Abbesses and Nuns

by M^a José Arana

translation from the Spanish Mujeres Sacerdotes ¿Por qué No...?

Original text: Publicaciones Claretianas, Madrid 1994; ISBN: 84-7966-078-3;
republished with the permission of the author.

The Power of Jurisdiction and Clerical Insignias

1. Some General Historical Data with respect to the sacrament of renitence

From the context and cases that we are studying, it is going to be much easier to consider the thorny issue of confession and women. But some general clarifications are necessary regarding the history of this sacrament.

There is no doubt that the sacrament of penance has experienced, throughout the centuries, important variations in its discipline and practice. The way it is carried out (public, secretly through an ear-piece......), the frequency, the ministers and even its meaning, have undergone significant changes. Evidently, the bishop has always been the minister for confession “par excellence” and, in some eras, almost the only one, but priests have also done so, and continue to carry out this role; what is more noteworthy is that, in the absence of these two ministers, a deacon could also act as a valid and recognised minister; this is an important piece of information for our study (1). During the 7^th and 8^th centuries, the deacon was already deprived of these duties by canons and laws (2).

But not only deacons could be extraordinary ministers for the sacrament, but, when there were no ordinary ministers, “even people without any rank at all in the holy hierarchy, would sometimes carry out the role of confessors” (3) even in a more industrious and stable way than the deacons themselves.

In the primitive church and since apostolic times, the “charismatics” or “spirituals”, in some way identified in a prophetic and charismatic way, were taken into special consideration and were recognised as having great ecclesiastical authority. There are many testimonies that show us that they were even authorised to carry out confession and guide consciences. From the 4^th century, this custom was carried out even more, and at the same time “spirituals” qualified to hear confession began to be identified more and more with monks, whether or not they were ordained. An interesting example of this situation is reflected in a dialogue, which was held in 869, by three legates of the Pope with such a theologian. They asked him for information about the minister from which he had received absolution and, amongst other things, whether he was or was not an ordained priest; he answered “I do not know; he was an abbot and I had confidence in that man, therefore I confessed to him” (4). This certainly seems to suggest that the faithful scarcely noticed if their confessors were ordained priests.

On one occasion, Tertulian complains about the “usurping” of the power of confession on the part of the clergy! (5).

We must recognise that, Saint Basil in particular, but also Saint Benedict, were great promoters of frequent confession and contributed, to a large extent, to monks and monasteries achieving a great spiritual reputation in the eyes of the hierarchy and people, directly influencing the subject we are dealing with.

In fact, and as the German Episcopal Conference also observes, a long evolutionary process was necessary, through different forms of penitential discipline, “before we came to realise that the powers to forgive sins are under the priestly administration of bishops and priests” (6).

2. Abbesses and Confession

With this introduction, we can delve deeper so as better to understand the subject, relying on some particularly significant texts.

It is widely known that, in 1210, Pope Innocent III delivered a rebuke, via the Bishops of Burgos and Palencia, with regard to some abbesses being allowed to take a leading role in confessions. This criticism is often recalled and interpreted as directed against the Abbess of the Cistercian Monastery of Las Huelgas, but in fact, and this is what we must emphasise, it refers to all “the abbesses of the monasteries situated in the dioceses of Palencia and Burgos”; this shows us that the problem that concerned the Pope was not only centered around the abbess of the very powerful monastery of Burgos, but was a more generalised matter, as it also included the rest of the feminine monasteries belonging to the Order of the Cisterciensers situated in those two dioceses, of which, evidently, the most important was Huelgas, and to whose abbess all others in the same Order were subject.

The document reads as follows:

We Bishops of Palencia and Burgos and the Abbot of Morimundo have recently heard certain news, which greatly surprises us, namely: that the abbesses of the monasteries situated in the dioceses of Palencia and Burgos bless their own Sisters, hear the confession of their sins and, reading the Gospel, they presume to preach it publicly. This being unheard of before, absurd, and not something we can tolerate in any way, we ask for your good sense, that by means of this apostolic writing, and with apostolic authority, you try to strictly prohibit this from happening again. Because, although the Most Holy Virgin Mary was more dignified and exalted than all the apostles, nevertheless the Lord handed over the keys to the celestial kingdom to them rather than to her. These were given in the Palace of Lateran, on the third day of the Ides of December, in the thirteenth year of our Papacy (7).

So then, several matters are alluded to here: blessings, confession, solemn reading and the public preaching of the Gospel. All of them are duties which, according to the Pope, were appropriated and improperly practised by the abbesses and which, apparently, the bishops allowed or did not dare to contravene? But we are going to focus on the penitential ones.

Escriva de Balaguer minimises the matter of confessions and interprets that it is a question of a “special blessing”, but not a sacramental one; Giner Sempere, on the other hand, says: “We would be delighted to be of this opinion if we found it at all possible, but the harsh punishment of the Supreme Pope, the obvious words of the Decretal and the traditional interpretation of all the commentators and decretalists prevents us from doing so” (8). This is practically the only text, from the various ones provided to us by the said author, in which he considers that it is truly a question of a sacramental confession, although it is clear that it is condemned by the Supreme Pope as a very major abuse. But, in addition, many scholars, among them René Metz, also see in these blessings or laying on of hands by of the abbesses, a truly sacramental rite for the consecration of Virgins and, so, repeatedly prohibited for them (9). Metz himself quotes, as proof of this approach, the well-known Chapter of Charlemagne, which prohibits these and other blessings:

“I have heard that some abbesses, contrary to the customs of the Holy Church of God, give blessings, the laying on of hands and make the sign of the Holy Cross on the heads of males and, also, they keep vigil over virgins with priestly blessing; which, you should know, Holy Fathers, has to be absolutely prohibited for you in your parishes” (10).

Other authors concede a truly penitential value to this concrete sign; for example, Chardon states that Charlemagne had prohibited “the giving of blessings and the laying on of hands, which certainly seems to signify granting penitence or absolution, (involving the need for the confession of sins”) (11); but not all the investigators are in agreement with this interpretation. Anyway, if they were prohibited, it is a sign that they existed and what is very clear in both texts is that both the Abbesses of the 8^th century and those of the 13^th century took on some powers, which more or less directly, had something to do with the sacrament of confession and which the authorities (civil in the first case and ecclesiastical in the second), were not prepared to continue tolerating.

But, also, why does the Pope also ban the abbesses from reading the Gospel, doing the homily and imparting blessings if, as it seems, it was even allowed by the intellectual authorities? In fact, Ricardo Mediavilla recognised in his Sentences, that the deaconesses imparted “some blessings”, read the homily and proclaimed the Gospel “in the morning service”. And, it is also deduced by the annotation, which mentions: “by deaconess, we understand abbess”. As examples, Duns Scotus, Saint Thomas, Saint Bonaventure, the future Innocent V and others, express themselves in the same way, but also warn very clearly that these acts “were in no way linked with the sacrament of Holy Orders, nor did they signify officiating at the Eucharist – missa ministrare – (12). So then, why does the Pope emphatically refuse these possibilities to Castilian abbesses? They are questions which are difficult to answer except by concluding that we are witnessing an era of ecclesiastical involvement in these matters, which could even occur late in comparison with other places in which the change had already occurred.

But where could we find a reason for arriving at such “extremes” as are referred to by the ecclesiastical authorities?

3. Sources of knowledge

It is clear that the abbesses, authentic spiritual mothers, were being entrusted with the spiritual guidance of the nuns in their monasteries. This guidance was, in those days, closely linked with sacramental confession (13).

We have also alluded to the importance of the “charismatics” or “spiritualists”, and there is no doubt that in the primitive church, there were prophetic and charismatic women who enjoyed great prestige and respect. In addition, we must take into account that the origin of religious life, and in particular that of the abbesses, is closely linked with the institution of the ancient deaconesses: “There are also those who in primitive times we used to call deaconesses, and we now call abbesses” (14) or, put another way by Abelard: “So, those who we now call abbesses, were formerly called deaconesses, more as ministers than mothers” (15).

We have more vivid and recent data on orthodox religious life: as one example amongst many, in the Syrian tradition: up until the 12^th century, the Mother Superior of a monastery was a deaconess, and, as such, could preside over the community service, sing the Gospel, preach to women and baptise. And, specifically, in the Armenian-Gregorian Church, the diaconate of nuns has been maintained for the longest period (16).

These relationships are very important to delve deeper into history, as if we take into account that both deacons and “spiritual” laymen could administer the sacrament of confession, this is data, which, if, in some way, we extend them to women, will explain a lot of the questions we are seeing on penitence and abbesses. After all, would it not seem logical that this possibility would have been extended to abbesses in fact since early times, although already by the 13^th century it was discontinued and banned?

After all, we also know that Saint Basil significantly influenced the matter of confession. This Father of monastic life did not omit to say something on this point in his Monk’s Ordo, and in the 110^th canon, he points out that “the most senior lady”, or abbess, is present at the confessions of nuns, along with a priest. This presence, according to scholars and commentators on the Order was not limited to a passive involvement but, without taking away the importance of the priest, it introduces an active element in confession, by means of the abbess, who tells the priest about the sins of the subjects and in some way actively determines the sacrament (17).

But this question appears more explicitly in another Monk’s Ordo which Donatus of Besançon wrote for virgins, and which says in this regard: “Amongst the remaining observances, we advise the Sisters, both young and old, that they regularly and with constant fervour, both in thought and also from unnecessary words or the work of whatever stirring of the spirit, always give confession, every day, at all hours, and all times, and do not hide anything from the spiritual Mother, as this has been established by the Holy Fathers, who give confession before mass, before going to bed or at any moment, because penitential confession frees you from death...” (18). As always, the text gives rise to multiple interpretations. Vancacard and others see, here, the possibility that the abbesses enjoyed permission to give absolution, something which it is clear would be prohibited to others, attributing only to the abbess the possibility of giving confession, it is true, but “without any sacramental character” (Giner). What no one doubts, however, is that this type of confession is at least granted a reference power: “because, - as the Ordo says – penitential confession frees you from death”. The Ordo of Saint Colombanus is another example of this practice.

However, a particularly expressive text which we cannot leave out is the one about the life of Saint Burgundofara; almost all the authors we have been mentioning quote from it, and it reveals the concrete and clear practice of what we have said up until now (19). It is written by the Abbot Jonas, who hailed from Meldo in Gaul, and who lived during the 7^th Century. We are interested in the 9^th chapter, which is entitled “De delinquentium corruptione et damnatione fugitivarum” and relates the following story: Two nuns from the monastery of the Saint were tormented by great temptations and wanted to “break down the walls of the convent”, and escape to return to the “detestable life of the world and the desire to immerse themselves again in the life they had left behind”; however, struck by a type of supernatural force, by “a ball of fire”, they “became as heavy as lead” and could not move. Afterwards, repentant and “confused, they acknowledged their faults and tried to return to the Mother and tell her everything by means of a confession”. However, they return again to their old ways, urged on by the Devil who tempts them “so that in no way could they make a true verbal confession”.

It was the custom in the monastery that, every three days, “they purified their souls by means of a confession, and cleaned their spirits”, but they did not make “any true confession” and did not allow themselves to “become clean” again, through the medicines of penitence and a true confession”. They fell, again, into all types of temptations. So, the moment of their death arrives, but even then they did not want to, and could not be converted, despite the Mother “exhorting them repeatedly, to declare their bad deeds in their dying moments, by means of confession”. But the Devil harassed them and prevented them from converting themselves. On the other hand, “the Mother urged them to declare their vices through confession and strengthen themselves with the Communion of the Body of Christ”. All of this was in vain and finally they died in this desperate situation of not having confessed. The rest of the chapter recounts, with extraordinary evidence, the certainty of the condemnation of these two monks, on whom death crept up without sacrament and in a state of sin.

In the first place, it is interesting to see how penitence was experienced in the monasteries, exactly as Saint Donatus describes in his Ordo. But, it is more important still to observe how “the Mother” urges them to confess with her and that really, even at the hour of their death, that confession would have been valid; they are considered impenitent because they did not carry it out. Why so much emphasis on getting them to confess with the Mother if she would not have had the power to forgive them?

As Vancadard notes, at no point it is insinuated in this text that the presence of a priest is required. Giner Sempere, always reluctant to acknowledge in women any type of power, evades the problem and to safeguard the orthodoxy of the deed, says that “although evidently, the abbess appeared to be directly involved with the confession of those nuns, this would in no way be inferred to be contrary to the Catholic Doctrine since, at that time, the Doctrine of Pseudo Augustine was spreading further afield, obliging people to confess their sins to anyone in the absence of a priest” (20); and, in fact, with this explanation, we cannot help but hold onto the idea that that “whoever” could also include abbesses. Certainly, this passage opens great horizons in these matters and sheds light on the texts previously analysed.

Within this context, it is also more logical that Balsamon, in the 12^th century, says that “some perfectas (perfect women) in women's monasteries, ask for episcopal permission to hear the confessions of subject monks; we are asking ourselves if this can be allowed”, and he himself gives the response: “on another occasion, we said that only priests have been granted episcopal permission to hear confession. Consequently, if an un-consecrated perfect lay man cannot do this without episcopal permission, it would be refused all the more so for a perfect lay woman even though her virtue might shine brighter than the sun” (21).

It is true that it would not occur to any abbess, nowadays, to ask for this permission; the fact that it was asked for, shows a possibility, or some antecedents, however remote. The idea of Giner Sempere that perhaps these questions “were thought up by Balsamon himself to gradually enforce the Canonic Doctrine” is too remote and elaborate. Instead, it would seem that confessions with deacons and “spiritual” laymen of the type whose virtue “shone brighter than the sun”, were coming to an end, and becoming centered around priests. On the other hand, the fact that questions were already being asked in relation to women, indicates, as we have said, some possibility, however remote. There is no doubt that the history of penitence is not uniform and that, whether this is acknowledged or not, women, i.e. abbesses, did get close to its ministry on more than one occasion, albeit in the face of conflict; this also shows us that the real meaning of the sacrament of the Order has been evolving over time.

In my opinion - and such is the theory I wanted to defend – this was common practice in monasteries during the first centuries of feminine monastic life; then it began being vetoed, although only in some places, such as for example in the Castilian Dioceses mentioned, or it was prohibited much later on or, more logically, this ban could only be put into effect much later on. As we will see in another section, the legislation did not always work in unison with the whole Church.

4. The Abbesses’ Power of Jurisdiction: the Power of Jurisdiction and the Keys

All these questions relating to confession are intimately entwined with the power of jurisdiction or power of the keys. Without doubt, the extraordinary administering of confession by lay people (which we have seen previously) even if they may have been male, did not have any power of jurisdiction. Nevertheless, Canonists and Decretalists deny women the possibility of administering the sacrament of Penance and insist on this reasoning: “the abbess does not have the ‘keys’, so neither can she absolve” (Hostiense), or, put another way: “things which depend on ‘the power of the keys’ are not appropriate for a woman, even if they have spiritual jurisdiction” therefore, the abbess cannot absolve monks from their sins (Panormitanus), and this same author says something similar in a very interesting way: “although the abbess can have jurisdiction, she cannot, however, have that of the penitential authority. And there is a reason for the difference, since the jurisdiction of the penitential authority comes from the Power of the Keys and of Holy Orders, which women are totally incapable of having” (22). I am saying that this is interesting because, in principle, the author is admitting the jurisdiction of women! We are at the historic moment when these two powers begin to be differentiated canonically.

Of course, if we take the word “jurisdiction” in canonic law manuals or whatever specialist dictionary, we will find that “women are not capable, at least according to canon law, of receiving the jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion of theologians and canonists (23).

But it is very important to point out, again, that it was precisely in this era (12^th and 13^th centuries) that the differentiation between the powers of Holy Orders and Jurisdiction are really starting to form.

Saint Thomas (13^th century) again recalls also here women's “state of submission” and also considers it “a corruption of good customs” if women exercise authority. Because women do not have either the ‘key’ of Holy Orders or that of Jurisdiction. Nevertheless, he concedes some use of the power of the keys, such as the reprimanding of the women who are subject to them, because of the danger which could result from “co-existence with prelate men” (supl q. 19, a. 4). He also says, as we mentioned previously, that when abbesses have the power of jurisdiction, they receive it by delegation, so that, in terms of the law, it is a “denominative” power and not one of jurisdiction (supl.q. 39, a, 3, p. 124).

However, true history has not been so convincing and clear and, in fact, we find that Pope Honorius III, who lived at the same time as Saint Thomas, writes to the “beloved daughter, abbess Jotrense, who is the head and boss of the priests”. And, in another place, he alludes to “the clergymen of this jurisdiction, subject to the abbess....” (24).

Giner Sempere, in his book about “the power of the jurisdiction of women”, fiercely discusses a lot of what he calls “exceptions”, “abuses”, “usurpations”, “decretal falsities “ “exaggerations” etc. His work is an example of documentation, work and learning, but subject to his own specific rankings and prejudices; all his focus is centered on proving the impossibility for women to receive any type of ecclesiastical power. In fact, by the 13^th century, the author says that “in the 13^th century, it is difficult to distinguish between the privileges of exemption and common law” (25). He adds that “naturally, we are not trying to fully cover in an exhaustive study, that which could only be achieved by different and extensive monographs”. Finally, the impression the book gives is, perhaps, the opposite of that which the author has intended, because so much “exceptional” data is brought to your attention that the author is always fighting in favour of an “orthodoxy” which does not allow mistakes. The texts he looks at are very interesting for the investigation. But he ends up concluding that, whether in more ancient practice or feudal society or whatever, the point is that abbesses appear in very different places and eras, with a great spiritual and civil power which is difficult to explain from just one angle.

On the other hand, René Metz, referring to the Abbesses of Las Huelgas and Fontevrault, states that: “It should be pointed out that, in all these cases, it was not a question of an abuse but of perfectly normal situations, acknowledged by authority”, although he excludes the powers that belong to the sacrament of Holy Orders (26).

5. The Power of Some Abbesses

Escriva de Balaguer conscientiously studies, in his interesting book which we have already referred to, the powers that the Abbess of Las Huelgas had possessed for centuries. He recognises the governorship which she carried out, “like a Queen would do”, of her extensive domain, with the authority to sit in court and exercise justice; she received the religious profession of the friars of the King’s Hospital, “who, to their great disappointment, had to obey her and be submissive to her”; she gave licences for the holy ministries and confessions in churches and parishes that were under her jurisdiction; issued dimissory letters for Holy Orders, fulminated canonic censureships, she sealed with the abbatial seal of her offices, and according to the statement by the Accountant of Santa Maria La Real, she opposed bishops..., in short, the author literally says in the prologue to the first edition: “I am going to speak especially about her almost episcopal jurisdiction vere nullius [= under no one else], which allowed her to work in her separate territory like a bishop in his diocese....” (27). However, already in the prologue to the second edition (1972), precisely when all these themes might begin to relate to each other, albeit loosely, in more or less feminist-minded pointers, Escriva hastens to say: “It is not possible to point out the boundary between abuse and legitimacy...... The abbess carried out, effectively and contra legem [= against the law] episcopal jurisdiction vere nullius. Because, rightly, in such a very unusual case, custom is the only title of legitimacy....”. Father Florez says, of this same Abbess, that she carried out all of this “with full, exclusive, almost episcopal jurisdiction, nullius diocesis [=without being part of any other diocese], and with real privileges”, and, in addition “she exercised this double jurisdiction with peaceful possession of it, it being public and well-known (28)”. P de Langogne also summarises the functions of this Abbess and the one from Fontevrault, including that of calling synods, for which “no reason which can be plausibly explained” since calling, presiding at, directing and signing Acts, constitutes the “power of the keys”.....As for her possible functions of pastoral care and the power of confession, he alludes to the fact that the decrees for this do not exist (29).

So then, the Abbess of Las Huelgas was not the only one to possess great powers. The Abbess Jotrense (previously mentioned) also managed to achieve an extraordinary “almost episcopal” power but, according to some, we cannot, from this, draw any conclusions about an active exemption and it more or less amounts to “abuse”. The Abbess of Montvillliers too, must have carried it out in a very similar way because “the archives provide us with the reality of a jurisdiction which denotes an identical power to the episcopal one; confidential cases, excommunications, suspensions, appointments etc. etc. “ (30). The Abbess of Notre Dame de Troyes “.... handed over to the very Bishop of Troyes and was superior in jurisdiction to the parish priests....” (31). And what does this say about the “all-embracing power of the Abbess” from the very famous and very powerful Fontevrault, who is always quoted as an exception? There can be no doubt that, in fact, in the Monastery of Fontevrault, the Abbess exercised the “power of jurisdiction”. Here, the Abbess is designated, like that of the Brigittines and others “caput et domina”, “head and mistress” (32). Perhaps the English Abbesses of Shaftesbury or Whitby did not have any less power. In 694, five Abbesses attended the Council of Bacanieldy; in 705 there was one at Nidd (England). In Germany similar “abuses” were known about in Magdeburg and Hildesheim. On one particular occasion, we find the Cistercian Abbess of Conversano (Italy) under the canopy, vested in mitre, a staff and a cape and receiving the homage of all her subjects, including the clergy. They knelt in front of her and kissed her on the hands as a sign of obedience; Baronio calls her “the monster of Apulia” (33). The majority of these Abbesses exercised the right of excommunication and other ecclesiastical and civil powers.

Some monastic rules also give very wide-ranging powers to the figure of the Abbess. For example, Saint Cesareus had established in his Order that “after God, let everyone obey the Mother...” And Saint Donatus of Besançon calls her “Mater spiritualis quae omnium vestrum curam gerit” [your spiritual Mother who takes care of all of you]. But, in addition, the majority of the monasteries mentioned, are unisex monasteries. As is well-known, this type of monastic structure sprang up in the 5^th and 6^th centuries, of course, before the differences between the two powers were defined, (with tremendous organisational variety) (34).

In most cases, it consists of two communities, of different proportions and types (one of men and another of women), and this is what interests us, with a pluriform abbatial power. Sometimes each community has its own Abbot for monks and an Abbess for nuns, normally with equality of conditions and powers; in other cases, the two communities are under the Abbot and sometimes (and there are many recorded cases), the two communities are under the power of the Abbess with true abbatial power, which, in her case, was enormous. After centuries of operation, the unisex monasteries were banned by the Church on various occasions and by a number of synods, but they did exist and there is no doubt that they were recognised as valid for a long time, including those which were headed up by an Abbess, and their peak corresponds precisely to eras when we were still far from having a theoretical clarification of the term “power of jurisdiction”.......

Spain, France, England, the Netherlands, Italy ........ had these types of monasteries, many of which were headed up by Abbesses. I do not think we may generalise any more that they “have existed on the fringes of the law.......”, or that we may speak about “the strange existence of the unisex monasteries in which all the power radiated from the Abbess” (35). Although they might not always have been to the liking of the ecclesiastical authorities and there was certainly an abundance of legislation either to control them or to achieve the right discipline and chaste relationships between men and women, their existence was not hindered and they were recognised, authorised, valued and, for a very long time, even maintained a normal relationship with the hierarchy.

Something which is not in doubt is that all these cases which we have enumerated, present a problems when someone simply tries to deny women possessed the power of jurisdiction.

6. Signs of External Power Amongst Nuns

When, on 2^nd June 1494, the famous Abbess of the Monastery of the Poor Clares of Pedralbes, in Barcelona, Doña Violante de Moncada, opposed the entry of inspectors to the convent she ran, she declared that this was due to the execution of her office, “because of what the keys forbade her from doing” (36).

Receiving the ministry of the Basque serora was carried out by means of various signs, amongst which the handing over of the keys has to stand out, “and she received them into her power” (37).

This might appear to be unimportant information and yet I am convinced that these external signs are charged with meaning.

Why did the Abbess and the Basque serora receive this sign, which is so clearly identified with the “power” of the keys?

The female Canons of Saint Agustin and the Benedictines (for example those of Estella, Navarra, in the 16^th Century), even centuries later, utilised the roquete [= shoulder mantle], and the first ones also the muceta [= stole] of the canons (ibid 217). Evidently clerical signs.

But there is more. We have already seen the Abbess of Conversano (Italy) vested as a bishop or Abbot, with mitre and crozier. In fact, there were some whom we call “Mitred Abbesses”, that is, with the mitre, an object which represents “the glory and honour of those who have been crowned by Christ” and which is the classic symbol of bishops and abbots; as is the crozier which represents the power of ruling and teaching Christ’s flock, the abbatial ring, which represents the union of Christ with his Church and, in addition, the pectoral cross, all of which are episcopal and abbatial signs (38). Others received the crown, which is a simplified form of the mitre. All these objects were used by the Abbesses and they have been preserved as historic relics. There is certainly a difference with the ritual of the Abbots and it is that women receive these insignias [symbols] in silence.

The Benedictines of the Monastery of Las Puellas of Barcelona were not the only ones who wore the diaconal cape; also in the Order of Saint Barbara of Cologne you can find an account of its usage, next to the explanation “this gives power to read the Gospel”. In the same way it is evident that they were handed the maniple with the charge “this gives the power to read the Epistle” (39). In other monasteries, like, for example, the one in Saint Ann of Bruges (Belgium) you can find other very similar customs.

These objects, which have been preserved as a historic relics, can be an eloquent sample and proof of a more important primitive authority than they have been considered to be since and which, of course, is linked with clerical and episcopal signs. It is important to note that its use and tradition dates from an era long before there was clarification between the power of holy orders and that of jurisdiction. It is curious to note the subsequent interest in stripping them of any real meaning when Abbesses used them.

***

After examining all these questions, we could think that, perhaps, the jurisdiction of the Abbess of Las Huelgas was not so “strange”, nor the claims of others so “abusive” and scandalous!

Throughout these pages, we have wanted to resurrect some important aspects for re-examination when considering the evolving meaning of the sacrament of the Holy Orders and of Penance and also approach (as is very relevant to our task) the power of jurisdiction, as well as the tension and conflict that the presence of women awakens amongst whatever powers and in whichever ecclesiastical places. Undoubtedly, as is noted in a multitude of documents, women deacons and other women also administered baptisms, brought communion to the sick, etc., liturgical actions linked, right up until very recent times, exclusively to the sacrament of the Holy Orders – unless in the case of extreme necessity – and therefore to the masculine clergy, although, nowadays, they can be carried out by lay men and lay women. There is a text which dates from the 18^th century (1736), from the Maronite church of Lebanon, which also recognises their past participation in other sacraments: “although there is no longer justification for the office of deaconess in the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Final Anointing, (as there is no need to anoint the whole body), nevertheless there are still Abbesses who run convents of virgins. Because Abbesses receive the blessing of the deaconesses and all the powers conceded to them by the Councils...” (40). We have not gone into these duties in detail but it is important to also show evidence of them to broaden the sense of the evolution.

Time, and often writers, too, have taken it upon themselves to forget and silence the positions, functions and powers of the Abbesses, therefore of women, so we need to return to this fact and reflect on it. Decretalists and scholars in general, in addition to the hierarchy, tried to suffocate whatever possibility there was of conceding the spiritual and jurisdictional powers of Abbesses, but it is appropriate to return to these powers of ancient times after having investigated them because, despite their efforts, these authors did not succeed in erasing all the traces; what is more, their very arguments sometimes help us to get to know the real practices better.

In fact, there have been women “priests”, Abbesses with true power of nullius jurisdiction [= they were not subject to any bishop] and whose administration of confession was considered valid; there were women “deacons”, “ordained widows”, “women bishops”. .....

There are still traces of their insignias and vestments. Those objects which, it is clear, are signs of different clerical states (episcopal, priestly, diaconal.....), have been worn by women, and we think that, originally, they would not have simply been decorative objects; it is not typical in the Church for meaningless signs to be granted. It is rather a real possibility that history and time have deprived them of their original significance; this would not be the only such case.

The relationship between women's religious life and the diaconate is widely proven, but all these objects also belong to other hierarchical and ecclesiastical positions. Together with the functions and duties, which we have examined throughout these pages, and also with the testimonies and remnants of the existence of “women priests”, they acquire greater value and significance. Women were stripped of all of this, unceremoniously, often with roughness and aggression; the little they had left, was then stripped of any meaning. There has also been a question of discrediting those who put up any resistance or tried to defend their rights, which, in fact, were the rights of women.

So then, why have women been increasingly ousted from all this? Why have these women tried to maintain, regain and even conquer what they thought was fair? Were they defending a right or were they trying to rise in the ranks in making an improper claim.......? So, should we read into these deeds an element of ambition or of justice?

Nowadays, completely in keeping with the New Code of Canon Law of 1983, women may not be either readers or altar servers (can 230). Neither may they, according to the same Code, enjoy the authority of “full parish priest.....” (can 120). The homily remains reserved, according to the legislation, to the clergy (can 764 and 767)...... These are all data which should make us reflect.

It seems that the author of the Ambrosiaster in the 4^th century, did not go far enough when he admitted - (he, who we have seen, was not favourable to these things either) – that women in the beginnings of Christianity, were carrying out duties in exactly the same way as men and, like them, they taught, baptised..... although afterwards a different order was established in the running of the Church because “it seemed irrational, vulgar and vile” that everyone did the same things (41).

Perhaps, contemplating forgotten subjects in history serves as a “door” to delve more deeply into subjects which are contributing to get women closer, in the near future, to the ecclesiastical ministries and charisms which are, for the moment, absolutely prohibited for them.

Footnotes

1. E. VACANDARD, Dict. Th. Cath. o.c. v. confession, p. 845-846. M. LAURAIN, De l’intervention des laïques, des diacres et des abbesses dans l'administration de la Pénitence, París 1897.

2. Ibidem.

3. Ibidem.

4. Op. Cit., p. 866.

5. S. TUNC, o.c. p. 241.

6. CONFERENCIA EPISCOPAL ALEMANA, o.c. p. 57.

7. J. M. ESCRIVÁ DE BALAGUER, La abadesa de las Huelgas, Madrid 1988 pp. 150-151.

8. S. GINER SEMPERE, La potestad de Orden, Revista española de Derecho canónico, 9 (1954) 841-864, p.807.

9. R. METZ, La consécration des vierges dans l’Eglise romaine, París 1954 p. 113.

10. LXXVI, A los obispos y abades sobre las abadesas que obran contra la costumbre de la Iglesia de Dios. Karoli Magni et Ludovici Pii christianis... París MDLXXXVIII, cum privilegio. El subrayado es mío.

11. C. CHARDON, Historia de los Sacramentos, Madrid 1800, T.II, p.549.

12. R. MEDIAVILLA, Super IV libros sententiarum IV, Briscia 1591, 389. INNOCENTI V., Libros Sententiarum Comentaria IV, Tolosae 1651, 279. I. DUNS SCOTI, Questiones, Lib. IV Sent. IX, Lugduni 1939, 571. BUENAVENTURA, iv Sent, dist, 25, citados por P. Sorci, "Ministeri liturgici della donna nella Chiesa antica" AA.VV. Donna e Ministero, Roma 1989, pp. 22-23.

13. Dict. Th. o.c. p.879.

14. ATTO,VERCELLI, o.c.

15. ABELARDO, P.P.L.178, Ep.VII

16. D. GELSI, "Monacato femenino en las Iglesias de Oriente". Mujeres del absoluto, XX semana de estudios monásticos, Silos 1986, pp.139-140. P.SORCI, o.c. pp.71 y ss.

17. S. GINER SEMPERE, La mujer y la potestad de jurisdicción eclesiástica, Alcoy 1959, t. I-II, libro al que me referiré bastante, cfr. también en Dicc.Th. LAURAIN, etc.

18. DONATI VESONT, Ep. Regulae ad virgines, P.L. 37, 282 ss. Citado por muchos autores.

19. P. L. 87,1078.

20. Dict. Th. o.c. 1.cit.

21. Citado por GINER SEMPERE, La potestad de Orden, o.c. Lectura, c. 10, XV, 38 nova.

22. PANORMITANO, Comentaria in quinque decretalium libros, Venetiis 1581, ad, c. 10, X, V, 38. Citado por GINER SEMPERE, o.c. t. I, p. 30.

23. Dict. Th. v. juridiction, col. 1927.

24. C.14, X,V, t. 31 y t. 33.

25. S. GINER SEMPERE, o.c. p. 9, t. II,

26. R METZ, o.c. p. 101.

27. J. M. ESCRIVÁ DE BALAGUER, o.c. Prólogo, 1a ed. Burgos 1944, 2a ed. Madrid 1972.

28. H. FLÓREZ, España sagrada, Madrid 1772, t. 27, p. 578.

29. Dict. Th. o.c. v. Abbesse, ver también L. de ECHEVARRÍA, "En torno a la jurisdicción de la Abadesa de las Huelgas", Revista española de Derecho canónico, I (1946), 219-233.

30. S. GINER SEMPERE, o.c. p. 28, t. II. El subrayado es mío.

31. Ibidem, 23.

32. A. LINGE CONDE, "Algunas manifestaciones feministas del monacato medieval", Mujeres del absoluto, o.c. p. 116.

33. R. METZ, o.c. p. 100, dict. th. v. Abbesses.

34. Sobre los monasterios dobles, ver los diccionarios, especialmente H. LECLERCQ, J.PARGOIRE, Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie París 1934, v. "Monastères doubles"; Z.GARCÍA VILLOSLADA, Historia eclesiástica de España, Madrid 1936, t. II. J.ORLANDIS, Estudios sobre instituciones monásticas medievales, Pamplona 1971, pp. 167-205. Fr. J. PÉREZ DE URBEL, Los monjes en la Edad Media, Madrid 1945, e Historia de la Orden benedictina, Madrid 1941. R. NIDERST, Robert d’Abrisel et les origines de l’Ordre de Fontevrault, Rodez 1952.

35. S. GINER SEMPERE, o.c.

36. T. AZCONA, "Reforma de las Clarisas en Barcelona", Collectae franciscana, 27, (1957).

37. G.HENAO, Averiguaciones de las antigüedades de Cantabria, Tolosa 1894, tr. IV, y sobre este tema, M. J. ARANA, o.c. p.63.

38. J. P. MIGNE, P.L. 221, p. 600.

39. P. SORCI, p. 88; es también importante confrontar los libros litúrgicos y leccionarios, por ej. CYRIL VÖGEL, Le pontificat romano-germanique, Cittá del Vaticano 1963; ANDRIEU, M. Les Ordres romaines du Haut Moyen-Age, les textes, Louvain 1948, t. II y III.

40. ASSEMANI, Codex liturgicus Ecclesiae universalis, X, Roma 1758, p. 121, citado por M. LAWRENCE, La mujer de la Iglesia, Santander 1978, p. 121.

41. E. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, o.c. p. 362; L. W. COUNTRYMAN, "The intellectual role of the early Church", Eglise et théologie, 7 (1967), pp. 41-60; P. LABRIOLLE, "Mulieres in Ecclesia taceant. Un aspect de la lutte antimontaniste" Bulletin de littérature ancienne et d’archéologie chrétienne. 1 (1911). E. BAUTISTA, o.c. p. 154.

Translated by Lisa Mullins

Return to the index of the book?

Copyright (c) 2007: All of the texts and techniques (pedagogical and relational)
displayed in this site are copyrighted materials.