the crucifixion], she offered
Him, together with the holocaust of her Mother’s rights and love, like a New
Eve, for all the sons of Adam … beyond doubt, it is right to conclude that just
as Christ, the New Adam should be called King not only because He is the Son of
God, but also because He is our Redeemer, so by a certain analogy, the most
Blessed Virgin is Queen, not only because she is the Mother of God, but also
because as the New Eve she was associated with the New Adam.

A passage from the liturgical Collection of Masses of the
Blessed Virgin refers to the role that Mary’s suffering had in the process
of redemption:

In your divine wisdom, you planned the redemption of the
human race and decreed that the new Eve should stand by the Cross of the new
Adam: as she became his Mother by the power of the Holy Spirit, so, by a new
gift of your love, she was to be a partner in his Passion.  (142)

Saint John Paul II stated that Mary was “crucified
spiritually with her crucified Son,” which was the culmination of a period of
suffering by Mary in union with Christ, as only a mother could understand.
Mary’s suffering is traditionally honored by a devotion to the Seven Sorrows of
Mary, which acknowledges the integral aspect of suffering in relation to
redemption.

The biblical text written by Saint Paul in Colossians 1:24,
“Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what
is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body,
which is the church,” also links suffering with redemption and forms the
theological basis for asserting that all believers are co-redeemers to some
extent, but none more so than Mary, who was and is uniquely united with Christ.

Paul’s statement doesn’t imply that Christ’s sacrifice was
somehow lacking in making available the sanctifying graces needed for humans to
become divinized, but it does mean the sufferings of individual Christians are
also integral to salvation, individually and collectivity, for all of humanity.

When Paul wrote, “I rejoice in my sufferings,” he was also
referring to the potentially positive aspects of suffering. The Church teaches
that suffering can be transformative and deifying when united to the sufferings
of Christ. The potential value of suffering is typically not recognized from a
strictly secular perspective, but research has shown that people who have
experienced very painful or adverse events in their lives often attain a level
of happiness seemingly unavailable to others. Some of the science regarding
this relationship between suffering and happiness is covered by Jim Rendon in
his book, Upside: The New Science of Post-Traumatic Growth.

When Christ is quoted as saying, “Take up your cross and
follow me,” he was referring to the integral role of suffering in the process
of redemption, particularly for those people who wanted to be His disciples.
Desiring divinization without a willingness to share in the suffering of
humanity via agape—a willingness to endure discomfort for the sake of
helping others—represents a half-hearted approach to redemption.

Biological evolution and spiritual divinization share some
typological characteristics in that there is a clear relationship between the
capacity to suffer and progressing up the evolutionary ladder. At every major
step in the process, suffering became more perceptible and intense.
Microorganisms don’t feel pain. It’s unclear if invertebrates such as insects
and worms feel pain. However, vertebrate animals have the capacity to
experience intense pain, and at the top of the list of vertebrates is the human
species, which experiences suffering at a level unattainable by other species.
Animals don’t experience the gut-wrenching sorrow of a broken heart at a level
that humans do, which is why Pope John Paul II could assert that Mary was
“crucified spiritually with her crucified Son.” The type of psychological
suffering that only humans are capable of represents the pinnacle of suffering
because, comparatively, intense physical suffering is characteristically much
more bearable when the sufferer feels loved by a lover; and, alternatively, to
exist in a world absent of physical suffering but devoid of love often
precipitates a level of despair illustrated by many otherwise healthy and
wealthy individuals who commit suicide—reflecting a level of desolation that is
a foretaste of hell.

In his biblical writings, Paul referred to all Christians,
collectively, as members of the Body of Christ, and united with Him, together,
they form the Mystical Body of Christ on earth:

Mystical Body of Christ—in Roman Catholicism, a mystical
union of all Christians into a spiritual body with Jesus Christ as their head.
The concept is rooted in the New Testament and possibly reflects Christianity’s
roots in Judaism; St. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and Romans both use the
image of a body, with a head (Christ) and many members (Christians) to describe
the relationship between Christ and Christians. Later, the Church Fathers,
including St. Augustine, reaffirmed and amplified Paul’s assertion that the
Christian church is a spiritual extension of Christ’s body.

Pope Pius XII popularized the phrase in his encyclical Mystici
corporis christi (1943). The Second Vatican Council issued the “Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church,” or Lumen Gentium (1964; “Light of the
Nations”), which reflected the broader, universal nature of the mystical body
by stating that all persons are members of the church, at least potentially,
because Christ came to offer salvation to everyone.  (143)

A supernatural union among all Christians and with Christ is
reflected in scripture passages such as 1 Corinthians 12:27, “Now you are the
body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it,” and John 15:5, “I am the
vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear
much fruit.” The Catechism explains Mary’s unique place in the Mystical
Body of Christ as arising from two key elements of her life—her relationship
with Christ and the suffering she shared with Christ:

Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union
with Christ and flows directly from it. This union of the mother with the Son
in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal
conception up to his death; it is made manifest above all at the hour of his
Passion: Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and
faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she
stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the
intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s
heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her:
to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his
disciple, with these words: “Woman, behold your son.”  (144)

Saint John the Evangelist indicated he was standing next to
Mary at the crucifixion, and in John 19:26-27, there is the following
description of Christ instructing Mary to look at John as her spiritual son,
and instructing John to look at Mary as his spiritual Mother:

When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he
loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” and to the
disciple, “Here is your mother.”

This passage is interpreted by Catholics as Christ
establishing Mary as the spiritual mother of all believers as well as
instructing all believers to look to Mary as their spiritual mother. An
alternative interpretation—that Jesus was merely referring to a domestic
relationship solely between Mary and Saint John—doesn’t seem plausible when
considering Mary’s role in how sanctifying, or deifying, grace is made
available and accepted by people. The enfleshment of God in the person of Jesus
was made possible by Mary, and it is through Mary’s saying yes to God’s
plan that humans can be redeemed and become divinized through sanctifying
grace, reflecting the Virgin Mary’s roles as Co-Redeemer and Mediatrix.

Regarding Mary’s role as Mediatrix of all graces, the
Church recognizes different types of graces. The sacrament of Baptism is said
to impart a sanctifying, or deifying, grace that supernaturally transforms
people, so they are able to commune or communicate with God on a level that’s
unavailable to people who haven’t received Baptism.  (145) The process of sanctification, deification, continues throughout a
person’s life if they collaborate with the action of additional graces received
throughout life.  (146) Other graces include sacramental
graces, which are unique to each of the seven sacraments; actual graces,
which impart power to conform one’s life to the will of God; and special
graces, or charisms, which are received to help develop the Church.  (147) Participating in, and collaborating with,
these various graces results in an increasingly intimate relationship with
God—a relationship that isn’t merely based on an intellectual understanding of
various facts about Christianity, but on explicit knowledge of God through
Christ. Many Christians stress the need to “have a personal relationship with
Jesus Christ,” and to have such a relationship requires having direct
encounters with Christ that transcend abstract theology. The encounters can be through
prayer or by helping others in need (Matthew 25:40). The tangible, observable
evidence of whether a person is in the midst of deepening their relationship
with Christ—in contrast to solely deepening one’s relationship with biblical
texts—involves experiencing increasing levels of love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control; the manifestations
of the Holy Spirit stated in Galatians 5:22-23.

Mary’s role as Mediatrix of all graces implies she is
integral to the two fundamental aspects of the journey from this life to the
next: redemption, which restores the communion between God and humans,
and glorification, which is a spiritual growth process that involves an
ongoing process of divinization.  (148) The word
“divinization” is not often used, and in its place, terms such as “growth in
holiness” or “growth in the spiritual life” are commonly used. Regardless of
the terminology, divinization allows individuals to increasingly participate in
the divine life of God. According to Catholic teaching, if the divinization
process is not completed on earth, then it is completed in purgatory.

The Church’s understanding of the Virgin Mary’s role in
redemption and divinization has evolved over time, and this growth in
understanding is illustrated by four dogmas (essential truths or required
beliefs) that have been declared about Mary.

First, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, which is often
mistakenly thought of as Christ being immaculately conceived in the womb of
Mary, but instead refers to Mary being immaculately conceived in the womb of
her mother, Saint Anne. Being immaculately conceived means that Mary, unlike
all other humans, was conceived without the original sin of the first humans,
Adam and Eve.

Second, Mary is the Mother of God because (being the only
human conceived without original sin—the only human conceived and born in a
state of sanctifying, deifying grace) she was able to give Jesus a flawless, or
sinless, human nature; although she did not give Jesus his divine nature, she
is nevertheless the Mother of God because the human nature and divine nature of
Christ are inseparably united, just as every human’s material body and
immaterial soul are inseparably united until death of the biological body
(immaterial does not imply unreal; for example, light is immaterial).

Third, Mary was a Virgin throughout her life. Despite
biblical references to brothers and sisters of Jesus, “brother” and “sister” in
biblical texts (the Greek is adelphos and adelphe) also refer to
extended family members such as cousins and other kin; also, there are no
biblical texts that indicate Mary had any children other than Jesus. Regarding
the virgin birth, every year around Christmas articles are published addressing
the question of whether parthenogenesis—asexual reproduction in which offspring
develop from an unfertilized egg—can occur in humans. The conclusion of the
articles is that it is impossible, or if it is possible, the probability is
extremely low, yet theoretically possible. Over time, the science has steadily
moved up the evolutionary chain of species on this question. Previously, parthenogenesis
was considered to be possible only in invertebrate species. Later, it was seen
in some vertebrate species, but only in captivity. Recently, it has been
documented in vertebrate species in the wild.  (149) In parthenogenesis, the egg cell gives rise to the embryo stages on its
own. The change in our scientifically derived knowledge illustrates that it
will always be incomplete, and the more we learn about the biological, chemical
and physical nature of reality, the more we understand how little we currently
know.

Fourth, Mary was bodily assumed into heaven in “a singular
participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection
of other Christians.”  (107)

The fifth and final Marian dogma, yet to be declared, involves
Mary’s universal mediation as Co-Redeemer, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate
for the people of God. An overview of the scriptural and traditional foundations
of all the Marian dogmas is available in Mark Miravalle’s book, Meet Your
Mother.

Saint John Paul II stated that “Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix
did not cease with the glorification of her Son,” and her ongoing role in
salvation history was described in Montfort’s book, A Treatise on The True
Devotion to The Blessed Virgin, also known as The True Devotion to Mary:
(150)

It is by Mary that the salvation of the world has begun,
and it is by Mary that it must be consummated. Mary has hardly appeared at all
in the first coming of Jesus Christ, in order that men [and women], as yet but
little instructed and enlightened on the Person of her Son, should not remove
themselves from Him, in attaching themselves too strongly and too grossly to
her. This would have apparently taken place, if she had been known, because of
the admirable charms which the Most High had bestowed even upon her exterior.
This is so true that St. Denys the Areopagite [the man, Dionysius, mentioned in
Acts 17:34] has informed us in his writings that when he saw our Blessed Lady, he
should have taken her for a Divinity, in consequence of her secret charms and
incomparable beauty, had not the Faith in which he was well established taught
him the contrary.

But in the second coming of Jesus Christ, Mary has to be
made known and revealed by the Holy Spirit, in order that by her Jesus Christ
may be known, loved, and served. The reasons which moved the Holy Spirit to
hide His Spouse during her life, and to reveal her but a very little since the
preaching of the Gospel, subsist no longer. God, then, wishes to reveal and
[have us] discover Mary, the masterpiece of His hands, in these latter times.

Saint John Paul II said that reading The True Devotion to
Mary was a “decisive turning point” in his life and he adopted his papal
motto, Totus Tuus (Totally Yours), from the words that Montfort used to
describe his total consecration to Jesus through Mary.  (151)

The events prophesied by Montfort—that Mary would be
increasingly revealed so that Christ may be better known and understood—are
reflected and are being fulfilled by an increasing number of Marian apparitions
during an era known as the Age of Mary, which began in 1830 and is
ongoing.

Reports of Marian apparitions that get news coverage typically
involve stories that are easily dismissed. However, when attempting to
categorize various reports as fraudulent, mythological, delusional, or factual,
many contemporary reports of apparitions cannot be easily discounted due to
credible documentation and numerous witnesses.

Typically, apparitions reported prior to the 1800s are
quickly dismissed as mythological because historical evidence is lacking.
However, three reports appear to be particularly credible: Our Lady of Mount
Carmel, 1251, in Aylesford, England; Our Lady of Good Health, 1500s,
in Vailankanni, India; and Our Lady of Guadalupe, 1531, in an area of
Mexico that is now Mexico City.

Prior to the 1900s, historical evidence is sometimes
available, but imprecise and questionable. Paradoxically, since the early
1900s, when it has become increasingly fashionable to deny the existence of
supernatural phenomena, it has also become increasingly difficult to discount
the purported reality of a large number of Marian apparitions. Of the hundreds
that have been reported, there are many events that can’t be discounted as
fraudulent or mythological because the evidence of their occurrence is too
credible to be dismissed—especially the most modern of the apparitions that are
the most extensively documented.

1830 – Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception in Paris,
France. In 1824, at the age of eighteen, Catherine Laboure had a dream in
which she was assisting at a Mass being celebrated by an old priest she didn’t
recognize. After the Mass the priest beckoned her to come to him but she darted
out of the church frightened by the old man. During the dream, she then went to
visit a woman who was ill, and when she entered the woman’s room, the same
priest was standing there and said, “You do well to visit the sick, my child.
You flee from me now, but one day you will be glad to come to me. God has plans
for you; do not forget it.”  (152)

Laboure later became a postulant—a candidate for admission
to a religious order—on January 22, 1830, entering the house of the Sisters of
Charity in Châtillon, a suburb of Paris. It was at Châtillon that Laboure
noticed a portrait of an old priest, the same unknown priest who appeared in
her dream. When she asked a sister at the house who the priest was, she was
told it was Saint Vincent de Paul, founder of the religious order Laboure had
just entered. Saint Vincent de Paul, in addition to founding the Sisters of
Charity, also founded the Congregation of the Mission, which is also known as
the Vincentian Fathers.

After her postulancy, which lasted three months, she was
sent to the Sisters of Charity Motherhouse in Paris, at Rue du Bac, for her
novitiate, which is a formation period prior to formally entering a religious
order. She arrived on April 21, four days prior to the translation, or
movement, of relics of Saint Vincent de Paul from Notre Dame Cathedral to the
Lazarists church on the Rue de Sevres. During the evening of the movement of
the relics, Laboure began having a series of visions of the heart of Saint
Vincent. Two months later, she began having visons of Christ the King. Then, in
July and November, Laboure experienced two apparitions of the Blessed Virgin
Mary.

Under the orders of her director, Laboure wrote very detailed
accounts of her visions on three different occasions, in 1841, 1856, and in
1876. Her descriptions were precise and included details such as the following:

Our Lady wore “three rings on each of her fingers.” She
tells us, further, that the rings were graduated in size, “the largest one near
the base of the finger, one of medium size in the middle, the smallest one at
the tip.” She even noticed that the rings themselves were set with stones “of
proportionate size, some larger and others smaller.” … “A white veil covered
her head,” Catherine wrote, “falling on either side to her feet. Under the veil
her hair, in coils, was bound with a fillet ornamented with lace, about three
centimeters in height or of two fingers’ breadth, without pleats, and resting
lightly on the hair.”  (152)

On July 18, 1830, the day prior to a feast day celebration
that honors Saint Vincent de Paul, the Directress of the convent, Mother
Martha, spoke to the novices about the importance of cultivating a devotion to
the saints. As a gift, Mother Martha gave each novice a relic of the saint, a
small piece of cloth from a liturgical vestment worn by Saint Vincent. The plan
for the following day included a walk to the church where the body of the saint
was being kept, so that the sisters and novices could venerate the saint and
pray at the church.

That night, Laboure tore the relic in half and swallowed one
piece of the cloth. She prayed to Saint Vincent to grant her the greatest wish
of her life, to see the Virgin Mary. Laboure said after sleeping approximately
two hours, a small child, surrounded by a radiant light, woke her up at 11:30 p.m.,
telling her to go to the chapel. The child led Laboure to a chair in the chapel
that was used by the Director of the religious order, and she knelt beside the
chair. When the child announced the arrival of the Blessed Virgin, Laboure
heard a sound that she described as the rustling of a silk dress. She turned in
the direction of the sound and saw a lady descending the steps where the altar
was, and then the lady sat in the chair:

A doubt clouded the novice’s mind. Was this really the
Mother of God? The child reassured her: “This is the Blessed Virgin.” Even this
did not allay all her doubts. Was the whole thing a dream, a fancy of the
night? She blushed. The lady was looking at her, waiting. The child spoke
again, startling her, for now his voice was a man’s voice, deep and commanding
and stern. She held back no more, but threw herself at Our Lady’s knee and
rested her hands in Our Lady’s lap. Then she lifted her head and looked up, up,
into her Mother’s eyes. Many years later she was to write with ecstatic
remembrance of this moment, that it was the sweetest of her life. “My child,”
said Our Lady, “the good God wishes to charge you with a mission.”  (152)

On November 27, 1830, Laboure experienced another apparition
of Mary, and the vision and its repercussions are seen as the start of the Age
of Mary:

The Virgin held in her hands a golden ball which she seemed
to offer to God, for her eyes were raised heavenward. Suddenly, her hands were
resplendent with rings set with precious stones that glittered and flashed in a
brilliant cascade of light. So bright was the flood of glory cast upon the
globe below that Catherine could no longer see Our Lady’s feet.

Mary lowered her eyes and looked full at Sister Laboure.
Her lips did not move, but Catherine heard a voice. …

“These rays symbolize the graces I shed upon those who ask
for them. The gems from which rays do not fall are the graces for which souls
forget to ask.”

At this moment, Catherine was so lost in delight that she
scarcely knew where she was, whether she lived or died. The golden ball
vanished from Mary’s hands; her arms swept wide in a gesture of motherly
compassion, while from her jeweled fingers the rays of light streamed upon the
white globe at her feet. An oval frame formed around the Blessed Virgin, and
written within it in letters of gold Catherine read the words:

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have
recourse to thee.

The voice spoke again:

“Have a Medal struck after this model. All who wear it will
receive great graces; they should wear it around the neck. Graces will abound
for persons who wear it with confidence.”

The tableau revolved, and Catherine beheld the reverse of
the Medal she was to have made. It contained a large M surmounted by a bar and
a cross. Beneath the M were the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, the one crowned with
thorns, the other pierced with a sword. Twelve stars encircled the whole.

And then the vision was gone.  (152)

Laboure’s confessor, Father Jean Marie Aladel, heard her
account of the vision several times before he began to seriously consider the
apparitions might be authentic. Regarding production of the “Immaculate
Conception” medal, Laboure insisted her identity as the visionary be kept a
secret. During official Church inquiries into the medal and its design, Aladel
was under pressure to reveal the identity of the seer, and Laboure herself was
under pressure from the Archbishop of Paris and others to come forward, but her
identity remained a secret until the last months of her life, forty-six years
later, in 1876.

The design of the medal wasn’t seen as controversial, even
though it featured a large letter M intertwined with, and serving as the
foundation of, the cross of Christ. The front of the medal features Mary crushing
the head of a serpent (reflecting the prophecy in Genesis 3:15), with the words
“O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you,” which
indicates Mary was conceived without original sin. The front of the medal also depicts
rays of light emanating from Mary’s hands, portraying her as the dispenser of
graces and reflecting her roles of Mediatrix and Advocate.

After approval was given for production, Aladel visited an
engraver, M. Vachette, in May 1832, and placed an order for twenty thousand
medals. The first two thousand were delivered in June, and by December 1836,
Vachette had produced several million medals and “eleven other Parisian
engravers had equaled this number, and four Lyon engravers were hard at work to
meet the demand.”  (152) The formal name, Medal
of the Immaculate Conception, was soon replaced by an informal name, Miraculous
Medal, due to the number of miracles and answers to prayer that resulted
from people using the medal as a sacramental.

1846 – Our Lady of La Salette in France. Mélanie
Calvat (age fourteen) and Maximin Giraud (age eleven) experienced an apparition
of the Virgin Mary in the mountains of La Salette on September 19, 1846. A lengthy
description of the apparition by Calvat received an imprimatur by
Monsignor Salvatore Luigi Zola, who was later appointed Bishop of the Diocese
of Lecce, Italy.  An imprimatur implies the text is free of doctrinal or moral
error, but does not imply the person giving the imprimatur agrees with the
content; it is a form of approval that means the text can be published. The
following text includes two excerpts from Calvat’s description of the
apparition she experienced with Giraud:  (153)

The sight of the Holy Virgin was itself a perfect paradise.
She had everything needed to satisfy, for earth had been forgotten. The Holy
Virgin was surrounded by two lights. The first light, the nearer to the Most
Holy Virgin, reached as far as us. It shone most beautifully and
scintillatingly.

The second light shone out a little around the Beautiful
Lady and we found ourselves bathed in it. It was motionless (that is to say it
wasn’t scintillating) but much more brilliant than our poor sun on earth. All
this light did not harm nor tire the eyes in any way.

In addition to all these lights, all this splendour, there
shone forth concentrations or beams of light and single rays of light from the
body of the Holy Virgin, from her clothes and from all over Her.

The voice of the Beautiful Lady was soft. It was
enchanting, ravishing, warming to the heart. It satisfied, flattered every
obstacle, it soothed and softened. It seemed to me I could never stop eating up
Her beautiful voice, and my heart seemed to dance or want to go towards Her and
melt inside Her.

The eyes of the most Holy Virgin, our Sweet Mother, cannot
be described in human language. To speak of them, you would need a seraph, you
would need more than that, you would need the language of God Himself, of the
God who formed the immaculate Virgin, the masterpiece of His omnipotence. The
eyes of the majestic Mary appeared thousands of times more beautiful than the
rarest brilliants, diamonds and precious stones. They shone like two suns; they
were soft, softness itself, as clear as a mirror. In her eyes, you could see
paradise. They drew you to Her, She seemed to want to draw and give Herself.

The more I looked, the more I wanted to see; the more I
saw, the more I loved Her and I loved Her with all my might.

The eyes of the beautiful Immaculate One were like the door
to God’s Kingdom, from which you could see all that can elate the soul. When my
eyes met those of the Mother of God and of myself, I felt inside me a happy
revolution of love and a declaration that I love Her and am melting with love.
As we looked at each other, our eyes spoke to each other in their fashion, and
I loved Her so much I could have kissed Her in the middle of Her eyes, which
touched my soul and seemed to draw it towards them and make it melt into Hers.
Her eyes set up a sweet trembling in all my being; and I was afraid to make the
slightest movement which might cause her the smallest displeasure.

Just the sight of the eyes of the purest of Virgins would
have been enough to make the Heaven of a blessed creature, enough to fill the
soul with the will of the Most High amid the events which occur in the course
of mortal life, enough to make the soul perform continual acts of praise, of
thanksgiving, of atonement and expiation. Just this sight focuses the soul on
God, and makes it like a living-death, looking upon all the things of this
earth, even the things which seem the most serious, as nothing but children’s
playthings. The soul would want to hear no one speaking unless they spoke of
God, and of that which affects His Glory. …

In the presence of my Lady, I felt I had forgotten
paradise. I thought of nothing more but to serve Her in every way possible; and
I felt I could have done everything she could have asked me to do, for it
seemed to me that She had a great deal of power. She looked at me with a tender
kindness which drew me to Her. I could have thrown myself into Her arms with my
eyes closed. She did not give me the time to do so. She rose imperceptibly from
the ground to a height of around four feet or more; and, hanging thus in the
air for a split second, my beautiful Lady looked up to Heaven, then down on the
earth to her right and then her left, then She looked at me with Her eyes so
soft, so kind and so good that I felt She was drawing me inside Her, and my
heart seemed to open up to Hers.

And as my heart melted away, sweetly gladdened, the
beautiful face of my good Lady disappeared little by little. It seemed to me
that the light in motion was growing stronger, or rather condensing around the
Most Holy Virgin, to prevent me from seeing her any longer.

And thus light took the place of the parts of Her body
which were disappearing in front of my eyes, or rather it seemed to me that the
body of my Lady was melting into light. Thus the sphere of light rose gently
towards the right. I cannot say whether the volume of light decreased as She
rose, or whether the growing distance made me see less and less light as She
rose. What I do know, is that I was a long time with my head raised up, staring
at the light, even after the light, which kept getting further away and
decreasing in volume, [until it] had finally disappeared.

Calvat’s description also includes the following report of
words spoken by the Blessed Virgin Mary to Calvat:

Melanie, what I am about to tell you now will not always be
a secret. You may make it public in 1858. The priests, ministers of my Son, the
priests, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and their impiety in the
celebration of the holy mysteries, by their love of money, their love of
honours and pleasures, the priests have become cesspools of impurity. Yes, the
priests are asking vengeance, and vengeance is hanging over their heads. Woe to
the priests and to those dedicated to God who by their unfaithfulness and their
wicked lives are crucifying my Son again! The sins of those dedicated to God
cry out towards Heaven and call for vengeance, and now vengeance is at their
door, for there is no one left to beg mercy and forgiveness for the people.

References to “the priests” obviously do not call into
question the behavior of priests in general but are clearly directed only to
those who are guilty of the offenses described by the Virgin.

1858 – Our Lady of Lourdes in France. On February 8,
Bernadette Soubirous (age fourteen), went with her sister and a friend to
gather some wood. Soubirous stopped to remove her shoes and socks prior to
crossing a stream, but the two other girls crossed immediately. Hearing a gust
of wind, Soubirous turned around and experienced the first of nineteen
apparitions, which occurred between February 8 and July 16. The last of her
apparitions occurred on the Catholic feast day of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. The
following material is a very brief description of the apparitions, as noted on
the Sanctuaire Notre-Dame de Lourdes website.  (154)

February 11 – “I saw a lady dressed in white, she wore a
white dress, an equally white veil, a blue belt and a yellow rose on each
foot.” Bernadette made the Sign of the Cross and said the Rosary with the lady.
When the prayer ended the Lady suddenly vanished.

February 14 – Bernadette felt an inner force drawing her to
the Grotto in spite of the fact that she was forbidden to go there by her
parents. At her insistence, her mother allowed her; after the first decade of
the Rosary, she saw the same lady appearing. She sprinkled holy water at her.
The lady smiled and bent her head. When the Rosary ended she disappeared.

February 18 – For the first time, the Lady spoke.
Bernadette held out a pen and paper asking her to write her name.  She replied,
“It is not necessary” and she added, “I do not promise to make you happy in
this world but in the other. Would you be kind enough to come here for a
fortnight?”

February 21 – The Lady appeared to Bernadette very early in
the morning. About one hundred people were present. Afterwards the Police
Commissioner, Jacomet, questioned her. He wanted Bernadette to tell what she
saw. Bernadette would only speak of “AQUÉRO” (“that thing” in local dialect).

February 23 – Surrounded by 150 persons, Bernadette arrived
at the Grotto. The Apparition reveals to her a secret “only for her alone.”

February 24 – The message of the Lady: “Penance! Penance!
Penance! Pray to God for sinners. Kiss the ground as an act of penance for
sinners!”

February 25 – Three hundred people were present. Bernadette
relates, “She told me to go, drink of the spring. … I only found a little muddy
water. At the fourth attempt I was able to drink. She also made me eat the
bitter herbs that were found near the spring, and then the vision left and went
away.” In front of the crowd that was asking “Do you think that she is mad
doing things like that?” She replied; “It is for sinners.”

February 27 – Eight hundred people were present. The
Apparition was silent. Bernadette drank the water from the spring and carried
out her usual acts of penance.

February 28 – Over one thousand people were present at the
ecstasy. Bernadette prayed, kissed the ground and moved on her knees as a sign
of penance. She was then taken to the house of Judge Ribes who threatened to
put her in prison.

March 1 – Over one thousand five hundred people assembled
and among them, for the first time, a priest. In the night, Catherine Latapie,
a friend from Lourdes, went to the Grotto, she plunged her dislocated arm into
the water of the Spring: her arm and her hand regained their movement.

March 2 – The crowd becomes larger and larger. The Lady
asked her: “Go, tell the priests to come here in procession and to build a
chapel here.” Bernadette spoke of this to Fr. Peyramale, the Parish Priest of
Lourdes. He wanted to know only one thing: the Lady’s name. He demanded another
test; to see the wild rose bush flower at the Grotto in the middle of winter.

March 3 – From 7 o’clock in the morning, in the presence of
three thousand people, Bernadette arrived at the Grotto, but the vision did not
appear. After school, she heard the inner invitation of the Lady. She went to
the Grotto and asked her again for her name. The response was a smile. The
Parish Priest told her again, “If the Lady really wishes that a chapel be
built, then she must tell us her name and make the rose bush bloom at the
Grotto.”

March 4 – The ever-greater crowd (about eight thousand
people) waited for a miracle at the end of the fortnight. The vision was
silent. Fr. Peyramale stuck to his position. For twenty days Bernadette did not
go to the Grotto, she no longer felt the irresistible invitation.

March 25 – The vision finally revealed her name, but the
wild rose bush, on which she stood during the Apparitions, did not bloom.
Bernadette recounted, “She lifted up her eyes to heaven, joined her hands as
though in prayer, that were held out and open towards the ground and said to
me: Que soy era Immaculada Concepciou (I am the Immaculate Conception).” The
young visionary left and, running all the way, repeated continuously the words
that she did not understand. These words troubled the brave Parish Priest. Bernadette
was ignorant of the fact that this theological expression was assigned to the
Blessed Virgin. Four years earlier, in 1854, Pope Pius IX declared this a truth
of the Catholic Faith (a dogma).

April 7 – During this Apparition, Bernadette had to keep her
candle alight. The flame licked along her hand without burning it. A medical
doctor, Dr. Douzous, immediately witnessed this fact.

July 16 – Bernadette received the mysterious call to the
Grotto, but her way was blocked and closed off by a barrier. She thus, arrived
across from the Grotto to the other side of the Gave. “I felt that I was in
front of the Grotto, at the same distance as before, I saw only the Blessed
Virgin, and she was more beautiful than ever!”

Thirty years after her death, Soubirous’ body was exhumed
and no sign of decay was present, although her Rosary was corroded by rust,
indicating a level of moisture that should have promoted decay of her body. Ten
years later her body was again exhumed and still found to be without any sign
of decay. Only a few relics were removed, and her body is now on display for
veneration at the Convent of Saint-Gildard in Nevers, France.

1859 – Our Lady of Good Help in Wisconsin. While
walking along a path in the wilderness, Adèle Brise (age twenty-eight) saw a
luminous woman, clothed in white, standing between a maple tree and a hemlock
tree. Brise said she prayed throughout the first apparition, which frightened
her:

When on the next Sunday, October 9, Adèle together with her
sister Isabelle and a neighbor, walked to Mass at Bay Settlement, the same Lady
in white robes appeared to her a second time. Again Adèle was frightened. After
a few minutes the apparition disappeared, again without speaking a word. …

When on the return journey, with the same women and also
accompanied by a man, Adèle passed the same location, the Lady appeared again,
this time infused in a most fragrant incense. She was clad in a resplendent
white gown, had long and golden hair, wore a yellow sash around her waist, and
on her head a crown adorned with stars. Adèle immediately fell on her knees and
asked her who she was.  (155)

The Lady replied: “I am the Queen of Heaven who prays for
the conversion of sinners, and I wish you to do the same. You received Holy
Communion this morning, and that is well. But you must do more. Make a general
confession and offer up Communion for the conversion of sinners. If they do not
convert and do penance, my Son will be obliged to punish them.”

“Adèle, who is it?” said one of the women. “O why can’t we
see her as you do?” said another weeping. “Kneel,” said Adèle, the Lady says
she is the Queen of Heaven.”

Our Blessed Lady turned, looked kindly at them, and said,
“Blessed are they that believe without seeing.”

“What are you doing here in idleness,” continued our Lady,
“while your companions are working in the vineyard of my Son?”

“What more can I do, dear Lady?” said Adèle weeping.

“Gather the children in this wild country and teach them
what they should know for salvation.”

“But how shall I teach them who knows so little myself?”
replied Adèle.

“Teach them,” replied her radiant visitor, “their
catechism, how to sign themselves with the sign of the Cross, and how to
approach the sacraments; that is what I wish you to do. Go and fear nothing, I
will help you.” Wrapped as it were in a luminous atmosphere, Our Lady lifted
her hands as though she was beseeching a blessing for those at her feet.
Slowly, she vanished from sight leaving Adèle overwhelmed and prostrate on the
ground, and the dense woods as solemn as before.  (156)

Brise devoted the rest of her life to the mission she
received during the apparition. “Between 1859 and 1866 she walked as far as
fifty miles to the village of Little Sturgeon in order to carry out the ‘Queen
of Heaven’s’ order. She encountered repeatedly wild animals such as bears,
wolves, and deer. Soon innumerable testimonies of healings were on display in
the chapel.”  (157)

1871 – Our Lady of Pontmain in France. On the evening
of January 17, Eugene Barbedette (age twelve) had just finished helping his
father with chores in a barn when he went outside and looked up at the stars.
When the apparition began, he saw a woman dressed in a blue mantle covered with
gold stars. When the boy’s younger brother, father, and a neighbor came out to
see what was going on, the brother, Joseph (age six) also saw the apparition,
but the adults saw nothing. The boy’s mother then arrived at the scene and,
seeing nothing, instructed the two boys to go inside their home. The boys later
went outside again and still reported seeing the apparition. So their
schoolteacher, Sister Vitaline, was informed, and she arrived with three
additional children.

Two girls, Francoise Richer (age eleven) and Jeanne-Marie
Lebosse (age nine), said they could also see the apparition and described it
exactly as the boys had done. Soon, sixty people were at the site praying the
Rosary. The event lasted approximately three hours, and the apparition changed
over time, which the four visionaries described to the others gathered at the
site.

A blue oval formed around the Blessed Mother, and a small
red cross appeared over her heart. The oval expanded to almost twice its
original size, and stars appeared to become attached to the Lady’s mantle.
Then, letters of the alphabet in the color of gold began to appear slowly under
the Lady’s feet: “But pray, my children,” then later, “God will soon answer you,”
and later, “My Son allows Himself to be moved.”

The crowd began to sing a hymn, Mother of Hope, and
the visionaries, looking at the apparition, responded animatedly, “See how she
smiles! Oh, how beautiful she is!” Afterward, a large red cross with Jesus upon
it appeared, and Mary’s appearance changed to extreme sadness. The visionary
Joseph later wrote the following description of the sadness he saw in Mary’s
expression: “Her sadness was more than anyone can imagine. I saw my mother
overwhelmed with grief when, some months later, my father died. You know what
such grief in a mother’s face does to the heart of a child. But, as I remember,
what instinctively came to mind was the sadness of the Most Blessed Virgin,
which must have been the sadness of the Mother of Jesus at the foot of the
Cross that bore her dying Son.”  (158)

Four unlit candles, which were in the apparition’s original
configuration within the blue oval, returned, two near Mary’s shoulders and two
near her knees. One of the stars, in motion, lit each of the four candles as
the image of Christ on the cross disappeared and Mary returned to her initial
posture, smiling, with arms extended downward. A white veil then appeared at
her feet and gradually lifted upwards as the apparition disappeared.

1877 – Our Lady of Gietrzwald in Poland. Two girls
reported seeing and speaking with the Blessed Virgin Mary over the course of
three months beginning in June. Justyna Szafrynska (age thirteen) experienced
her first apparition on June 27, followed by Barbara Samulowska (age twelve) on
June 28. The Virgin instructed the girls to have a statue of the Blessed Virgin
Mary as the Immaculate Conception placed at the site of the apparitions.

In the 1500s, an image in the church at the site—Mary with
the child Jesus surrounded by angels—gained notoriety as a miraculous image.
Since the 1600s, numerous cases have been reported of people being healed after
praying for the intercession of Our Lady of Gietrzwald. In one of the 1877
apparitions that occurred outside the church containing the miraculous image,
the two girls said they saw, appearing over a maple tree, a luminous “bright
lady” sitting on a throne with the child Jesus surrounded by angels. During an
apparition on June 30, the girls asked the lady what she wanted, and the Virgin
Mary’s reply was, “I wish you recite the Rosary every day.” In a July 1
apparition, the girls asked the lady who she was, and the reply was, “I am the
Blessed Virgin Mary of the Immaculate Conception.”  (159)

1879 – Our Lady of Knock in Ireland. Fifteen
witnesses of the apparition ranging in age from five to seventy-four gave
testimonies of what they saw, which are compiled in a 14-page PDF file
available at the Knock Shrine website. Excerpts include the following:  (96)

Judith Campbell – I live at Knock; I remember the evening
and night of the 21 August last. Mary Byrne called at my house about eight
o’clock on that evening, and asked me to come up and see the great sight at the
chapel. I ran up with her to the place, and I saw outside the chapel, at the
gable of the sacristy facing the south, three figures representing St. Joseph,
St. John and the Blessed Virgin Mary, also an altar, and the likeness of a lamb
on it, with a cross at the back of the lamb.

Patrick Hill – While at my aunt’s at about eight o’clock in
the evening, Dominick Byrne came into the house; he cried out: “Come up to the
chapel and see the miraculous lights, and the beautiful visions that are to be
seen there.” I followed him; another man by the name Dominick Byrne, and John
Durkan, and a small boy named John Curry, came with me; we were all together;
we ran over towards the chapel. When we, running southwest, came so far from
the village that on our turning, the gable came into view, we immediately
beheld the lights; a clear white light, covering most of the gable, from the
ground up to the window and higher. It was a kind of changing bright light,
going sometimes up high and again not so high. We saw the figures—the Blessed
Virgin, St. Joseph and St. John, and an altar with a Lamb on the altar, and a
cross behind the lamb.

Patrick Walsh – About nine o’clock on that night I was
going on some business through my land, and standing a distance of about half a
mile from the chapel; I saw a very bright light on the southern gable end of
the chapel; it appeared to me to be a large globe of golden light; I never saw,
I thought, so brilliant a light before; it appeared high up in the air above
and around the chapel gable and it was circular in its appearance; it was quite
stationary, and it seemed to retain the same brilliancy all through. The
following day I made inquiries in order to learn if there were any lights seen
in the place that night; it was only then that I heard of the vision or
apparitions that the people had seen.

1917 – Our Lady of Fatima in Portugal. No other private
revelation has attracted as much attention from the popes and all Catholics as
the apparitions reported in Fatima. The overarching Message of Fatima
includes other apparitions experienced in subsequent years by one of the three
visionaries, Lucia Santos—three apparitions in Pontevedra, Spain, in 1925, 1926
and 1927, and one in Tuy, Spain, in 1929.

Prior to the Fatima apparitions of the Virgin Mary as Our
Lady of the Rosary in 1917, the three visionaries, Santos (age ten), Jacinta
Marto (age seven) and Francisco Marto (age nine), reported three apparitions of
an angel in 1916, who prepared them, taught them prayers, and instructed them
on how to make sacrifices and become devoted to the Eucharist. During the third
apparition of the angel, the children said the angel administered Holy
Communion to them:

Lucia tells us in her memoirs that the three visionaries
were so overwhelmed by a supernatural atmosphere that they too [with the angel]
prostrated themselves and repeated the prayer three times. Lucia described the
experience as so intense that the children seemed deprived of the use of their
bodily senses, as they had been during the first angel apparition.  (160)

The information below provides only a cursory description of
how each of the 1917 apparitions began, and then is followed by several eyewitness
accounts of an event on October 13 that was foretold in an apparition three
months earlier. A comprehensive discussion of the events and related theology
is available in Father Andrew Apostoli’s book, Fatima for Today. Quotes
from Lucia’s memoirs, Fatima, In Lucia’s Own Words, are italicized. (161)

May 13 – Suddenly we saw what seemed to be
a flash of lightning.

“We’d better go home,” I said to my cousins, “that’s
lightning; we may have a thunderstorm.”

“Yes, indeed!” they answered.

We began to go down the slope, hurrying the sheep along
towards the road. We were more or less half-way down the slope, and almost
level with a large holm-oak tree that stood there, when we saw another flash of
lightning. We had only gone a few steps further when, there before us on a
small holm-oak, we beheld a Lady all dressed in white. She was more brilliant
than the sun, and radiated a light more clear and intense than a crystal glass
filled with sparkling water when the rays of the burning sun shine through it. We
stopped, astounded, before the Apparition. We were so close, just a few feet
from her, that we were bathed in the light which surrounded her, or rather,
which radiated from her. Then Our Lady spoke to us:

“Do not be afraid. I will do you no harm.”

“Where are you from?”

“I am from heaven.”

“What do you want of me?”

“I have come to ask you to come here for six months in
succession, on the 13th day, at this same hour. Later on, I will tell you who I
am and what I want.”

June 13 – As soon as Jacinta, Francisco and I had
finished praying the Rosary with a number of other people who were present, we
saw once more the flash reflecting the light which was approaching (which we
called lightning). The next moment, Our Lady was there on the holm-oak, exactly
the same as in May.

July 13 — A few moments after arriving at the
Cova da Iria, near the holm-oak, where a large number of people were praying
the Rosary, we saw the flash of light once more, and a moment later Our Lady
appeared on the holm-oak.

“What do you want of me?” I asked.

“I want you to come here on the 13th of the next months,
to continue to pray the Rosary every day in honour of Our Lady of the Rosary,
in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war, because only she
can help you.”

“I would like to ask you to tell us who you are, and to
work a miracle so that everybody will believe that you are appearing to us.”

“Continue to come here every month. In October, I will
tell you who I am and what I want, and I will perform a miracle for all to see
and believe.”

August 13-15 – On August 13, prior to the usual time
of the apparitions, the children were picked up by the head of the city council
of Ourem, Portugal, which had administrative control over Fatima and the nearby
village of Aljustrel. Political tensions were high in Portugal at the time
because a Soviet-style revolution occurred in 1910, and anti-religious laws
were enacted by the government in 1911. World War I began in 1914, and Germany
declared war on Portugal in 1916. On April 4, 1917, the first Portuguese
soldiers arrived at the Western Front.

By August, news of the apparitions had spread throughout
Portugal, and the events were beginning to draw interest internationally. As a
result, the children were picked up by Arturo de Oliveira Santos, head of the
Ourem city council, on the pretense that the increasing crowds at the Cova da
Iria were a threat to the stability of the area and the local government.

Lucia, Jacinta, and Francisco were taken to the Ourem city
hall and intensely interrogated, and that night, they stayed at the home of
Arturo de Oliveira Santos. The following day they were individually
interrogated, and each child was threatened with death unless they made a
statement that the apparitions were a hoax.

As each of the children refused to say the apparitions were
a hoax, they were individually led (unbeknownst to each other) into an adjacent
room where they were told they would be executed. When that failed to persuade
the children, they were released on August 15 and dropped off on the steps of a
local Catholic church. In her memoirs, Lucia stated that the August apparition
took place on August 15:

I was accompanied by Francisco and his brother John. We
were with the sheep in a place called Valinhos, when we felt something
supernatural approaching and enveloping us. Suspecting that Our Lady was about
to appear to us, and feeling sorry lest Jacinta might miss seeing her, we asked
her brother to go and call her. As he was unwilling to go, I offered him two
small coins, and off he ran. Meanwhile, Francisco and I saw the flash of light,
which we called lightning. Jacinta arrived, and a moment later, we saw Our Lady
on the holm-oak tree.

September 13 – The children’s imprisonment in August
only served to generate more interest in the apparitions, and an estimated
25,000 people gathered at the site:

As the hour approached, I set out with Jacinta and
Francisco, but owing to the crowds around us we could only advance with
difficulty. The roads were packed with people, and everyone wanted to see us
and speak to us. There was no human respect whatsoever. Simple folk, and even
ladies and gentlemen, struggled to break through the crowd that pressed around
us. No sooner had they reached us than they threw themselves on their knees
before us, begging us to place their petitions before Our Lady. … At last, we
arrived at the Cova da Iria, and on reaching the holm-oak we began to say the
Rosary with the people. Shortly afterwards, we saw the flash of light, and then
Our Lady appeared on the holm-oak.

October 13 – Estimates of the number of people at the
site ranged from 40,000 to 80,000, and approximately 20,000 others in the
vicinity:

We left home quite early, expecting that we would be
delayed along the way. Masses of people thronged the roads. The rain fell in
torrents. … Not even the muddy roads could prevent these people from kneeling
in the most humble and suppliant of attitudes. We reached the holm-oak in the
Cova da Iria. Once there, moved by an interior impulse, I asked the people to
shut their umbrellas and say the Rosary. A little later, we saw the flash of
light, and then Our Lady appeared on the holm-oak.

The event that occurred on October 13 is referred to as the
“miracle of the sun” because witnesses reported the sun appeared to move toward
the earth, change colors, and whirl like a wheel. The event was visible only in
a 25-mile radius of the town of Fatima, so it did not involve the sun itself.
Many witnesses mistakenly believed the sun was hurtling toward the earth in a
doomsday scenario. Lucia’s comments in her memoirs clearly state the sun itself
was not involved, but that a type of reflection of the sun occurred.
Immediately before the beginning of the event, Lucia reported, speaking of
Mary, “Then, opening her hands, she made them reflect on the sun, and as she
ascended, the reflection of her own light continued to be projected on the sun
itself.” (161)

The description of Mary’s appearance is reminiscent of the
reference in the biblical book of Revelation 12:1, “A great sign appeared in
heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown
of twelve stars on her head.”

Alfredo da Silva Santos, a skeptic from Lisbon, Portugal,
traveled to Fatima when news began spreading that a supernatural event would
occur on October 13. He reported:

We made our arrangements and went in three motorcars in the
early morning of the 13th. There was a thick mist, and the car which went in
front mistook the way so that we were all lost for a time and only arrived at
the Cova da Iria at midday by the sun. It was absolutely full of people, but
for my part I felt devoid of any religious feeling. When Lucia called out,
“Look at the sun!,” the whole multitude repeated, “Attention to the sun!” It
was a day of incessant drizzle but a few moments before the miracle it stopped
raining.

I can hardly find words to describe what followed. The sun
began to move, and at a certain moment appeared to be detached from the sky and
about to hurtle upon us like a wheel of flame. My wife—we had been married only
a short time—fainted, and I was too upset to attend to her, and my
brother-in-law … supported her on his arm. I fell on my knees, oblivious of
everything, and when I got up I don’t know what I said. I think I began to cry
out like the others. An old man with a white beard began to attack the atheists
aloud and challenged them to say whether or not something supernatural had
occurred.  (162)

Avelino de Almeida, a reporter for Portugal’s largest
newspaper, O Seculo, based in Lisbon, had previously written negative
articles about the apparitions occurring at Fatima. He reported the following:

One could see the immense number of people turn toward the
sun, which appeared free from clouds and in its zenith. It looked like a plaque
of dull silver, and it was possible to look at it without the least discomfort.

It might have been an eclipse which was taking place. But
at that moment a great shout went up and one could hear the spectators nearest
at hand shouting, “A miracle! A miracle!”… Before the astonished eyes of the
crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bareheaded, eagerly searching
the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic
laws—the sun “danced” according to the typical expression of the people.

People began to ask each other what they had seen. The
great majority admitted to having seen the trembling and the dancing of the
sun; others affirmed that they saw the face of the Blessed Virgin; others,
again, swore that the sun whirled on itself like a giant wheel and that it
lowered itself to the earth as if to burn it in its rays. Some said they saw it
change colors successively.  (163)

Maria Carreira was a local resident who was among a small
group of people accompanying the three children at the June 13 apparition.
Later, she visited the site frequently and became known as Maria da Capelinha
(Maria of the Little Chapel) because she placed flowers at the site, tied silk
ribbons on the branches of the tree, removed stones, cut away thickets, and “gave
the place the shape of a round threshing floor.” She reported:

The sun turned everything to different colors—yellow, blue
and white. Then it shook and trembled. It looked like a wheel of fire that was
going to fall on the people. They began to cry out, “We shall all be killed!”
Others called to Our Lady to save them. They recited acts of contrition. One
woman began to confess her sins aloud, advertising that she had done this and
that. … When at last the sun stopped leaping and moving, we all breathed our
relief. We were still alive, and the miracle which the children had foretold,
had been seen by everyone.  (164)

Father Ignacio Lorenco witnessed the event eleven miles from
the apparition site, from the village of Alburitel, and stated:

At about midday we were surprised by the shouts and cries
of some men and women who were passing in front of the school. … Outside, the
people were shouting and weeping and pointing to the sun. … I feel incapable of
describing what I saw and felt. I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale
and did not hurt the eyes. Looking like a ball of snow revolving on itself, it
suddenly seemed to come down in a zigzag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran
and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the
world at any moment.

Near us was an unbeliever who had spent the morning mocking
at the simpletons who had gone off to Fatima “just to see an ordinary girl.” He
now seemed to be paralyzed, his eyes fixed on the sun. Afterward, he trembled
from head to foot and lifting up his arms fell on his knees in the mud, crying
out to Our Lady. … During those long moments of the solar prodigy, objects
around us turned all the colors of the rainbow. We saw ourselves blue, yellow,
red, etc. All the strange phenomena increased the fears of the people.

After about ten minutes the sun, now dull and pallid,
returned to its place. When the people realized that the danger was over, there
was an explosion of joy, and everyone joined in thanksgiving and praise to Our
Lady.  (165)

Mary Allen testified that the miracle caused her
rain-drenched clothes and the saturated earth to become dry within a ten-minute
span:

As we approached the hillside upon which the appearances
were supposed to have taken place, I saw a sea of people. Some newspapers said
there were 70,000 people there. I didn’t count, but it was more people than I
have ever seen in my life, even to this day. … We had just arrived there when
suddenly my attention was drawn to a sudden bright light from the heavens,
lighting up the whole countryside. Suddenly the rain ceased, the clouds
separated and I saw a large sun, brighter than the sun, yet I could look at it
without hurting my eyes, as if it were only the moon.

This sun began to get larger and larger, brighter and
brighter until the whole heavens seemed more brilliantly lighted than I have
ever seen it. Then the sun started spinning and shooting streams of light,
which changed it to all colors of the rainbow. … At the same time, it started
getting bigger and bigger in the sky as though it were headed directly for us,
as though it were falling on the earth. Everyone was frightened. We all thought
it was the end of the world. Everyone threw themselves on their knees praying
and screaming the Act of Contrition. Suddenly the sun stopped spinning and
returned to its place in the sky. Everyone started shouting: “Miracle! This is
a miracle!” Just then I noticed that both the ground and my clothes were bone
dry.  (166)

1932 – Our Lady of Beauraing in Belgium. Five
children (ages nine to fifteen) from two families reported apparitions of Mary
from November 1932 to January 1933. Approximately 15,000 people gathered at the
site on December 8, the Catholic feast day of the Immaculate Conception. The
crowd did not see the apparition, but they saw the children in ecstasy.

On January 2, the children reported, according to words they
heard from Mary, that the following day would be their final apparition, and
Mary would speak to each child individually. About 30,000 people gathered at
the site on January 3:

After two decades [a decade is ten Hail Mary prayers when
praying the Rosary] four of them called out and fell to their knees, leaving
Fernande, the oldest, in tears because she could see nothing. … She [Mary] then
spoke to Gilberte Voisin, imparting to her what has been seen as the main
promise of Beauraing, “I will convert sinners.” … To Andree she said: “I am the
Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven. Pray always.” …

Fernande remained kneeling while the other children went
inside for questioning, when suddenly, she, and many in the crowd, heard a loud
noise like thunder and saw a “ball of fire” on the hawthorn tree. Mary appeared
and spoke to Fernande, asking her if she loved her Son and herself; when
Fernande replied that she did, the response was: “Then sacrifice yourself for
me.” At this the Blessed Virgin glowed with extraordinary brilliance, and
extended her arms, so that the girl could see her golden heart, before saying,
“Goodbye,” and disappearing, to leave Fernande weeping.  (167)

1945 – Our Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam. Ida
Peerdeman (age forty) first reported apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary in
1945, and ongoing visions continued until 1959. One message from Mary on April
29, 1951, included the following:

I stand here as the Co-Redemptrix and Advocate. Everything
should be concentrated on that. Repeat this after me; The new dogma will be the
“dogma of the Co-Redemptrix.” Notice I lay special emphasis on “Co.” I have
said that it will arouse much controversy. Once again I tell you that the
Church, “Rome,” will carry it through and silence all objections. The Church,
“Rome,” will incur opposition and overcome it. The Church, “Rome,” will become
stronger and mightier in proportion to the resistance she puts up in the
struggle. My purpose and my commission to you is none other than to urge the
Church, the theologians, to wage this battle. … I know well, the struggle will
be hard and bitter (and then the Lady smiles to herself and seems to gaze into
the far distance), but the outcome is already assured.  (168)

In May 2002, the apparitions as well as the messages were
declared as authentic and of “supernatural origin” by Bishop Josef Maria Punt
of the Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam. Peerdeman said Mary also described and
provided visions of numerous future events, which Peerdeman relayed and later
proved to be accurate. Many of Peerdeman’s prophecies are described in a video,
Peace Through a Woman, narrated by Martin Sheen.

On May 31, 1954, Peerdeman reported the following vision
involving the Blessed Virgin Mary:

Once more I am here—the Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and
Advocate is now standing before you. Theologians and apostles of the Lord Jesus
Christ, listen carefully: I have given you the explanation of the dogma. Work
and ask for this dogma. You must petition the Holy Father for this dogma.

All of a sudden, it is as if I was standing with the Lady
over the dome of a big church, and as we enter, I hear the Lady say, “I am
taking you inside this. Tell others what I let you see and hear.”

We are now in a very big church, in St. Peter’s
[Basilica in Vatican City]. I see lots of cardinals and bishops. The Pope
enters. … People applaud. The choir begins to sing. Now the Holy Father is
announcing something, while holding up two fingers.

Then all at once the Lady is standing on the globe again
and says with a smile, “In this way, my child, I have let you see what is the
Will of the Lord Jesus Christ. This day will in due time be the “Coronation
Day” of his Mother, the “Lady of All Nations.”  (169)

The tenor of some of the messages reported by Peerdeman as
coming from Mary can be characterized as feisty—willfully lecturing theologians
in a way reminiscent of Joan of Arc, who at times used a lecturing tone when
responding to questions from ecclesiastical authorities. The forty-ninth
message Peerdeman received, on April 4, 1954, included the following:

I see the Lady standing there with a very serious look on
her face. She says to me, “Here I am again. Listen carefully! From the
beginning, the Handmaid of the Lord was chosen to be the Co-Redemptrix. Tell
your theologians that they can find everything in their books.”

Now I see an old library with lots of books. The Lady
points this out to me. She pauses for a moment and smiles to herself as if
inwardly amused. Nearly whispering, she says, “I am not bringing a new
doctrine. I am now bringing old thoughts.”

The Lady pauses again and then says, “Because Mary is Co-Redemptrix,
she is also Mediatrix, she is also Advocate. Not only because she is the Mother
of the Lord Jesus Christ, but––and mark this well––because she is the
Immaculate Conception.  (170)

1961 – Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Garabandal, Spain.
In addition to 2,000 apparitions experienced by the primary visionary, Conchita
Gonzales, three other children, Mari Loli Mazon (age twelve), Jacinta Gonzales
(age twelve) and Mari Cruz Gonzales (age eleven), also experienced visions. In
some cases, all four girls would be in the same location, but all of them would
not participate in the vision, and sometimes one or more girls would enter or
exit the apparition at different times:

When in ecstasy, the girls saw only the vision and
whichever other members of their group were actually participating in the
apparition with them. If one of the girls was not participating, either because
she did not share in it at the start or because she was excluded or withdrawn
from it at some point while it continued for the others, these others could not
see her. Also, they could never see any of the spectators or bystanders,
precisely because they were not participating in the vision.  (171)

The apparitions lasted from a few minutes to several hours,
and the girls often gave objects such as rosaries, wedding rings, and even
stone pebbles to the Blessed Virgin Mary to be kissed by her. Gonzales stated:

It was not the Blessed Virgin who told us to gather
pebbles. We did it ourselves. … the Blessed Virgin touched them and kissed them
and then said to us: “Give them to other people.”  (172)

Later, in response to questions posed to Gonzales on
September 14, 1965, she stated, “The Blessed Virgin said that Jesus would
perform miracles through objects kissed by her.”  (173)

On December 8, 1964, Gonzales reported an interior locution from
the Blessed Virgin Mary, during which Mary informed Gonzales to expect an
apparition of Saint Michael the archangel on June 18, 1965.  Due to the advance
notice of the date, crowds gathered at the site where Gonzales reported
apparitions of Saint Michael and the Blessed Mother four years earlier. It was
about 11:30 p.m. when Gonzales started running to the site. A Spanish news
station set up cameras and flooded the area with light. Even though the lights
shone directly at her, Gonzales’ eyes remained wide open and didn’t blink
throughout the twenty-minute apparition:

Her voice which was recorded on tape had that same intense
guttural whispering tone and quality that it had had in the previous
apparitions. At one moment, she reached up with the approximately
three-by-four-inch crucifix that she carried in her hand and touched the hem of
Saint Michael’s garment. Then, at the angel’s bidding, she held the crucifix
out for Father Pel, a French priest, to kiss. An old man of 87 with a
reputation of holiness, who had spent the morning in the village church, Father
Pel had followed the events of Garabandal for some time. Next, Conchita held
out the crucifix to one of Father Pel’s friends. Finally, she did the same for
Jean Masure, a Frenchman living in Madrid. Later she told this man: “The angel
says that I am to tell you that the Blessed Virgin has granted your request.”  (174)

On June 18, a specific message given for “the world” (as
opposed to a message given only for the seer or for specific individuals) was
the following:

As my message of October 18 [1961] has not been complied
with and has not been made known to the world, I am advising you that this is
the last one.

Before, the cup was filling up. Now it is flowing over.
Many cardinals, many bishops and many priests are on the road to hell and are
taking many souls with them.

Less and less importance is being given to the Eucharist.
You should turn the wrath of God away from yourselves by your efforts. If you
ask him for forgiveness with sincere hearts, he will pardon you.

I, your Mother, through the intercession of Saint Michael
the archangel, ask you to amend your lives. You are now receiving the last
warnings. I love you very much and do not want your condemnation.

Pray to us with sincerity and we will grant your requests.
You should make more sacrifices. Think about the passion of Jesus.  (175)

1968 – Our Lady of Light in Zeitoun, Egypt. The first
witness was a Muslim, Farouk Mohammed Atwa, who thought he was seeing a woman
attempting suicide by jumping from the top of the Church of Saint Mary in
Zeitoun, which is part of Cairo. Atwa had been diagnosed with gangrene, but
when he went to the hospital the next day for a scheduled operation, he was medically
certified as completely healed.

Ongoing apparitions lasted approximately three years. During
the first two years, the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared two or three times each
week, and estimates of the number of people who witnessed the apparitions range
from 250,000 to one million. About 40 million people witnessed the events on
Egyptian television.

According to tradition as well as archeological evidence, Zeitoun
is the site where the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph and the child Jesus
stopped after arriving in Egypt. The biblical text of Matthew 2:13 describes an
incident where an angel appears to Saint Joseph in a dream: “Get up,” he said,
“take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell
you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”

An official statement published by the Coptic Orthodox
Church in Cairo on May 4, 1968, included the following:

Since the evening of Tuesday April 2, 1968 (the 24th of Bramhat,
1684 A.M.), the apparitions of the Holy Virgin Saint Mary, Mother of Light,
have continued in the Coptic Orthodox Church named after Her in Zeitoun, Cairo.
The apparitions occurred on many different nights and are continuing in
different forms. The Holy Virgin Saint Mary appeared sometimes in full form and
sometimes in a bust, surrounded with a halo of shining light. She was seen at
times on the openings of the domes on the roof of the church, and at other
times outside the domes, moving and walking on the roof of the church and over
the domes. When She knelt in reverence in front of the cross, the cross shone
with bright light. Waving Her blessed hands and nodding Her holy head, She
blessed the people who gathered to observe the miracle. She appeared sometimes
in the form of a body like a very bright cloud, and sometimes as a figure of
light preceded with heavenly bodies shaped like doves moving at high speeds.  (176)

Wadie Shumbo, a Protestant who worked in engineering for
Mobil Oil, reported:

At about 9:50 p.m. we saw lightning over the church, much
stronger than one could make with a flashlight. I had a feeling something was
about to happen. A thin line or edge of light appeared like the light you see
when you open the door of a lighted room. Within seconds it formed itself into
the shape of the Virgin. I could not speak. All who were with me said, “It’s
impossible.” The Moslems all started to cry. This sight lasted for five minutes
when the figure rose and vanished. I could distinguish only a difference in
colour between the skin in the face and hands and the veil. … When she
disappeared from our side of the church, the people from the other side shouted
they were seeing her, then she returned to our side for five minutes. When I
returned to the car for something, I found it impossible to get back to the
church because of the crowd. I could hear people shouting. Above the centre
dome I saw Mary in full body, standing before the cross, I cannot describe what
I felt.  (177)

Wagih Rizk, a photographer who lived in Zeitoun, had
suffered a severe injury to his arm from an automobile accident in February
1968. The extent of the injury was described by Dr. Hassan Sennarah:

All tissues, nerves and tendons that join your arm were cut
and the bones have compound fractures and consequently you will never be able
to move your left forearm and hand again. … Your condition was severe and you
have to thank God for being in such state now.  (178)

Rizk then reported the experiences he had in April 1968:

On April 9, 1968, I was shaken by the news of the
apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Zeitoun and so I went to see Her.
That night at 2:45 a.m., I saw Her in the form of radiating light like clouds.
The light was very strong, so strong that the eye couldn’t bear it, and was
seen near the cross over the small eastern dome. The apparition was awesome. …
Reverence and fear filled me like an electric shock.

I returned home. I couldn’t control my thoughts or sleep in
spite of the fact that I didn’t sleep all that night to witness the apparition.
I had a bizarre thought: I wanted to take photos of the Blessed Virgin and Her
miraculous apparitions. Why not? …

On April 13, I was determined not to let the opportunity
escape anymore. At 3:40 am, the Blessed Virgin appeared. And very quickly, I
captured the photo. … Our Lady is still appearing in front of me. … So I took a
second photo. … And you know, from what you have read in newspapers, the
technical aspects and the way these two photos were captured … but what you
don't know is the spiritual aspect. …

I forgot while I was looking at the apparition of the Blessed
Virgin the fact that when I captured the first photo quickly, I used my left
hand! Yes my left hand. … The five hand doctors, some of them are among the
most famous surgeons in Egypt, said [it] was hopeless and will never move
again. … The Blessed Virgin has miraculously healed this hand!

I started to move my left hand, up, down, to my side and to
rotate and wave it in the air while extended. … I was cured … completely cured
once the Virgin appeared. And from this day the camera never leaves me, and the
camera and I never leave Zeitoun.  (178)

1973 – Our Lady of Akita in Japan. On June 28, Sister
Agnes Katsuko Sasagawa (age forty-two) felt excruciating pain and noticed a
cross-shaped wound in the palm of her hand. On July 5, blood began to flow from
the wound. The following day she heard an interior voice, which Sasagawa
reported to be her guardian angel, saying, “The wounds of Mary are much deeper
and more sorrowful than yours. Let us go to pray together in the chapel.” When Sasagawa
entered the chapel and walked up to a wooden statue of Mary, she later said, “I
suddenly felt that the wooden statue came to life and was about to speak to me
… She was bathed in a brilliant light … and at the same moment a voice of
indescribable beauty struck my totally deaf ears.”  (179) The following morning, other sisters in the convent noticed blood
dripping from the statue’s right hand, coming out of the wood where two lines
met in the form of a cross. The hand of the statue and the hand of Sasagawa
bled on Fridays during the month of July. Sasagawa said her guardian angel
accurately foretold the wound in her hand would disappear on July 27, but blood
continued to drip from the statue’s hand until September 29, when the statue
emanated an intense light.

Sasagawa reported three messages from Mary, on July 6,
August 3, and October 13, which is the anniversary of the Fatima “miracle of
the sun.” All three messages were heard by Sasagawa while she was in the
presence of the statue, and she reported all three messages came “through” the
statue. The October 13 message included the following:  (180)

The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church
in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against
other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their
confreres. … Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able to save
you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in me
will be saved.

Tears flowing from the statue on December 8, 1979, the
Catholic feast day celebrating the Immaculate Conception, were recorded by a
television crew in Japan and broadcast nationwide. The tears began flowing from
the statue on January 4, 1975, and ended on September 15, 1981, the feast day
of Our Lady of Sorrows. The sisters kept a record of the days on which the
statue wept and the number of people who witnessed the tears. On all but five
occasions, the number of witnesses ranged from a minimum of ten to a maximum of
sixty-five. The statue wept tears 101 times, and Sasagawa said her guardian
angel explained the significance in the following manner: “There is a meaning
to the figure 101. This signifies that sin came into the world by a woman and
it is also by a woman that salvation came into the world. The zero between the
two signifies the Eternal God who is from all eternity until eternity. The first
one represents Eve, and the last, the Virgin Mary.”

The biblical basis for guardian angels is found in Matthew
18:10 and numerous references to the activities of angels as protectors and
enablers are found in the Old and New Testament texts. The following is a
description of the role of guardian angels by author Mike Aquilina:

Our guardian angel’s task is to get us to heaven—not to
keep us or our loved ones from suffering or death. After all, suffering is
perhaps the principal means of our spiritual growth on earth, and death is our
final portal to God.

We should not be surprised when friends, or even children,
die in accidents. Nor should we see it as some sort of angelic malfunction. The
angel’s job is to get his charge to judgement, prepared as well as possible.
The angels live in the presence of God, and they know God’s mind better than we
do. They know when an injury or illness will draw us closer to God. They also
know when another twenty-four hours on earth will merely get us another day
older and deeper in debt.

God permits our suffering and even our death, always for
the good of souls—for our own soul, if we correspond to the grace, for the good
of others if we don’t. The angels always cooperate with his perfect plan.

Judged from a human perspective, this can seem cold and
even cruel. But the human perspective is limited. It takes an exceptionally
talented human mind to see beyond it. …

Nevertheless, through most of our time here, we will stand
in need of much more time here—to draw still closer to God and prepare
ourselves for judgement. That’s the reason why our angels will sometimes go to
extraordinary lengths to keep us safe.  (181)

1981 – Our Lady of Kibeho in Rwanda. The apparitions began
on November 28, 1981, and ended for the primary seer, Alphonsine Mumureke, on
November 28, 1989. Seven children, six girls and one boy, claimed to see the
Blessed Virgin Mary. In one of the events, Mumureke said she was told by Mary
to inform her school principal that she would appear dead during one of the
visions, and she indeed went into a comatose state, during which she was
immovable by six men who tried to lift her from her bed. Vestine Salina
informed others of her impending “death and resurrection” on Easter Sunday,
which occurred as predicted. Mumureke and two others, Nathalie Mukamazimpaka and
Marie-Claire Mukangango, were officially recognized by the Church as having
authentic visions, including being taken on trips to heaven, where people were
reported to be able to perceive colors as music, breathe water, and drink
visible light.

In her book, Our Lady of Kibeho, Immaculée Ilibagiza
described the first apparition on November 28:

At this point, the teenager’s line of vision narrowed so
that all she could see was a brilliantly luminous white cloud materializing in
midair a few feet in front of her. … As the beautiful figure drifted toward the
girl, her feet never touched the ground. Waves of love emanated from the
majestic lady, embracing Alphonsine like the loving arms of a mother. The
apprehension she’d felt moments before evaporated, and her heart filled with
unimaginable joy. Sensing that she was in the presence of the Divine, she fell
to her knees and asked, “Who are you?” “I am the Mother of the Word.”  (182)

During Mumureke’s next apparition on November 29:

She landed heavily on her knees and stared at the ceiling
exactly as she had the day before. Her face lit up in ecstasy and she smiled
peacefully, even as tears rolled down her cheeks. The transformation was so
sudden and dramatic that some of the teasing students crossed themselves. But
others hurled more cutting remarks at Alphonsine, who continued to smile and
nod while looking upward, as though answering questions from someone she deeply
loved. Many of the girls howled with laughter, waving their hands in front of
Alphonsine’s eyes to break her fixed gaze. When she didn’t react, Marie-Claire,
who had acted in amateur theater, proclaimed her classmate to be the greatest
actress in all of Rwanda. Her cronies snickered and shouted in Alphonsine’s
ears, but Alphonsine had no reaction to them. She couldn’t react because she
didn’t know they were there—all she was aware of was the beautiful lady
hovering about her again in the same glorious light. “My child, I love you,”
the Virgin told Alphonsine in her soothing, lyrical voice. “Never be afraid of
me; in fact, play with me! I love children who will play with me because it
shows me their love and trust. Be as a little child with me, for I love to pet
my children. No child should fear his or her mother, and I am your mother. You
should never be afraid of me; you should always love me as I love you.”  (183)

The apparitions occurred prior to the 1994 Rwanda genocide that
resulted in approximately one million deaths. The Kibeho seers were shown
visions of the impending massacres, which they related to more than 20,000
people who were gathered on August 15, 1982, to celebrate the feast day of the
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. At one point during the apparition, Mumureke
said:

The Virgin’s face became etched with pain, and her eyes
filled with tears of grief. After many minutes of mournful silence, the Queen
of Heaven began to openly weep. “Why are you crying, darling?” Alphonsine asked
Mary, frightened and concerned. “Why do you show me your tears? What do they
mean, Mother? Your sadness hurts me; I should be the one crying, not you!” The
Virgin Mary responded by shedding even more tears. “Mother, please!” Alphonsine
begged. “Why don’t you answer me? I can’t bear to see you so upset … please
don’t cry! Oh, Mother, I can’t even reach up to console you or dry your eyes.
What has happened that makes you so sad? You won’t let me sing to you and you
refuse to talk to me. Please, Mother, I have never seen you cry before, and it
terrifies me!” At last Mary responded to the distraught teenager, asking her to
sing a specific song. The 20,000 people listening to the visibly upset
Alphonsine couldn’t hear the Virgin’s voice, but they hung on every word the
visionary uttered.

Now they heard her say, “Mother, I love to sing to you, but
are you sure you want me to sing that song?” The young lady apparently
fulfilled Our Lady’s request by singing “Naviriye ubusa mu Ijuru” (“I Came from
Heaven for Nothing”): People are not grateful, They don’t love me, I came from
heaven for nothing, I left all the good things there for nothing. My heart is
full of sadness, My child, show me the love, You love me, Come closer to my
heart. “Mother, you’re still weeping … please tell me what’s making you cry,”
Alphonsine said, abruptly ending the song. “Remember when you promised me that
you’d give me anything I asked you for?

Well, I’m asking this of you now: Please don’t cry!” Many
minutes passed in silence as Alphonsine listened and received the message Mary
wanted her to share. Then the girl said, “Yes, Mother, I will repeat it exactly
as you ask me to. To the people on Earth, you say three times: You opened the
door and they refused to come in. You opened the door and they refused to come
in. You opened the door and they refused to come in. …

Suddenly Alphonsine let out a gut-wrenching scream that cut
through the startled crowd like a razor. “I see a river of blood! What does
that mean? No, please! Why did you show me so much blood? Show me a clear
stream of water, not this river of blood!” the seer cried out, as the Holy
Mother revealed one horrifying vision after another. The young woman was
subjected to so many images of destruction, torture, and savage human carnage
that she pleaded, “Stop, stop, please stop! Why, Mother? Why are you showing me
this? The trees are exploding into flames, the country is burning! Please,
Mother, you’re scaring me. … Oh no! No! Why are those people killing each
other? Why do they chop each other? I’m not a strong enough person to watch
people killing each other.” Tears gushed from Alphonsine’s eyes as she trembled
uncontrollably at the scenes unraveling before her.

She summoned a hymn to her lips, trying to sing the images
away, but she soon fell silent, as though frozen in fear. Mary was revealing even
more dreadful images to her—for example, the girl was now staring at a growing
pile of severed human heads, which were still gushing blood. The grotesque
sight worsened still as Our Lady expanded Alphonsine’s vision until she beheld
a panoramic view of a vast valley piled high with the remains of a million
rotting, headless corpses, and not a single soul was left alive to bury the
dead.  (184)

1981 – Queen of Peace in Medjugorje. The most
controversial reports of Marian apparitions involve a long series that have
continued since the first event occurred on June 24, 1981, in Medjugorje,
Yugoslavia, in what is now Bosnia and Herzegovina. When the apparitions began,
the six seers were children. An extensive analysis written from the perspective
of a journalist is found in Sullivan’s book, The Miracle Detective.

Millions of people have visited the site and several million
Catholics firmly believe the visions to be authentic. However, many Catholics
are vocal skeptics. Indications are that the Church will likely issue a
statement on Medjugorje late 2015 or early 2016. The events began ten years
prior to the start of the wars that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia, which
included the Bosnian genocide and other ethnic cleansing atrocities. The Queen
of Peace was reported to have come simultaneously as a warning and an
opportunity for reconciliation.

Healings and miracles are commonly reported and documented
in Medjugorje, but many Catholics still firmly believe the reported apparitions
are a hoax perpetrated by the six visionaries, Mirjana Dragicevic, Marija
Pavlovic, Vicka Ivankovic, Ivanka Ivankovic, Jakov Colo, and Ivan Dragicevic.
The following is a description of events that occurred during the first twelve
days of the apparitions.

June 24 – Mirjana and Ivanka, two teenage girls from the
nearby village of Bijakovici, were walking near a place known as Podbrdo hill. Ivanka
saw “a bright figure” she thought was the Blessed Virgin Mary. Mirjana said she
saw a very beautiful young woman who radiated light, wore a silver-gray dress,
and held a baby wrapped in a blanket. The “shining woman” alternatively covered
and uncovered the baby.

While Mirjana, Ivanka, and another girl who had joined them,
Milka Pavlovic, were looking at the apparition, their friend, Vicka Ivankovic,
arrived. Earlier, Mirjana and Ivanka had stopped by Vicka’s house to see if she
would join them for their walk. Upon seeing the apparition, Vicka was severely
upset and ran back to Bijakovici, crying uncontrollably. As two boys, Ivan
Dragicevic and Ivan Ivankovic, passed by, Vicka asked them to accompany her
back to the hill.

When they arrived back at Podbrdo, Vicka turned around to
ask Ivan Dragicevic what he saw, but the boy was already running away from the
apparition site. Ivan Ivankovic, who left in pursuit of his friend, reported
that he could only see something “white and turning.”

The four girls stayed at the site, and each reported they
saw the shining woman repeatedly cover and uncover the baby. At one point, Mary
motioned for them to approach Her, but the four girls couldn’t move. The
apparition eventually faded away, but each girl remained in a state of shock.
Ivanka said she was shaking. That evening, all six children described their
experiences to others in Bijakovici but were met with skepticism or ridicule.

June 25 – Thinking that the Blessed Virgin Mary might
return again, Vicka, Mirjana, and Ivanka planned to go to Podbrdo at
approximately the same time. As Vicka walked toward the apparition site around
6:00 p.m., she met Mirjana, and both girls then met Ivanka at the base of
Podbrdo hill, where about twenty people had already gathered.

Similar to how the apparitions began at Fatima and other
locations by a flash of light, the children also saw flashes of light. Vicka
immediately understood that Mary was about to appear, and she ran off to get
her friend, Marija Pavlovic, who had asked Vicka to fetch her if the apparition
appeared again. Marija’s younger sister, Milka, was at the apparition site on
June 24, but when Vicka arrived to get Marija, the girl’s mother would only
allow one of her daughters to go. In fact, to ensure Milka wouldn’t return to
the site on June 25, Mrs. Pavlovic sent Milka to work in a distant vineyard.

Vicka and Marija then returned to Podbrdo accompanied by
Vicka’s cousin, Jakov Colo. Shortly thereafter, Ivan Dragicevic joined the group.
Ivan Ivankovic, who was twenty years old at the time, said, “This is only for
children,” and initially decided not to go; however, he changed his mind and
arrived at the site awhile later.

From the base of the hill, the apparition became visible
first to Ivanka, then Mirjana, and then Vicka. Ivan Dragicevic reported that he
saw “something,” and Marija and Jakov didn’t see anything from the bottom of
the hill. However, Ivanka, Mirjana, and Vicka reported not only that they saw
the Blessed Virgin Mary, but that the brightness of the light radiating from
Mary was so incredibly intense that it was beyond anything imaginable. They
reported that Mary began motioning for them to approach her.

Fifteen people submitted sworn statements describing what
they saw next. In the eyewitness statements, all six children were reported to
ascend the hill at a speed that was humanly impossible to achieve. The terrain
of the hill is covered with rocks and thorn bushes, making the hike difficult.
In two minutes, the children covered a distance that would have normally taken
ten minutes for an athletic, fast runner. Vicka, who was barefoot, said she
felt like the ground was made out of rubber and that she was assisted by an
external force.

When they reached the apparition site, all of the children
except Marija could clearly see the Blessed Virgin Mary. The five who could see
Mary knelt down, made the sign of the cross, and began praying. Marija then did
likewise, and as she joined the other children praying the Our Father
prayer, the apparition slowly began to appear to Marija, who initially could
see only the face of Mary, then her hands, and then finally all of her.

Initially, Ivanka and Mirjana were overcome by what they saw
and fainted, while Jakov was stunned and fell backward. All of the children
reported they could see Mary in her entirety except for her feet, which were
obscured by a cloud-like image. Mary was wearing a white veil and silver-gray dress.
She smiled at the children and spoke in a voice that sounded more like singing
than talking. Her first words were, “Praised be Jesus,” and the children
reported she spoke perfect Croatian, the children’s language.

Vicka reported that the children were simultaneously praying
and crying. Mary continued to smile at them, and then she began to pray the Our
Father with the children. When the prayer ended, Ivanka, whose mother had
recently passed away, was the first of the six children to speak to Mary,
asking, “Where is my mother?” Mary, smiling, said, “She is with me.”

At one point, Mirjana began to plead with Mary to produce
some sort of “sign” that would prove to people in the village that the children
weren’t crazy for claiming to see and speak with the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Mary’s only response was to smile.

The entire apparition lasted between ten and fifteen
minutes, and then Mary said to the children, “Goodbye, my angels, go in the
peace of God.” Mirjana asked the Blessed Virgin if she would return, and Mary
nodded her head to indicate “yes.” All of the children were in tears as they
descended the hill.

June 26 – When the children reached Podbrdo hill, around
6:00 p.m., there were already approximately 3,000 people gathered at the site.
Vicka led the children in praying the Rosary, and others in the crowd followed.
As had happened previously, flashes of light appeared at the location where the
Blessed Virgin Mary was about to appear.

The flashes occurred in an area higher up Podbrdo hill,
about 1,300 feet higher from where the June 25 apparition occurred. People in
the crowd also witnessed the bright white light that flashed three times. However,
only the six children saw Mary. Once again, the six children ascended the hill
at a speed that witnesses reported as humanly impossible. One of the witnesses
was a trained athlete named Jozo Ostojic, who had recently set a regional
record in the 100-meter sprint. Ostojic said he was running up the hill as fast
as he could, but that the six children were moving much faster.

As the six visionaries arrived at the location where the
flashes of light originated, they knelt down and began to pray. Then, all six
children reported that the shining young woman appeared in front of them and
greeted them by saying, “Praise Jesus.” Ivanka and Mirjana immediately fainted.
While Marija and Vicka attended to the other two girls, the apparition briefly
disappeared. After Ivanka and Mirjana were revived, the six children again
knelt down and began to pray.

Someone in the crowd gave Vicka a jar of Holy Water, and she
emptied the entire bottle toward the apparition, saying, “If you are Our Lady,
stay with us. If you are not, be gone!” After “dousing” the Blessed Virgin with
Holy Water, Vicka reported that Mary merely smiled.

The entire apparition lasted about thirty minutes. Ivanka
asked the Virgin Mary why she was appearing, and Mary replied, “I have come
because there are many true believers here. I wish to be with you to convert
and to reconcile the whole world.”

In the June 25 apparition, Mary revealed that Ivanka’s
mother was in heaven, so, as a follow-up question, Ivanka asked if her mother
had anything to say, to which Mary replied, “Obey your grandmother and help her
because she is old.”

Mirjana then asked about her grandfather, who had also
recently passed away, and Mary said, “He is well.”

People in the crowd who could hear the children speaking
with Mary prompted them to ask Mary to give everyone a sign that would prove
she truly appeared to the six visionaries. Mary’s reply: “Blessed are those who
have not seen and who believe.”

Mirjana asked, “Who are you?” The reply was, “I am the Most
Blessed Virgin Mary.” Mirjana then asked, “Why are you appearing to us? We are
not better than others.” Mary’s response: “I do not necessarily choose the
best.”

Before the apparition ended, Mirjana asked Mary if she would
return, and Mary replied, “Yes, to the same place as yesterday.”

As the children descended the hill, Vicka, Mirjana, and
Ivanka needed help walking, but Marija proceeded without difficulty until about
halfway down when she felt that she was being restrained by an external force.
When Marija stopped, the Blessed Virgin appeared to her and began to cry,
saying, “Peace, peace, peace, be reconciled, only peace. Make your peace with
God and among yourselves.”

During the time of the first apparitions in 1981, ethnic
tensions in Yugoslavia, which were previously held in check by an authoritarian
communist regime, began to escalate. The death in 1980 of Josip Broz Tito, who
led Yugoslavia since the 1940s, eventually led to the outbreak of numerous wars
as well as the breakup of the country into various republics.

Marija remained kneeling for about ten minutes, sobbing.
Then, rising to her feet, crying, she reported the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared
to her, and above Mary’s head was a cross that was radiating the colors of a
rainbow, with particularly intense shades of blue—the color traditionally
associated with the Blessed Virgin.

June 27 – Prior to the apparition, the children were
questioned by two priests from Saint James parish church in Medjugorje. Using a
tape recorder, Father Cuvalo interviewed Vicka and Ivan in the morning. Father
Zovko, the pastor at Saint James, listened to the tape and questioned all six
children in the afternoon. He spoke with each child separately and noted that
all of the children provided a consistent description of Mary’s appearance and
voice: young, about twenty years old, dark hair, blue eyes, wearing a
silver-gray garment with a white veil, and speaking in a voice that sounded
more like singing than typical speech.

Saint James parish in Medjugorje was established in 1892,
and construction of the first church was completed in 1897. The current church
was consecrated January 19, 1969. Improbably, the church was built with a capacity
to seat five times the number of people who ordinarily attended Sunday Mass in
the 1960s. The church was built by Franciscans, who have had a long history of
influence in the area.

During the afternoon of June 27, local officials associated
with Yugoslavia’s communist regime also wanted to speak with the children. Religious
gatherings outside places of worship were prohibited at the time, and the
children were taken to a police station in the nearby town of Citluk. However,
as it was getting late in the afternoon, the children were allowed to return to
Medjugorje prior to the time of the previous apparitions. Vicka said, “We would
have gone even if we had been told that we would be shot.”

Approximately 5,000 people were at Podbrdo hill that evening
and the children decided to split into two groups. Mirjana, Vicka, and Ivanka
were in one group, and Marija, Jakov, and Ivan were in the second group. The
plan was for those in the group who saw the pre-apparition flashes of light to
call out to the other group. However, both groups saw the flashes and began
shouting to alert the others.

Once again, eyewitnesses claimed the children ascended the
hill at an unbelievable speed. Father Kosir, a young and athletic priest, said
the children moved at a pace that was at least twice as fast as he could have
climbed the hill.

When the children reached their destination on the hill,
they saw the Blessed Virgin Mary, but there was a crush of people pressing on
them from all sides. The group of six children got separated in the mayhem, and
the apparition temporarily disappeared. When they were able to regroup, they
began to pray the Rosary. Simultaneously, all six children became silent and
began staring at a point above them. Immediately, people began to rush forward,
and the children shouted that some people in the crowd were stepping on the
Virgin Mary’s long veil. The apparition once again temporarily disappeared.

Some men from the village then intervened and managed to get
the crowd under control by demanding that people clear out a circle of space
that would give the children some breathing room. The Blessed Virgin Mary then
reappeared as the men held back the crowd. “Praised be Jesus,” were the first
words spoken by Mary.

This time, Jakov asked the first question, “What do you
expect of our Franciscans?” Mary replied, “Have them persevere in the faith and
protect the faith of others.”

Jakov then asked the Virgin Mary for “a sign because the
people treat us as liars,” and Mirjana also asked for a sign because “people say
we are drug users and epileptics.” Mary replied, “My angels, do not be afraid
of injustice. It has always existed.”

The children asked how they should pray, and Mary instructed
them to pray the Our Father, the Hail Mary, and the Glory Be
prayer seven times.

The apparition ended after Mary said, “Goodbye, my angels.
Go in the peace of God.”

As the children descended the hill, a local resident, Jozo
Vasilj, who previously refused to go to the apparition site, scrutinized the
visionaries to try to discern the truth about their claims to see the Blessed
Virgin Mary. He said he saw Mirjana walking down the hill as if she was “half
drunk,” and then approximately thirty feet behind Mirjana, he saw Vicka walking
with Jakov.

Vasilj said he could eavesdrop on the children unnoticed
because of the large number of people wandering around on the hill. He heard
Jakov quietly say to Vicka, “Look, now Our Lady is helping Mirjana,” and Vasilj
reported that Mirjana immediately began to walk properly, adding that it was
impossible for Mirjana to have heard Jakov due to the distance between the
children and the low voice in which Jakov spoke to Vicka.

Vasilj then followed behind Vicka and Jakov for at least
sixty feet as they all descended the hill looking at Mirjana. As soon as Vasilj
heard Vicka say, “Ode!” (Croatian for “She’s going!”), Mirjana gazed upward
and then sat down on a large stone. Vasilj once again reported that it was
impossible for Mirjana to have heard Vicka due to the distance between them and
the ambient noise of the crowd.

Prior to arriving at the apparition site on June 27, Vasilj
said he “felt nothing” and was “against it,” thinking the claims were “crazy.”
After eavesdropping on the children and witnessing what occurred with Mirjana,
Vicka, and Jakov, Vasilj said he burst into tears, ran off into nearby bushes
so nobody would see him crying, and then wept for more than an hour before
returning to his house.

June 28 – Between 10,000 and 15,000 people gathered
at Podbrdo hill, and for the first time, someone brought a tape recorder to
document the apparition. Grgo Kozina was close enough to the six children to be
able to ask the visionaries questions while they were interacting with the
Blessed Virgin Mary.

The first words heard on the tape are those of Kozina, who
says, “It’s Sunday, 6:29, 6:30. The wind is blowing and the bushes are moving.
The six of them were kneeling and are now getting up. Now they are kneeling
again.” He asks the children, “Did she come?” And the reply is “Yes, yes, she
came.”

On the tape you can hear the children talking to each other
about what questions they should ask Mary. One of the girls says, “Let’s ask
Our Lady what she wants from us,” and then the others repeat, as a confirmation
among themselves, “Our Lady, what do you want from us? Let’s all ask, what do
you want from us?”

Kozina asks, “Where is she?” Jakov responds, “Here.” And
then, after Mary answers the first question regarding what she wants, Jakov and
the other children repeat the answer they heard from Mary: “People should pray,
believe, and persist in their faith.”

Earlier, during conversations between the children and
Father Zovko, he instructed the children to ask Mary what she wanted from the
priests. On the tape, you can hear the children repeat the question three
times, “Our Lady, what do you want from our priests?,” before Mary answers:
“Let the priests remain strong in faith and help you.”

The children then can be heard on the tape discussing with
each other about what the next question should be. Ivanka says, “Let’s ask, as
Father Jozo was wondering, why she is appearing here and not appearing to everyone
in the church.” The children ask, “Our Lady, why don’t you appear in the church
so that everyone can see you there?” Mary’s reply: “Blessed are they who believe
without having seen.”

The children then asked Mary, “Will you come back to see us
again?” After a brief pause, you can hear the children on the tape saying,
“Yes, she will return at the same place, she will come again here at the same
place.”

At this point, the apparition appears to be fading away, but
then Vicka can be heard on the tape saying, “Look, there she is!” Kozina asks,
“Where is she, on the bush or on the rock?” Vicka replies: “Here, here. She is
slowly disappearing. She is slowly disappearing. She’s gone! She’s gone! Let’s
pray again.” You can then hear Kozina’s voice on the tape saying, “Nineteen
minutes before seven.” Marija and Vicka then start to sing a hymn, encouraging
people in the crowd to join in.

Later, you can hear the children say, “Here she is! She is
here!” And Kozina’s voice can be heard saying, “Seven. They have seen her
again.”

Vicka asks Mary, “Dear Madonna, what do you want from the
people who are gathered here?” Mary’s reply is, “Let those who do not see
believe as those who do see.”

Vicka then asks, “Will you leave us a sign so that people
believe that we are not liars or comedians?” Mary’s response was only a smile,
and then as she disappeared from sight, she said, “Go in the peace of God.”

June 29 – Because the crowd had grown to over 10,000 on
the previous day, officials associated with Yugoslavia’s communist government
became concerned that political unrest might stem from—or be the cause of—the
gatherings on Podbrdo hill.

Yugoslavia was an amalgam of at least eighteen ethnic
groups, including Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Jews, Hungarians and
Albanians, and at least fourteen languages were spoken across the territory of
Yugoslavia. The most diverse area of the country, and where ethnic tensions grew
in the greatest intensity, was the area now known as Bosnia and Herzegovina,
where Medjugorje is located.

Conflicts among ethnic groups in the region had been going
on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. World War I began on June 28,
1914, when a Bosnian Serb assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria as
part of a revolutionary movement to attempt to unite southern Slavic provinces
of Austria-Hungary into Yugoslavia.

In the afternoon hours of June 29, the children were picked
up and put into an ambulance by government officials under the ruse they needed
medical attention. However, their first stop was a police station in the town
of Citluk, where they were harshly interrogated.

After being questioned at the police station, they were
taken to a nearby hospital and examined. They were then driven to the city of Mostar,
about 35 miles from Citluk. There at the local hospital, in an attempt to
frighten the children, they were led to a morgue to view corpses that were
undergoing autopsies.

To add to this form of “shock therapy,” the children were
placed in a hallway in the hospital’s psychiatric ward for about an hour to
witness the comings and goings of insane people who were residents at the
hospital. Then, the children were taken to see a doctor who suggested they were
drug addicts and could be confined to the mental hospital if they continued to
cause turmoil in Medjugorje. After that, they were taken back to Citluk for
another medical examination, which ended around 5:30 p.m. when Vicka confronted
the doctor about continuing the charade of ongoing tests. The children were
then released, and they took a taxi to their homes in Bijakovici before heading
to Podbrdo hill.

Following the children to the site of the apparition was Dr.
Darinka Glamuzina, a pediatrics specialist who examined the children earlier in
the day. Dr. Glamuzina, an ardent communist, had boasted to the children that
she was an atheist and that when her parents forced her to attend Mass when she
was a child, she refused to take Holy Communion. In addition to Dr. Glamuzina,
members of Yugoslavia’s secret police were making their presence known by
stationing themselves outside the homes of the seers.

As the children walked from their homes in Bijakovici to
Medjugorje, a distance of less than a mile, they were met by more than 15,000
people gathered at Podbrdo hill. Grgo Kozina was there once again to document
the apparition with his tape recorder. The children began by singing hymns and
saying prayers, encouraging the crowd to join in. Kozina spoke into his tape
recorder, saying the children fell to their knees and went silent at 6:26 p.m.

The next voices to be heard on the tape are those of the
children, saying, “Dear Madonna, are you happy to see so many people here
today?” Mary’s response: “More than happy.”

The children then say, “Dear Madonna, how many days will you
be with us?” Mary’s reply: “As long as you want me to, my angels.”

“What do you expect of the people who have come in spite of
the brambles and the heat?” Mary replies, “There is only one God, one faith.
People should believe firmly and not fear anything.”

“What do you expect of us?” Mary replies:  “That you have a
solid faith and you maintain confidence.”

The children then ask, “Will we be able to endure these
persecutions? Many people persecute us because we ‘see.’” Mary replied, “You
will be able to endure, my angels. Do not fear. You will be able to endure
everything. You must believe and have confidence in me.”

Standing near the children was Dr. Glamuzina, and Vicka made
a startling request of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Pointing at Dr. Glamuzina,
Vicka asked Mary, “Could this lady touch you?”

Mary’s reply: “There have always been unfaithful Judases,
but let her come.”

Vicka then directed Dr. Glamuzina where to place her hand to
touch the Virgin Mary’s long veil. On the tape made by Kozina, the children can
be heard saying, “She is touching her!”

Dr. Glamuzina described what she felt, saying she “trembled”
and was momentarily shocked. She then staggered down the hill, where she met
the accompanying police. Dr. Glamuzina told the police she would no longer
participate in the investigation, and she would not provide any further
comments about her experience.

After Dr. Glamuzina placed her hand on the apparition, the
children can be heard on Kozina’s tape, saying, “She’s gone! She’s gone!” After
a brief period of silence, the children begin to sing, and then people in the
crowd begin to sing also. After several minutes pass by, the children’s voices
can be heard on the tape, shouting: “The light! The light! She’s here!”

On June 28, the parents of a very ill three-year-old boy,
Daniel Setka, asked Vicka to intercede for him. Daniel could not speak, walk,
or hold his head up, and was diagnosed with epilepsy. The sick child’s father
carried Daniel up Podbrdo hill on June 29, and it was at this point in the
apparition that Vicka presented Daniel to Mary, saying, “Dear Madonna, will
little Daniel speak someday? Please provide a miracle so that everyone will
believe us. These people love you very much, dear Madonna, perform a miracle!”

The next voices on the tape are those of the visionaries,
saying, “She is looking at him! Dear Madonna, say something!”

Then Kozina’s voice is heard on the tape, saying, “Is she
still looking at the boy?”

The children say, “She is still looking! Dear Madonna, say
something, we ask you! Say something, we ask you! Say something, dear Madonna!”

Approximately one minute passes by on the tape, and then the
children can be heard saying, “Have them firmly believe that he will be
healed.”

Moments later, Mary says, “Go in God’s peace,” and the
children can be heard on the tape saying, “She’s gone! Look, the light!”

Daniel Setka’s illness began when he was four days old. By
the time he was one month old, doctors said he wouldn’t live a year. After his
encounter with the Blessed Virgin Mary on Podbrdo, something changed. Several
witnesses corroborated what took place on the evening of June 29.

Daniel’s parents stopped at a café near Saint James church
in Medjugorje, and moments after ordering dinner, the child spoke the first
words in his life, saying, “Give me a drink!” Daniel’s mother and grandmother
immediately started shouting and crying, while his father exclaimed, “It’s a
healing!”

The following day, Daniel and his parents ascended Podbrdo.
At first, Daniel could only walk a few steps and hold his head up for a few
seconds. His parents would stop about every sixty feet to allow Daniel to test
his legs.

About halfway up the hill, Daniel started to walk easily and
spoke the first words since the previous evening in the restaurant. At first,
witnesses said his words were incomprehensible. But then, suddenly, Daniel
spoke clearly, saying, “Mama, look, I’m walking!” Daniel was not only walking,
but climbing over the rocky terrain of Podbrdo. Within twenty-four hours, local
television crews and international media outlets were reporting the story.

June 30 – As evening approached about 20,000 people
had gathered at Podbrdo, which now was being referred to as “Apparition Hill,” but
the children were nowhere to be found. Earlier in the afternoon, two young
social workers affiliated with Yugoslavia’s communist government arrived in
Bijakovici and requested that the children and their families meet at Vicka’s
house. There, they were informed that government authorities wanted to question
the children, and that the children had the option of accompanying the social
workers on a “sightseeing tour” to discuss their experiences or be questioned
by members of Yugoslavia’s secret police, who were on their way to Medjugorje
from Citluk.

The children agreed to accompany the social workers and were
treated to a tourist-like experience. They enjoyed a meal at an expensive
restaurant and a stop for ice cream in the town of Cerno. The social workers
even suggested a drive to visit resort areas along the Dalmatian Coast as a
means to keep the children away from the apparition site that evening.

The children were about six miles from Medjugorje when they
began to see crowds of people streaming toward Podbrdo. When they realized the
social workers had no intention of driving them to the apparition site, the
children demanded to be released. The social workers complied, knowing it would
be impossible for the children to reach Podbrdo by the usual time of the
apparitions.

As the children ran from the car and into a field, they
instinctively knelt down and began to pray. Shortly thereafter, they saw a
light-filled cloud begin to form above the crowd gathered at Podbrdo. They all
began to cry, thinking they would miss seeing the Blessed Virgin that evening.
However, all six children later reported they witnessed the same phenomenon:
Mary moving through the sky toward the children. It was at this moment that the
two social workers later reported a “display of light” before they quickly got
back into their car and sped away.

The children said the first words spoken by the Blessed
Virgin Mary were, “Praised be Jesus,” and then Mary joined with the children in
praying the Our Father prayer. Mirjana was the first to ask Mary a
question, “Are you angry that we are not on the hill?” Mary replied that it
didn’t matter where the children were.

During the morning of June 30, before the children were
picked up by the social workers, Father Zovko of Saint James Parish urged the
children to ask Mary if the location of the apparitions could be moved from
Podbrdo to the church. Knowing that communist officials were increasingly
concerned about the number of people gathering at Podbrdo, Father Zovko sought
to avoid a confrontation with state authorities. His fears were realized that
afternoon. While the children were being driven around by the social workers,
the local chairman of the communist party demanded that Father Zovko appear in
Citluk to answer questions about the events occurring in Medjugorje.

Mirjana’s second question for Mary was, “Would you be angry
if we did not return any longer to the hill but we waited in the church?” Mary
replied, “Always at the same time.”

Mirjana also asked Mary when the visits would end. Later,
when speaking about Mary’s reply, Mirjana said, “Something told me, ‘three
days,’” but none of the other children heard Mary provide an answer.

Before the apparition ended, the children once again asked
Mary to please “leave a sign” so that people would believe they were telling
the truth. As Mary began to depart, she said, “Go in the peace of God,” and a
bright light illuminated the people gathered at Podbrdo before Mary disappeared
from sight.

July 1 – The two young social workers who attempted to
prevent the children from reaching the apparition site the previous day
submitted their resignations to communist authorities. After describing what
they witnessed to government officials, the social workers said they could no
longer be involved in the investigation of the children. Further complicating
matters for local government administrators were news reports of Daniel Setka’s
miraculous healing, which led to a large increase in the number of people
traveling to Medjugorje, including more journalists.

As a result, the number of militia officers sent to
Medjugorje was greatly increased. Security police arrived in the morning and
requested that the families of the visionaries meet at the local elementary
school to discuss the gravity of the situation. The families were told the
children would be committed to a mental hospital or sent to prison if the
gatherings didn’t stop. The parents then asked Father Zovko for help, who in
turn asked God for help. Entering the sanctuary in Saint James Church, Father Zovko
knelt down at the altar and began to pray.

Shortly thereafter, two militia officers offered four of the
six children a ride in a police van from their homes in Bijakovici to
Medjugorje. It was a short distance of less than a mile, but the crowds had become
huge, and Ivanka, Marija, and Vicka accepted the offer thinking it was a safe
way to get through the crowds. Seemingly, the police merely wanted to keep the
children away from Podbrdo, and since the children were on their way to Saint
James Church in Medjugorje—not Podbrdo—it seemed like a prudent choice.
However, when the officers sped past the church on their way to the police
station in Citluk, the children started to scream for help and bang on the
windows.

At that moment, Ivanka, Marija, and Vicka reported that the
Blessed Virgin Mary instantaneously appeared to them in the police van, but the
apparition burst forth so unexpectedly that it frightened them. Combined with
the trauma of being kidnapped by the militia for what they thought might be a trip
to prison or to a psychiatric hospital, the three children reacted
hysterically. The officers, dumbfounded by the girls’ screams and the
expressions on their faces, shouted at them saying they were witches and
immediately stopped the vehicle. The three girls bolted out of the van and
started running back toward Medjugorje.

While these events were unfolding, Father Zovko was still
kneeling at the altar in Saint James Church, pleading for divine intervention.
Suddenly, the priest reported that he distinctly heard a voice say, “Come out
and protect the children.” Without delaying, he quickly went to the main door
at Saint James, opened it, and saw Ivanka, Marija, and Vicka running toward the
church. The girls told Father Zovko they were being chased by police, and the
priest immediately took them to an interior room and locked them inside.
Moments later, the police arrived asking Father Zovko if he saw the children,
to which the priest replied, “I did.” The police just nodded their heads and
ran off toward Bijakovici.

Later, around 4:00 p.m., the other three visionaries arrived
at Saint James church. There was no prior announcement made to the public that
the children would no longer be returning to Podbrdo for the apparitions, but
word spread that there would be a special service at Saint James that evening.
At 5:00 p.m., Father Cuvalo began to lead people in praying the Rosary, and
then at 6:00 p.m. Father Zovko began the Mass. There were so many people packed
inside the church that Father Zovko said, “I found it impossible to extend my
hands.”

During Mass, the six children remained in the interior room,
and the Virgin Mary appeared to them while Father Zovko preached his homily, or
sermon. That evening, Mary appeared only briefly, smiled at the children, and
then disappeared.

July 2 to July 5 – On July 2, the apparition once
again took place inside the church, and afterward Father Zovko presented the
children to the people. Addressing the crowd that was gathered, Jakov Colo said
Mary spoke only three words that evening, “Praised be Jesus.”

On July 3, the children were under the impression that this
evening’s apparition would be the last. On June 25 or June 26, one of Vicka’s
cousins gave Mirjana a book about Bernadette Soubirous, who experienced the
apparitions involving the Blessed Virgin Mary in Lourdes, France, between
February 11 and July 16, 1858. Before receiving the book, none of the
visionaries were aware of Saint Bernadette or her apparitions.

By June 27, the children began reading the book out loud to
each other, trying to discern if the events involving Saint Bernadette at
Lourdes could help them understand what was happening at Medjugorje. Without
any prior knowledge of Marian apparitions, when the children learned that Mary
appeared to Saint Bernadette a total of nineteen times, they began to think
that Mary would appear to them a total of nineteen times.

After adding up all of the occasions when Mary appeared to
them, as a group as well as individually, the children felt as though July 3
would mark the date of the last apparition at Medjugorje.  Also, Mirjana had
asked Mary during the June 30 apparition when the visits would end, and Mirjana
said, “Something told me, ‘three days,’” but none of the other children heard a
reply.

Estimates of the crowds converging on Medjugorje July 3
ranged from a low of 25,000 to more than 50,000 people. Mirjana, thinking this
day would be her last encounter with the Blessed Virgin Mary, left Medjugorje
to return to Sarajevo, where she was a high school student. She was in
Medjugorje on summer break, staying at her uncle’s home in Bijakovici, and she
wanted to have her final apparition with Mary at her home in Sarajevo. The
remaining five children gathered at the church in the same small room as on the
previous evenings.

After the apparition in Saint James church that evening, the
five children stood with Father Zovko near the altar, but only Jakov and Vicka
addressed the crowd. Jakov said, “The Madonna truly appears to us. It is a
fact. I swear it on my life. I asked for a sign, and she lowered her head as if
she approved. Then she disappeared.” Vicka reported, “This evening the Madonna
gave messages for us, and not for the world. When she appeared for the last
time this evening, she said, ‘My angels! I bless you, you will be happy, and
you will go into the bosom of your Father. Keep your faith.’”

On July 4, all six visionaries assumed the apparitions at
Medjugorje were over. However, at 6:25 p.m., the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared
to Vicka while she was out in a garden with some friends picking flowers. Vicka
reported that her fingers became numb, she fell to her knees, and then Mary
suddenly appeared to her.

All of the other children had similar reports. Marija said
Mary appeared to her in her bedroom that evening. Ivan said Mary appeared to
him while he was washing up after a day working on the family farm.

Mirjana said Mary appeared to her during an intense police
interrogation in Sarajevo that began early in the morning and lasted until late
into the night. It was on July 4, 1981, that the events in Medjugorje were
officially declared “counterrevolutionary” by the communist regime.

On July 5, and on subsequent evenings, the five visionaries
who lived in Bijakovici went to Saint James church, where Mary continued to
appear to them.

Later, on August 17, Father Zovko was arrested on charges of
sedition, primarily for refusing orders from the government to stop the evening
Mass at Saint James Church and for failing to prevent crowds from gathering at
Podbrdo. On October 21, Father Zovko was convicted of crimes against the state
and sentenced to three and a half years in prison. The sentence was later commuted,
and he was released after eighteen months.

The visionaries continue to receive messages from Mary
periodically, and their ongoing activities serve to increase a general
awareness of, and devotion to, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

There are claims by some theologians that the messages
received by the visionaries are too simplistic and too repetitive to be
authentic, and that there is not enough theological depth in the
communications. Additionally, there have been accusations that some of the
messages contradict Catholic doctrine or are otherwise very controversial,
including the following from an apparition on October 1, 1981, during which the
visionaries asked the Virgin Mary questions, and she replied with answers.

Question: Are all religions good?

Mary’s response: Members of all faiths are equal before
God. God rules over each faith just like a sovereign over his kingdom. In the
world, all religions are not the same because all people have not complied with
the commandments of God. They reject and disparage them.

The statement that “members of all faiths are equal before
God” is in alignment with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. A major
change occurred with regard to how the Church interprets the phrase “outside
the Church there is no salvation.” Today, the Church interprets this to mean
anyone, regardless of their religion, or even lack of religion, can be saved
and enter heaven because the salvific graces of Christ and the inspiration of
the Holy Spirt work outside of Catholicism and Christianity:

Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in
various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people
to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born
according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most
dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He
issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the
Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who,
professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and
merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant
from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who
gives to all men [and women] life and breath and all things, and as Saviour, wills
that all men [and women] be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who
through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church,
yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will
as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine
Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame
on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with
His grace strive to live a good life.  (185)

After this teaching was promulgated in 1964 with the
publication of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium,
many Catholics left missionary work, thinking it was no longer important to
evangelize non-Catholics to enter the Church. Others interpreted this teaching
to mean that Protestant forms of Christianity were equivalent to Catholicism
and, as a result, offered an easier path to salvation because the “once saved,
always saved” doctrine provides more leeway for error. Others, like divorced
and remarried Catholics who were effectively barred from Communion, felt a more
satisfying experience in Protestant churches. However, those interpretations
overlook or minimize the value of the sacraments, not only for salvation after
death, but for the benefits they offer in the present life, particularly the
ability of the Eucharist to facilitate divinization if people are predisposed
and open to receiving the graces.

The text of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church clearly
states the grace of God is not only active outside of Christianity, but that
the action of that grace can bring people to salvation even though they may
never become Christians and may adhere to no religion whatsoever. The Virgin
Mary’s role as the Mediatrix of all graces clearly places Mary as the
“Lady of All Nations” and the Spiritual Mother of All Peoples, regardless of their
connection to the institutional Church. In her apparitions, the Virgin Mary often
appears with different facial features that reflect the characteristics of
people of the local culture. Her clothing also sometimes reflects the local
culture, and the symbolism in her clothing is sometimes extraordinary, as in
the case of her appearance as the Virgin of Guadalupe.

The Virgin Mary’s first reported appearance in Medjugorje
occurred on June 24, the Catholic feast day that celebrates the birthday of
Saint John the Baptist. As John the Baptist was a transitional figure between
the Old and New Testaments, Mary’s apparitions since 1830 mark an intervention that
represents a turning point in salvation history—not a turning point in the
process of salvation, but a turning point in the recognition of the role that the
Blessed Virgin Mary has in redemption and divinization.

“Medjugorje” literally means “between two mountains,” and
the name reflects the beginning of an ascent up a spiritual mountain—an ascent
to the climax of the Age of Mary, when, as she stated at Fatima, “In the
end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”  (186)

Using Symbols and Typologies to Interpret Patterns
in Information

Mountains are mentioned in the Bible hundreds of times, not
only due to their presence in biblical geography, but for their symbolism.
Ascending up a mountain is interpreted as getting closer to God.

God often interacted with biblical figures on mountaintops.
Moses received the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, and Elijah communicated
with God on a mountaintop. Christ’s Transfiguration, which included a vision of
Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (representing the prophets), occurred
on a mountaintop.

Gaining insight into how to discern the difference between
myths and historical events requires an ability to view events and some
mythologies as typologies that accurately prefigure future events. Unlike
historical events, myths are stories or legends that have been purposely developed
to explain history or natural phenomena. Mythological stories, symbols, and
historical events can be categorized according to how they are typologies or
prototypes that accurately prefigured the future unfolding of historical
events.

Using this framework, many events recorded in the Old
Testament are viewed as typologies that prefigured events recorded in the New
Testament and beyond. Also, physical aspects of reality can be viewed as prototypical
or typological precursors of spiritual aspects of reality.

Saint Paul refers to typologies several times in the Bible.
He wrote that the Adam described in the book of Genesis is a typology, a
prototype, or pattern (τύπος in Greek) of Christ, the
New Adam; in Romans 5:14, “Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.” Paul
also described ancient religious practices as typological precursors that were
“a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in
Christ.” (Colossians 2:17).

The Old Testament story of Jonah and the whale, or big fish,
prefigures historical events of the New Testament or New Covenant of Christ. In
the first part of the book of Jonah, God is demanding and full of wrath; in the
second part, God is loving and merciful. While encountering a severe storm at
sea, Jonah instructs his shipmates to throw him into the water (sacrifice him)
so that God’s wrath would cease and the storm would subside. Jonah was then
swallowed by the whale, and he stayed in the stomach of the whale for three
days (Christ in the tomb), and on the third day, after Jonah begged God for
mercy, Jonah was ejected from the fish onto dry land. In the New Testament, an
incident is recorded in Luke 11:29 where a crowd of people asked Jesus to give
them “a sign,” and Jesus replied, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a
sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” The “sign” of Jonah
is described by Christ as a symbol or typology that prefigures the historical
events that involved Christ’s sacrifice, His three days in the tomb, and His
Resurrection.

The requirement to sacrifice an unblemished Passover lamb so
the Jews could be saved or redeemed from slavery in Egypt is a prototype of Christ’s
sacrifice so that all people could be redeemed from sin (physical slavery in
Egypt is a typology of spiritual slavery to sin), and Christ is referred to as
the Passover Lamb many times, such as in 1 Corinthians 5:7.

The Old Testament necessity for a blood sacrifice is
described in Leviticus 17:11, “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and
I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the
blood that makes atonement for one’s life,” and this is a prototype of the once-and-for-all
sacrifice of Christ.

Abraham is asked by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, which prefigured
Christ’s crucifixion. Isaac said to his father, “The fire and wood are here,
but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” Abraham replied, “God will provide
for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” When Abraham was about to
sacrifice Isaac, an angel informed Abraham, “Do not lay a hand on the boy … do
not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not
withheld from me your son, your only son.”

In the Old Testament book of Numbers 21:8, “The Lord [God]
said to Moses, ‘Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can
look at it and live.’” In the New Testament book of John 3:14, Jesus says,
“Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be
lifted up [on the cross], so that everyone who believes may have eternal life
in him.”

The Jewish Feast of Tabernacles, which commemorates the
Israelites’ journey through the wilderness to the geographical Promised Land, prefigures
all believers’ journey to the spiritual Promised Land, which is heaven. The
Tabernacle was a tent the Jews carried throughout their journey to the Promised
Land, which housed the Ark of the Covenant and contained not only the Ten
Commandments, but the presence of God. In Catholicism, the Ark of the Covenant
in the Old Testament is seen as a typology of the Ark of the New Covenant, the
Virgin Mary, who carried the presence of God in her womb.

The approach of using typologies to search for patterns in information
to better understand current and future events is the same process used in “big
data” analytics, which uses artificial intelligence and other types of software
to analyze data and identify patterns that can be used to solve problems and
gain competitive advantages in business.

Understanding the process of redemption, or salvation,
involves understanding the limitations of humanity and searching for answers to
solve the riddle: what is the meaning of life? The answer is simple. The
meaning of life is evolution. But there are two types of evolution, biological
and spiritual. Biological evolution advanced along a path of a completely
amoral, selfish competition among various species and individual members of the
species to consume resources and have sex. Spiritual evolution advances along the
completely moral and self-sacrificial approach of agape love, which is
the antithesis of biological evolution: it involves spending increasing amounts
of time and energy helping other people, and spending decreasing amounts of
time and energy on behaviors that benefit one’s own selfish interests.

In terms of physical typologies that point to spiritual
realities, sex is a prototype or typology that prefigures union with God. Sex,
which is often an obsession with people, is merely a somewhat laughable,
primitive prototype for what can occur during mystical prayer, and what will
occur in heaven.

Subjective bias against the theory of evolution prevents
many religious believers from seeing the history of biological evolution as a
typological pattern that prefigures spiritual evolution or divinization, the
process whereby people become increasingly like God.

Evolution is a multi-faceted phenomenon that isn’t limited
to biology. The evolution of matter—the development of molecules, atoms, and
subatomic particles—occurred over time. When our universe was in its embryonic
stage, molecules, atoms and subatomic particles didn’t exist. The universe
itself evolved from a state of nothingness; before 13.8 billion years ago, the
universe didn’t exist. Stars and galaxies didn’t exist when the universe was in
its infancy. After the Big Bang, about 500,000 years passed before stars and
galaxies developed.

The sun evolved. Like all stars, the sun developed over a
period of 100,000 years or more. Our local star, the sun, didn’t exist five
billion years ago. The earth began its evolution about 4.5 billion years ago when
dust and rocks circling the sun formed an accretion disk, which later “got
rounded” into a ball-like shape as gravity pulled it all together from a
central core of mass.

Life—animated matter—arose on earth out of inorganic matter
about 3.85 billion years ago. Animals evolved out of microorganisms about 580
million years ago. Land-based plants arose between 600 million and 500 million
years ago. Mammals, which have a specialized part of the brain that other
animals don’t have, arose approximately 230 million years ago. Primates (prime,
first-rank animals), which have brains that are larger than other mammals,
arose from predecessor animals about 65 million years ago.

An early type of human life arose between seven million and five
million years ago. A more evolved type of human life developed about 2.5
million years ago. Anatomically modern humans evolved between 400,000 and
200,000 years ago, and behaviorally modern humans evolved between 200,000 years
and 50,000 years ago.

Each individual human life evolves from an embryonic stage,
and the culmination of each individual’s evolution is not death, but eternal
life.

All of evolution is a prototype, a typology, a fundamental
repeating pattern, that prefigures a much larger phenomenon: an evolution, or
ascent, into heaven, which involves humans as well as non-human elements of
creation.

The process of redemption, how it specifically occurs in the
life of each individual believer, was explained by Pope Benedict XVI in an
Easter Vigil homily given on April 15, 2006. The following is a compilation of
excerpts from that homily.  (187)

Jesus is not a character from the past. He lives, and he
walks before us as one who is alive. At Easter we rejoice because Christ did
not remain in the tomb, his body did not see corruption; he belongs to the
world of the living, not to the world of the dead.

But somehow the Resurrection is situated so far beyond our
horizon, so far outside all our experience that, returning to ourselves, we
find ourselves continuing the argument of the disciples: Of what exactly does
this “rising” consist? What does it mean for us, for the whole world and the
whole of history?

The point is that Christ’s Resurrection is something more,
something different. If we may borrow the language of the theory of evolution,
it is the greatest “mutation,” absolutely the most crucial leap into a totally
new dimension that there has ever been in the long history of life and its
development: a leap into a completely new order which does concern us, and
concerns the whole of history.

The discussion that began with the disciples would
therefore include the following questions: What happened there? What does it
mean for us, for the whole world and for me personally? Above all: what
happened? Jesus is no longer in the tomb. He is in a totally new life. But how
could this happen? What forces were in operation?

The crucial point is that this man Jesus was not alone, he
was not an “I” closed in upon itself. He was one single reality with the living
God, so closely united with him as to form one person with him. He found
himself, so to speak, in an embrace with him who is life itself, an embrace not
just on the emotional level, but one which included and permeated his being.
His own life was not just his own, it was an existential communion with God, a
“being taken up” into God, and hence it could not in reality be taken away from
him. Out of love, he could allow himself to be killed, but precisely by doing
so he broke the definitiveness of death, because in him the definitiveness of
life was present. He was one single reality with indestructible life, in such a
way that it burst forth anew through death.

Let us express the same thing once again from another
angle. His death was an act of love. At the Last Supper he anticipated death
and transformed it into self-giving. His existential communion with God was
concretely an existential communion with God’s love, and this love is the real
power against death, it is stronger than death. The Resurrection was like an
explosion of light, an explosion of love which dissolved the hitherto
indissoluble compenetration of “dying and becoming.” It ushered in a new
dimension of being, a new dimension of life in which, in a transformed way,
matter too was integrated and through which a new world emerges.

It is clear that this event is not just some miracle from
the past, the occurrence of which could be ultimately a matter of indifference
to us. It is a qualitative leap in the history of “evolution” and of life in
general towards a new future life, towards a new world which, starting from
Christ, already continuously permeates this world of ours, transforms it and
draws it to itself. But how does this happen? How can this event effectively
reach me and draw my life upwards towards itself? The answer, perhaps
surprising at first but totally real, is: this event comes to me through faith
and Baptism.

Baptism means precisely this, that we are not dealing with
an event in the past, but that a qualitative leap in world history comes to me,
seizing hold of me in order to draw me on.

Baptism is something quite different from an act of ecclesial
socialization, from a slightly old-fashioned and complicated rite for receiving
people into the Church. It is also more than a simple washing, more than a kind
of purification and beautification of the soul. It is truly death and
resurrection, rebirth, transformation to a new life.

How can we understand this? I think that what happens in
Baptism can be more easily explained for us if we consider the final part of
the short spiritual autobiography that Saint Paul gave us in his Letter to the
Galatians. Its concluding words contain the heart of this biography: “It is no
longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”

The Resurrection is not a thing of the past, the
Resurrection has reached us and seized us. We grasp hold of it, we grasp hold
of the risen Lord, and we know that he holds us firmly even when our hands grow
weak. We grasp hold of his hand, and thus we also hold on to one another’s
hands, and we become one single subject, not just one thing.

I, but no longer I: this is the formula of Christian life
rooted in Baptism, the formula of the Resurrection within time.

I, but no longer I: if we live in this way, we transform
the world. It is a formula contrary to all ideologies of violence, it is a
program opposed to corruption and to the desire for power and possession.

Eternal life, blessed immortality, we have not by ourselves
or in ourselves, but through a relation—through existential communion with him
who is Truth and Love and is therefore eternal: God himself.

The Resurrection is a cosmic event, which includes heaven
and earth and links them together.

The Resurrection of Christ: Myth
or Historical Fact?

The Resurrection is an event that people often claim to be a
myth, but historical evidence supporting the Resurrection significantly outweighs
the claims of mythology. N.T. Wright’s book, The Resurrection of the Son of
God, is an academic analysis of historical events relevant to the
Resurrection as well as a study of myths related to life after death. An 800-page
book may be perceived as either intimidating or boring, but Wright’s writing
style and subject matter make the book entertaining, such as the following
excerpt from a section titled, “Becoming a God (or at least a Star)?”

It was not only heroes and emperors who, in some accounts,
could go to live with the gods. The virtuous, the philosophers (they were,
after all, making up the rules at this point) might attain to the stars as
well. This latter theme (often under the label “astral immortality”) has been
important in the study of ancient Jewish as well as pagan beliefs, and we must
briefly set out its main features. The idea that after death humans (or some of
them—it can be thought of as a reward for special virtue) actually become stars
goes back behind the Socratic period to Pythagorean philosophy and Orphic
religion, and is found also in Babylonian and Egyptian sources. It is already
found in the fifth-century playwright Aristophanes, and finds classic early
expression in Plato’s Timaeus. …

Even here, we note, Plato does not say that the virtuous
souls become stars, merely that the individual stars are their homes, to which
they will return—unless they fail the moral test, in which case they return to
one body or another, according to the theory of transmigration. But the idea of
the soul going off to where the stars are, and in some way almost being
identified with the stars, became popular across the hellenistic world.  (188)

In Pope Benedict XVI’s explanation above, he claims the
power or energy of the Resurrection transcends space and time, and that it is
this characteristic of the Resurrection that enables each believer to “latch
onto” this power or energy through faith and Baptism. While the claim may seem
ludicrous to many scientifically minded individuals, one only has to look at
developments in physics such as string theory, M-theory, and quantum mechanics,
to name a few, to see that the supernatural activities recognized by
Catholicism appear downright pedestrian in comparison. Serious researchers
claim: our universe is only one small bubble in the metauniverse; reality is
made up of 10 dimensions, 11, or more; laws of physics across the metauniverse
may be such that what is viewed as miraculous by humans is ordinary in other
universes; and activity in other universes may, or may not, influence events in
our universe.

One small example: researchers claim they have addressed all
possible loopholes and have proven that objects separated by long
distances—from one end of the universe to the other—can instantaneously affect
each other, communicating information faster than the speed of light and
implying that time can run backward as well as forward.  (189)

Role of the Laity in the Catholic
Church

The Church doesn’t change the Gospel, but on its journey to
perfection, it regularly changes or enlarges doctrines as a result of better
understanding the Gospel in the light of inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Lay
people, those members of the church who aren’t ordained, play an integral role
in this process:

Never before in the history of the Church has the
absolutely essential role of the layperson been so dramatically emphasized as
it is now. Particularly since Vatican II, the Church has called for a renewal
in the life and role of the laity. Yet among the faithful, there remains a
fundamental lack of understanding of the lay vocation and its role in the
Church’s mission. For many, there is a notion that the only real vocation in
the Church is the ordained or vowed priesthood and religious. They believe “the
Church” is the ordained office and only people in habits or collars are called
to serve. Many think that the role of the laity is to help out around the
parish and that they are not called to play an integral part in the mission of
the Church. … The Church teaches that in dignity laypeople are absolutely equal
to those in ordained and religious life. In mission, the work of the laity is
the crucial means by which the world is to encounter Christ.  (190)

The following text is from the Code of Canon Law:

The Christian faithful are free to make known to the
pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their
desires. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they
possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the
sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church
and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without
prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their
pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. The
Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors
out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the
sacraments.  (191)

It’s important for all Catholic laypeople to be engaged with
the mission of their Church, to speak with priests and bishops, and if one is
so inclined, to speak to the Pope by sending a letter. Papal staff read all
letters and decide which letters are forwarded to the Pope. Letters from the
U.S. require three first-class postage stamps, and the address is:

Pope Francis

00120 Vatican City

Thank you, Saint Joseph, for
answering my novena prayer according to the will of God and for your service to
the Church.

E.P. Sanguinetti

June 13, 2016

References

1. Quicherat, Jules-Étienne-Joseph, [ed.]. Procès de Condamnation et de
Rehabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc. [trans.] E.P. Sanguinetti. Paris :
Chez Jules Renouard, 1844. p. 5. Vol. 2.

2. —. Procès
de Condamnation et de Rehabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc. [trans.] E.P.
Sanguinetti. s.l. : Chez Jules Renouard, 1844. p. 18. Vol. 2.

3. —. Procès
de Condamnation et de Rehabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc. [trans.] E.P.
Sanguinetti. Paris : Chez Jules Renouard, 1844. p. 298. Vol. 2.

4. —. Procès
de Condamnation et de Rehabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc. [trans.] E.P.
Sanguinetti. Paris : Chez Jules Renouard, 1845. pp. 193-194. Vol. 3.

5. —. Procès
de Condamnation et de Rehabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc. [trans.] E.P.
Sanguinetti. Paris : Chez Jules Renouard, 1845. pp. 147-148. Vol. 3.

6. —. Procès
de Condamnation et de Rehabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc. [trans.] E.P.
Sanguinetti. Paris : Chez Jules Renouard, 1845. pp. 148-149. Vol. 3.

7. —. Procès
de Condamnation et de Rehabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc. [trans.] E.P.
Sanguinetti. Paris : Chez Jules Renouard, 1845. pp. 157-158. Vol. 3.

8. —. Procès
de Condamnation et de Rehabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc. [trans.] E.P.
Sanguinetti. Paris : Chez Jules Renouard, 1845. p. 168. Vol. 3.

9. Carey,
Nessa. The Epigenetics Revolution: How Modern Biology Is Rewriting Our
Understanding of Genetics, Disease, and Inheritance. New York :
Columbia University Press, 2013.

10. Quicherat,
Jules-Étienne-Joseph, [ed.]. Procès de Condamnation et de Rehabilitation de
Jeanne d’Arc. [trans.] E.P. Sanguinetti. Paris : Chez Jules Renouard,
1841. pp. 192-193. Vol. 1.

11. Pernoud,
Régine. The Retrial of Joan of Arc: The Evidence for her Vindication. San
Francisco : Ignatius Press, 2007. pp. 50-51.

12. Quicherat,
Jules-Étienne-Joseph, [ed.]. Procès de Condamnation et de Rehabilitation de
Jeanne d’Arc. Paris : Chez Jules Renouard, 1841. pp. 192-193. Vol. 1.

13. Champion,
Pierre. Procès de Condamnation de Jeanne d’Arc, Texte, Traduction et Notes. Paris :
Edouard Champion, 1921. p. 111.

14. Ayroles,
Jean-Baptiste-Joseph. La Vraie Jeanne D'Arc, Tome IV, La Vierge-Guerriere. [trans.]
E.P. Sanguinetti. Paris : Rondelet, 1898. pp. 156-157.

15. Aquinas,
St. Thomas. Summa Theologica. [trans.]
Fathers-of-the-English-Dominican-Province. Second and Revised Edition 1920.
s.l. : Online Edition by Kevin Knight 2008. pp. Second Part of Part 2,
Question 169, Article 2, Reply to Objection 3.

16. Heylens
G, De Cuypere G, Zucker KJ, Schelfaut C, Elaut E, Vanden Bossche H, De Baere E,
and T'Sjoen G. Gender Identity Disorder in Twins: A Review of the Case Report
Literature. s.l. : The Journal of Sexual Medicine, March 2012. pp.
751-757. Vol. 9; Issue 3.

17. Associated
Press. Mom of Transgender Teen Denied Locker Room Access Speaks Out. November
14, 2015.

18. Goodstein,
Laurie. Gay and Transgender Catholics Urge Pope Francis to Take a Stand. The
New York Times. July 28, 2015.

19. Allen,
John L. What do the pope’s words mean for the Communion debate? Crux. August
5, 2015.

20. Relatio
Post Disceptationem of the General Rapporteur, Cardinal Péter Erdő. Vatican
City : Holy See Press Office, October 13, 2014.

21. Rocca,
Francis X. Family Synod Midterm Report: Welcome Gays, Nonmarital Unions. Vatican
City : Catholic News Service, October 13, 2014.

22. Pastoral
Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization. Vatican
City : Synod of Bishops, October 18, 2014.

23. Martín,
Inés San. Vatican Official Praises "Modern Family" for Raising Family
Issues. Crux, Boston Globe Media. May 14, 2015.

24. Paglia,
Vincenzo. President, Pontifical Council for the Family. [interv.] Raymond
Arroyo. The World Over. May 21, 2015.

25. The
Holy See. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Washington,
DC : United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraphs 94 and
99.

26. Pentin,
Edward. Cardinal Müller Warns Against Adapting the Church to Today's Often
Pagan Lifestyles. National Catholic Register. June 8, 2015.

27. Integrae
Servandae, Apostolic Letter Given Motu Proprio. The Holy See. Vatican
City : s.n., December 7, 1965.

28. Rocca,
Francis X. At First Angelus, Pope Francis Says God Never Tires of Forgiving. Catholic
News Service. March 17, 2013.

29. Mena,
Adelaide. Don't Claim Pope Francis for Your Own Agenda, Kasper Says Amid
Controversy. Catholic News Agency. November 6, 2014.

30. Pope-Francis.
Transcript: Pope Francis' March 5 Interview with Corriere Della Sera. [interv.]
Ferruccio de Bortoli. [trans.] Estefania Aguirre and Alan Holdren. s.l. :
Corriere Della Sera, March 5, 2014.

31. Catholic
News Agency. Bishop Heiner Koch, a German Delegate to Family Synod, Appointed
Berlin Archbishop. June 8, 2015.

32. Burke,
Cardinal Raymond. Cardinal Burke to CWR: Confirms Transfer, Praises
Pushback. [interv.] Carl E. Olson. s.l. : Catholic World Report,
October 18, 2014.

33. Hickson,
Maike. Cardinal Kasper Defends Ireland’s Gay Marriage Decision. s.l. :
LifeSiteNews, May 29, 2015.

34. Catholic
Herald. 'If a Gay Person Seeks God, Who am I to Judge Him?' says Pope
Francis. July 13, 2013.

35. The
Holy See. Catechism of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington,
DC : United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraph 1861.

36. —. Catechism
of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington, DC : United States
Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraphs 1857-1860.

37. Center
for Applied Research in the Apostolate, Georgetown University. CARA Report,
Mass Attendance. 2014.

38. McElwee,
Joshua J. Chicago's Cupich on Divorce: Pastor Guides Decisions, but Person's
Conscience Inviolable. National Catholic Reporter. October 16, 2015.

39. Vorgrimler,
Herbert, [ed.]. Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II. s.l. :
Herder and Herder, 1968. Gaudium et Spes, Part 1, Chapter 1.

40. Salzman,
Michael G. and Lawler,Todd A. Following Faithfully. America Magazine. February
2, 2015.

41. Hitchcock,
James. History of the Catholic Church. San Francisco : Ignatius
Press, 2012. p. 363.

42. Newman,
John Henry Cardinal. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. London :
Longmans, Green and Company, 1878.

43. McElwee,
Joshua J. Cardinal Marx: Doctrine Can Develop, Change. s.l. :
National Catholic Reporter, October 28, 2014.

44. Pope-Francis.
A Big Heart Open to God. [interv.] S.J. Antonio Spadaro. s.l. : America
Magazine, September 30, 2013.

45. Dick,
John A. Belgian Bishop Advocates Church Recognition of Gay Relationships. December
30, 2014. National Catholic Reporter.

46. Pongratz-Lippitt,
Christa. Cardinal Marx: Pope Francis has Pushed Open the Doors of the
Church. s.l. : National Catholic Reporter, National Catholic Reporter,
October 28, 2014.

47. Pentin,
Edward. Pope Francis on Keys to Authentic Christian Humanism. National
Catholic Register. November 10, 2015.

48. The
Holy See. Catechism of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington,
DC : United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraph 66.

49. Sarah,
Cardinal Robert and Diat, Nicolas. Dieu ou Rien. [trans.] Matthew
Sherry. Quoted in Chiesa News, Gruppo Editoriale L’Espresso. Paris :
Fayard, 2015.

50. Kasper,
Cardinal Walter. [interv.] Raymond Arroyo. World Over Live. Washington,
DC : EWTN, May 21, 2015.

51. Pennsylvania
Bishops. In Truth and Love. Pastoral Letter. July 29, 1994.

52. Pompedda,
Monsignor Mario F. Noted Rotal Auditor Explains Canonical Status of Catholics
Who are Divorced and Civilly Remarried. L'Osservatore Romano, English
Edition. September 16, 1992.

53. McNamara,
Father Edward. Communion and the Divorced and Remarried. Zenit. February
11, 2014.

54. Burke,
Daniel. Pope Stirs Communion Debate with Call to Woman. s.l. : CNN,
April 21, 2014.

55. United
States Catholic Conference of Bishops. Church Teachings - Annulments. [www.foryourmarriage.org]
2015.

56. Lisieux,
Saint Thérèse of. Story of a Soul, Third Edition. [trans.] O.C.D. John
Clarke. Washington, DC : ICS Publications, 1996. p. 77.

57. Avila,
Saint Teresa of. Interior Castle. [ed.] E. Allison Peers. [trans.] E.
Allison Peers. 1577.

58. The
Holy See. Catechism of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington,
DC : United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraph 239.

59. —. Catechism
of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington, DC : United States
Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraph 370.

60. Pope-Benedict-XVI.
Deus Caritas Est. Vatican City : The Holy See, 2005. Paragraphs
3-4.

61. Aquinas,
Thomas. Second Part of Part Two, Question 154. Summa Theologica. 1274.

62. Aquinas,
St. Thomas. Summa Theologica. [trans.]
Fathers-of-the-English-Dominican-Province. Second and Revised Edition 1920.
s.l. : Online Edition by Kevin Knight 2008. pp. Second Part of Part 2,
Question 154, Article 12, Reply to Objection 1, Whether the Unnatural Vice is
the Greatest Sin Among the Species of Lust?

63. —. Summa
Theologica. [trans.] Fathers-of-the-English-Dominican-Province. Second and
Revised Edition 1920 . s.l. : Online Edition by Kevin Knight 2008. pp.
First Part of the Second Part, Question 94, The Natural Law; Article 2. Whether
the natural law contains several precepts, or only one?

64. House,
Patrick, Vyas, Ajai and Sapolsky, Robert. Predator Cat Odors Activate Sexual
Arousal Pathways in Brains of Toxoplasma Gondii Infected Rats. PLOS ONE. August
17, 2011.

65. Bendesky,
Andres and Bargmann, Cornelia I. Genetic Contributions to Behavioural Diversity
at the Gene-Environment Interface. Nature Reviews - Genetics. December
2011, Vol. 12, pp. 809-820.

66. Pavlov,
Ivan. Physiology of Digestion. [Online] 1904.
nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1904/pavlov-lecture.html.

67. Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church
Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried
Members of the Faithful. September 14, 1994.

68. The
Holy See. Catechism of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington,
DC : United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraph 1324.

69. Homily
of the Closing Mass of the Eight World Meeting of Families. Pope-Francis.
s.l. : Vatican Publishing House, September 27, 2015.

70. Clifford,
Leo. Reflections. Irondale : EWTN Catholic Publishing, 2015. pp.
26-27.

71. Hitchcock,
James. History of the Catholic Church. San Francisco : Ignatius
Press, 2012. p. 38.

72. Kaminker,
Rabbi Mendy. Parshah Study: What Was Wrong with Sodom? Chabad.org. October
2012.

73. Skolnik,
Fred (ed.). Encyclopaedia Judaica. Farmington Hills : Macmillan
Reference USA in association with the Keter Publishing House, 2007. p. 561.

74. Pontifical
Biblical Commission. The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Washington,
DC : United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 1993. p. 19.

75. Meeting
of the Holy Father Benedict XVI with the Clergy of the Dioceses of
Belluno-Feltre and Treviso. Pope Benedict XVI. Auronzo di Cadore : The
Holy See, 2007.

76. Pernoud,
Régine. The Retrial of Joan of Arc: The Evidence for Her Vindication. [trans.]
J.M. Cohen. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, 2007. p. 125.

77. Herbermann,
Charles G., et al., et al., [ed.]. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New
York : Robert Appleton Company, 1911. Vol. 10.

78. Pernoud,
Régine. The Retrial of Joan of Arc: The Evidence for her Vindication. [trans.]
J.M. Cohen. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, 2007. p. 143.

79. Quicherat,
Jules-Étienne-Joseph, [ed.]. Procès de Condamnation et de Rehabilitation de
Jeanne d’Arc. Paris : Chez Jules Renouard, 1845. p. 88. Vol. 3.

80. Duparc,
Pierre, [ed.]. Procès en Nullité de la Condamnation de Jeanne d'Arc. Paris :
Klincksieck, 1977-88.

81. Murray,
T. Douglas, [ed.]. Jeanne D'Arc, Maid of Orleans, Deliverer of France. New
York : McClure, Phillips & Co., 1902.

82. Sullivan,
Karen. "I Do Not Name to You the Voice of St. Michael:" The
Identification of Joan of Arc's Voices. [ed.] Bonnie Wheeler and Charles T.
Wood. Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc. New York : Garland Publishing,
1996, p. 88.

83. —.
"I Do Not Name to You the Voice of St. Michael:" The Identification
of Joan of Arc's Voices. [ed.] Bonnie Wheeler and Charles T. Wood. Fresh
Verdicts on Joan of Arc. s.l. : Garland Publishing, 1996, p. 103.

84. Kelly,
Henry Ansgar. Joan of Arc's Last Trial: The Attack of the Devil's Advocates.
[ed.] Bonnie Wheeler and Charles T. Wood. Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc. New
York : Garland Publishing, 1996, p. 210.

85. Kelly,
Henry Angsar. Joan of Arc's Last Trial: The Attack of the Devil's Advocates.
[ed.] Bonnie Wheeler and Charles T. Wood. Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc. New
York : Garland Publishing, 1996, p. 218.

86. Pernoud,
Régine. The Retrial of Joan of Arc: The Evidence for her Vindication. [trans.]
J.M. Cohen. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, 2007. p. 234.

87. Kelly,
Henry Angsar. Joan of Arc's Last Trial: The Attack of the Devil's Advocates.
[ed.] Bonnie Wheeler and Charles T. Wood. Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc. New
York : Garland Publishing, 1996, p. 224.

88. —.
Joan of Arc's Last Trial: The Attack of the Devil's Advocates. [ed.] Bonnie
Wheeler and Charles T. Wood. Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc. New
York : Garland Publishing, 1996, p. 221.

89. —.
Joan of Arc's Last Trial: The Attack of the Devil's Advocates. [ed.] Bonnie
Wheeler and Charles T. Wood. Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc. New
York : Garland Publishing, 1996, p. 215.

90. —.
Joan of Arc's Last Trial: The Attack of the Devil's Advocates. [ed.] Bonnie
Wheeler and Charles T. Wood. Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc. New
York : Garland Publishing, 1996, p. 218.

91. The
Indianapolis Journal. Will Not Be Canonized: Morals of Joan of Arc Were Not
Those of a Saint. November 10, 1902, p. 2.

92. Minneapolis
Journal. Joan of Arc; Canonization Denied to Her. The Minneapolis Journal. August
4, 1902.

93. Harper's
Weekly. Joan of Arc Not to be Canonized. April 11, 1903, p. 610; Vol. 43.

94. Yuskaitis,
Victoria. Joan of Arc: Inspired or Insane? Schemata: Student Essays Across
the Curriculum. [Online] November 15, 2010. [Cited: September 27, 2015.]
lycoming.edu/schemata/docs/FWRPrizeWinner_Yuskaitis_ENGL107.pdf.

95. Knock
Museum. History. Knock Shrine. [Online] [Cited: September 27, 2015.]
knockshrine.ie/history.

96. —. Witness
Accounts. Knock Shrine. [Online] [Cited: September 27, 2015.]
knockshrine.ie/history/witnesses-accounts.

97. Klins,
June, [ed.]. I Have Come to Tell the World that God Exists. Bloomington :
AuthorHouse, 2011. p. 28.

98. Pelletier,
Father Joseph A. and Gonzalez, Conchita. Our Lady Comes to Garabandal:
Including Conchita's Diary. Lindenhurst : Workers of Our Lady of Mount
Carmel de Garabandal, 1971. p. 87.

99. Epilepsy
Foundation. Community Forum. [Online] [Cited: September 27, 2015.]
epilepsy.com/connect/forums/living-epilepsy-adults/ecstatic-seizures.

100.
—. Community Forum. [Online] [Cited: September 27, 2015.]
epilepsy.com/connect/forums/epilepsycom-help/left-temporal-lobe-epilepsy-and-premonitions.

101. Simpson,
Mona. A Sister’s Eulogy for Steve Jobs. The New York Times. October 30,
2011.

102. Winfrey,
Oprah. CNN Transcripts. [Online] May 1, 2007.
cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/01/lkl.01.html.

103. Sauvage,
George. Mysticism. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York : Robert
Appleton Company, 1911.

104. Christine,
Lucie. How Mary Responded to Jesus. [ed.] Pierre-Marie Dumont.
Yonkers : MAGNIFICAT, October 2015. pp. 97-98. Vol. 17.

105. Pelletier,
Father Joseph A. and Gonzalez, Conchita. Our Lady Come to Garabandal:
Including Conchita's Diary. s.l. : Workers of Our Lady of Mount Carmel
de Garabandal, 1971. pp. 119-120.

106. Garrigou-Lagrange,
Reginald, O.P. The Indwelling of the Blessed Trinity. The Summa & Other
Matters. [Online] thesumma.info/reality/reality22.php.

107. The
Holy See. Catechism of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington,
DC : United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraph 966.

108. Pope-Benedict-XVI.
The Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. [ed.]
Pierre-Marie Dumont. Yonkers : MAGNIFICAT, August 2012. Vol. 14.

109. The
Holy See. Catechism of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington,
DC : United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraph 2559.

110.
—. Catechism of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington,
DC : s.n., 2000. Paragraph 2562.

111.
—. Catechism of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington,
DC : s.n., 2000. Paragraph 2563.

112. Homily
of Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict XVI. 2011. 26th World Youth Day.

113. Gallagher,
Timothy M. The Discernment of Spirits. New York : Crossroad
Publishing, 2005. pp. 2-4.

114. Sullivan,
Randall. The Miracle Detective. New York : Grove Press, 2004. p.
311.

115.
—. The Miracle Detective. New York : Grove Press, 2004. p. 315.

116.
—. The Miracle Detective. New York : Grove Press, 2004. p. 313.

117.
—. The Miracle Detective. New York : Grove Press, 2004. pp.
313-314.

118.
—. The Miracle Detective. New York : Grove Press, 2004. p. 314.

119.
—. The Miracle Detective. New York : Grove Press, 2004. p. 316.

120. Faricy,
Robert. Our Lady Comes to Scottsdale: Is it Authentic? Milford :
The Riehle Foundation, 1991. p. viii.

121. The
Holy See. Catechism of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington,
Dc : United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraph 1670.

122. Ivereigh,
Austen. The Great Reformer; Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope. New
York, NY : Henry Holt and Company, 2014. p. 193.

123. Hitchcock,
James. History of the Catholic Church. San Francisco : Ignatius
Press, 2012. p. 493.

124. Ratzinger,
Joseph Cardinal. The Spirit of the Liturgy. San Francisco :
Ignatius Press, 2000. p. 128.

125. Tracy,
Tom. Venerating Relic a Chance for Youths to Reflect on John Paul's Papacy. Catholic
News Services. November 7, 2013.

126. Pernoud,
Régine. The Retrial of Joan of Arc: The Evidence for her Vindication. [trans.]
J.M. Cohen. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, 2007. p. 99.

127. Alternatives
to the Wright-Fisher Model: The Robustness of Mitochondrial Eve Dating. Krzysztof,
Cyran and Kimmel, Marek. 3, June 19, 2010, Theoretical Population Biology, Vol.
78, pp. 165-172. doi: 10.1016/j.tpb.2010.06.00.

128. Pernoud,
Régine. The Retrial of Joan of Arc: The Evidence for her Vindication. [trans.]
J.M. Cohen. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, 2007. p. 86.

129. Kelly,
Henry Ansgar. Joan of Arc's Last Trial: The Attack of the Devil's Advocates.
[ed.] Bonnie Wheeler and Charles T. Wood. Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc. New
York : Garland Publishing, 1996, p. 219.

130. Green,
Bernard D. Catholicism Confronts New Age Syncretism. New Oxford Review. April
1994.

131. Kready,
Laura. A Study of Fairy Tales. Boston : Houghton Mifflin -
Riverside Press, 1916. p. 160.

132. Pernoud,
Régine. The Retrial of Joan of Arc: The Evidence for her Vindication. [trans.]
J.M. Cohen. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, 2007. p. 72.

133.
—. The Retrial of Joan of Arc: The Evidence for her Vindication. [trans.]
J.M. Cohen. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, 2007. p. 81.

134. The
Holy See. Catechism of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington,
DC : United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraph 460.

135. Montfort,
Louis-Marie Grignon De. A Treatise on the True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. ewtn.com.
[Online] ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM. Paragraph 55.

136. Lisieux,
Saint Thérèse of. Story of a Soul, Third Edition. [trans.] O.C.D. John
Clarke. Washington, DC : ICS Publications, 1996. p. 192.

137.
—. Story of a Soul, Third Edition. [trans.] O.C.D. John Clarke.
Washington DC : ICS Publications, 1996. pp. 193-194.

138.
—. Story of a Soul, Third Edition. [trans.] O.C.D. John Clarke.
Washington DC : ICS Publications, 1996. p. 194.

139. Augustine,
Saint. Homily 7 on the First Epistle of John. [ed.] Philip Schaff and online
edition edited by Kevin Knight 2009. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First
Series, Vol. 7. Buffalo : Christian Literature Publishing
Company, 1888.

140. Ratzinger,
Joseph Cardinal and Seewald, Peter. God and the World: A Conversation with
Peter Seewald. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, 2002. p. 306.

141. Pope-Pius-XII.
Ad Caeli Reginam: Encyclical Proclaiming the Queenship of Mary. s.l. :
Vatican Library, 1954.

142. Congregation
of Divine Worship. Preface of Mary at the Foot of the Cross II. Collection
of Masses of the Virgin Mary: Missal. Collegeville : The Liturgical
Press, 2012, p. 94.

143. Encyclopedia
Britannica. Mystical Body of Christ . [Online] October 20, 2009.
britannica.com/topic/mystical-body-of-Christ.

144. The
Holy See. Catechism of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington
DC : United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraph 964.

145.
—. Catechism of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington,
DC : United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraphs 1999
and 2000.

146.
—. Catechism of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington,
DC : United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraphs 2001
and 2002.

147.
—. Catechism of the Caholic Church, Second Edition. Washington,
DC : United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000. Paragraphs 2000
and 2003.

148. Gaitley,
Michael E. The One Thing is Three. Stockbridge, MA : Marian Fathers
of the Immaculate Conception, 2012. p. 43.

149. Booth,
Warren, et al., et al. Facultative Parthenogenesis Discovered in Wild
Vertebrates. Biology Letters. September 12, 2012.

150. Montfort,
Louis-Marie Grignon De. A Treatise on The True Devotion to The Blessed
Virgin. [trans.] Frederick William Faber. London : Burns and Lambert,
1863. pp. 27-28.

151. Apostoli,
Andrew. Fatima for Today. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, 2010. p.
183.

152. Dirvin,
Joseph I. Saint Catherine Labouré of the Miraculous Medal. Charlotte :
TAN Books, 1984.

153. Calvat,
Melanie. Apparition of the Blessed Virgin on the Mountain of La Salette 19
September 1846. Fordham Univeristy Modern History Sourcebook. [Online]

154. Sanctuaire
Notre-Dame de Lourdes. The Apparitions in 1858. [Online]
en.lourdes-france.org/deepen/bernadette-soubirous/the-apparitions.

155. Gaál,
Emery de. On a Criteriology for Mariophanies: The Marian Apparitions in
Robinsonville/Champion in the Diocese of Green Bay (Wisconsin). University
of St. Mary of the Lake. Mundelein, IL : s.n.

156. Dominica,
Sister Mary. The Chapel, Our Lady of Good Help: A Shrine of Mary on the
Green Bay Peninsula. Green Bay : The Sisters of St. Francis of Bay
Settlement, 1955. p. 8.

157. Gaál,
Emery de. On a Criteriology for Mariophanies: The Marian Apparitions in
Robinsonville/Champion in the Diocese of Green Bay (Wisconsin). University
of St. Mary of the Lake. Mundelein, Illinois : s.n. p. 7.

158. Barbedette,
Joseph. Pontmain, France, 1871, Our Lady of Hope. ewtn.com. [Online]
https://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/novena/hopepontmain.htm.

159. O'Neill,
Michael. Gietrzwald, Poland (1877). The Miracle Hunter. [Online]
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/gietrzwald/index.html.

160. Apostoli,
Andrew. Fatima for Today. San Francisco, CA : Ignatius Press, 2010.

161. Santos,
Lucia. Fatima In Lucia's Own Words. [ed.] Louis Kondor. [trans.]
Dominican-Nuns-of-Perpetual-Rosary. 16. Fatima : Secretariado Dos
Pastorinhos, 2007.

162. DeMarchi,
John. Fatima: From the Beginning. [trans.] I.M. Kingsbury. Fatima :
Missões Consolata, 2006. p. 140.

163.
—. Fatima: From the Beginning. [trans.] I.M. Kingsbury. Fatima :
Missões Consolata, 2006. p. 137.

164.
—. Fatima: From the Beginning. [trans.] I.M. Kingsbury. Fatima : Missões
Consolata, 2006. p. 136.

165.
—. Fatima: From the Beginning. [trans.] I.M. Kingsbury. Fatima :
Missões Consolata, 2006. p. 141.

166.
Message of Fatima: Part III. Soul. Winter 2009, p. 7.

167. Sharkey,
Don. A Woman Clothed with the Sun. pp. 226-227.

168. Miravalle,
Mark. Meet Your Mother. Stockbridge, MA : Marian Press and
Lighthouse Catholic Media, 2014. pp. 79-80.

169.
—. Meet Your Mother. Stockbridge : Marian Press and Lighthouse
Catholic Media, 2014. pp. 80-81.

170. Peerdeman,
Ida. Our Lady of All Nations. Fifth Marian Dogma. [Online]
fifthmariandogma.com.

171. Pelletier,
Father Joseph A. and Gonzalez, Conchita. Our Lady Comes to Garabandal:
Including Conchita's Diary. Lindenhurst : Workers of Our Lady of Mount
Carmel de Garabandel, 1971. p. 70.

172.
—. Our Lady Comes to Garabandal: Including Conchita's Diary. Lindenhurst :
Workers of Our Lady of Mount Carmel de Garabandal, 1971. p. 44.

173.
—. Our Lady Comes to Garabandal: Including Conchita's Diary. Lindenhurst :
Workers of Our Lady of Mount Carmel de Garabandal, 1971. p. 45.

174.
—. Our Lady Comes to Garabandal: Including Conchita's Diary. Lindenhurst :
Workers of Our Lady of Mount Carmel de Garabandal, 1971. p. 174.

175.
—. Our Lady Comes to Garabandal: Including Conchita's Diary. Lindenhurst :
Workers of Our Lady of Mount Caramel de Garabandal, 1971. p. 176.

176. Coptic
Orthodox Church, Cairo, Egypt. The Apparitions Of The Blessed Holy Virgin Mary.
zeitun-eg.org/zeitoun1.htm. [Online]

177. Johnston,
Francis. When Millions Saw Mary. Chulmleigh : Augustine Publishing,
1980. p. 23.

178. Rizk,
Wagih. Mr. Wagih Rizk Collection Of Photos. zeitun-eg.org/zeitngal.htm. [Online]

179. Cruz,
Joan Carroll. Miraculous Images of Our Lady. Charlotte : TAN Books,
1993. p. 269.

180.
—. Miraculous Images of Our Lady. Charlotte : TAN Books, 1993. pp.
271-272.

181. Aquilina,
Mike. Our Guardian Angel. [ed.] Pierre-Marie Dumont. Yonkers :
MAGNIFICAT, October 2015. Vol. 17.

182. Ilibagiza,
Immaculée and Erwin, Steve. Our Lady of Kibeho: Mary Speaks to the World
from the Heart of Africa. Carlsbad : Hay House, 2008. pp. 35-36.

183.
—. Our Lady of Kibeho: Mary Speaks to the World from the Heart of Africa. Carlsbad :
Hay House, 2008. pp. 40-41.

184.
—. Our Lady of Kibeho: Mary Speaks to the World from the Heart of Africa. Carlsbad :
Hay House, 2008. pp. 146-149.

185. The
Holy See. Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. Vatican
City : s.n., 1964. Paragraph 16.

186. Santos,
Lucia. Fatima In Lucia's Own Words. [ed.] Louis Kondor. [trans.]
Dominican-Nuns-of-Perpetual-Rosary. 16. Fatima : Secretariado Dos
Pastorinhos, 2007. p. 124.

187. Pope-Benedict-XVI.
Easter Vigil Homily. s.l. : Vatican, April 15, 2006.

188. Wright,
N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis : Fortress
Press, 2003. pp. 57-59.

189. Loophole-Free
Bell Inequality Violation Using Electron Spins Separated by 1.3 Kilometres. B.
Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dréau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J.
Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abellán, W. Amaya, V.
Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T.
H. Taminiau & R. Hanson. London : Nature Publishing Group/Macmillan,
October 21, 2015, Nature. doi:10.1038.

190. Ignatius
Press. Essential Role of the Laity. s.l. : Ignatius Press, 2006. p.
1.

191. The
Holy See. Code of Canon Law. s.l. : Vatican Library. Canon 212-213.