Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T15:36:54.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Undoing the Priesthood: Ritual Degradation and Ecclesiastical Authority in the Holy Roman Empire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2026

Ulrich L. Lehner
Ulrich L. Lehner*
Affiliation:
Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame, USA
*
Email: ulehner1@nd.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines formal degradation as a ritual and juridical mechanism for removing criminal priests from the clerical estate in the post-Tridentine Holy Roman Empire. Standardized in the Pontificale Romanum of 1595, degradation inverted the choreography of ordination: vestments, instruments, tonsure, offices, and privileges were publicly stripped away before the offender was surrendered to secular justice. Yet the rite exposed a theological paradox. It could deprive a priest of office, dignity, and lawful ministry, but not erase the indelible sacramental character conferred at ordination. Drawing on liturgical texts, canon law, and surviving cases, the article argues that the ceremony became increasingly exceptional, used chiefly when public scandal demanded ecclesiastical scandal management and cooperation with secular authority.

Keywords

clerical disciplineliturgical symbolismsacrament of ordinationindelible character

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , First View , pp. 1 - 19
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press or the rights holder(s) must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Society of Church History

I. Introduction

The priestFootnote 1 occupied an exceptionally prominent position in post-Tridentine early modern Catholic Europe, administering most of the sacraments and making Christ present on the Altar.Footnote 2 His ordination had changed his ontological profile, imprinting an “indelible mark” on his soul that was believed to empower him to perform priestly service.Footnote 3 When the priest, as a conduit of grace for his flock, committed crimes that rendered him “infamous,” church authorities intervened and initiated a process of desacralization at the end of which he was handed over to the secular judge for sentencing. By means of this public divestment, the ritual both protected the standing of the priesthood from further harm and recognized that, because of his offense, the criminal clergyman now fell under the authority of the secular court.Footnote 4 The ceremonial degradation (degradatio formalis or actualis), however, concealed the tension between the perpetual character of the so-called “indelible mark” conferred at ordination and the ritualized purging of the clerical ranks of those whose misconduct had disgraced the priesthood.Footnote 5 Certainly, through this solemn act, the church visibly stripped the offender of all clerical dignities and privileges, expelling him permanently from the clerical estate, but official doctrine held that the sacramental character he had received at ordination was ineradicable. The theologically uneducated laity that observed the ritual most likely did not grasp this difference, and thought just like the erudite Lutheran theologian Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten (1706–1757) that the indelible mark had been eliminated through the degradation.Footnote 6 In reality, though, the ritual desacralized the clergyman by publicly removing all signs of clerical dignity and rendering him permanently unfit to celebrate the sacraments unless specially pardoned by the Roman Pontiff; it did not, however, change his ontological status as priest. It reduced him instead to a worldly subject under secular jurisdiction and thereby satisfied the demands of secular law. Degradation, however, also appeased the anger and outrage of the public, because this humiliating ritual was seen as the fitting sentence for the most heinous crimes.Footnote 7

The ways in which this liturgical symbolism was understood in the Middle Ages has been well researched, but how it was used after its inclusion in the liturgical books of the Post-Tridentine reforms, has not. This article argues that formal degradation, although standardized in the Pontificale Romanum of 1595, became increasingly exceptional in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Its decline did not reflect indifference toward clerical crime, but a growing awareness that the ritual both defended and endangered ecclesiastical authority: it publicly purified the priesthood, satisfied secular and communal demands for justice, and yet exposed the very clerical disgrace it sought to contain. Its theological paradox lay in the fact that it could strip a priest of office, dignity, and lawful ministry, but not of the indelible sacramental character conferred at ordination. As a result, the ritual was reserved largely for clergy whose crimes were already public, allowing the Church to display justice and satisfy communal expectations, even as it risked further advertising clerical criminality. The surviving cases from the Holy Roman Empire I decided to focus on, reveal not routine practice, but the exceptional conditions under which the ritual still seemed necessary. Moreover, as secular authorities expanded their reach and curtailed clerical privilege, they forced the Church into more far-reaching concessions concerning the bodies of criminal clergy. The ritual thus functioned both as an assertion of ecclesiastical control and as a concession to secular jurisdiction. The more a state curtailed clerical privilege, the more likely it was to bypass the requirement of degradation altogether. A brief comparison with France shows this: from the seventeenth century onward, the parlements at times treated clerics guilty of capital crimes as having forfeited their privileged status and proceeded to trial without prior degradation.Footnote 8

II. The Indelible Character of the Priesthood and the Stages of Holy Orders

The rite of degradation was applied in the Middle Ages and the early modern period usually only when a clergyman was to be handed over to secular justice for a crime deemed worthy of capital punishment. Such a verdict followed a lengthy, complicated and therefore costly trial. This was, however, not the only reason many bishops hesitated to initiate such proceedings. The infrequency of the ritual suggests that bishops were hesitant to impose so final and degrading a penalty on a clergyman. This hesitation was grounded in prevailing views of the sacrament of ordination itself. From the late twelfth century onward, theologians increasingly described the core of ordination as the imprinting of an indelible seal on the candidate’s soul through the liturgical rite – a permanent effect of the sacrament that enabled him to celebrate the sacraments.Footnote 9 The Council of Trent codified in 1563 the long held belief that ordination was a true sacrament which confers this indelible character,Footnote 10 but refrained from further elaborating about the nature of this invisible mark even in relationship to those received in baptism and confirmation.Footnote 11 Nevertheless, as a member of the Church’s hierarchy, the priest alone held the power to consecrate, absolve sins, administer last rites, and assist at marriages. The indelible character of ordination set him apart from the laity and made him part of a clerical state that also included the bishop. Especially in Thomistic accounts, the episcopate was understood not as a distinct sacramental order, but as a more complete form of the priesthood, distinguished by greater dignity and authority.Footnote 12 Not only did the hierarchical bond weigh heavily on a bishop when he considered handing a cleric over to secular justice – for the man had acted in the person of Christ at the altar and would now be deprived of his defining function, the celebration of the sacraments – but formal degradation was also extremely difficult to carry out (see below). Precisely for that reason, bishops often resorted to other measures, such as suspension or removal from the diocese.Footnote 13 At the same time, since the council had affirmed that the sacramental character could not be erased, a degraded priest remained a priest, even if forbidden to exercise his office. This created a further difficulty: if such a cleric was not executed after degradation, he might elsewhere illicitly but validly celebrate Mass, a prospect regarded as gravely sacrilegious. Since a priest’s power to absolve sins depended unlike consecration not only on holy orders but also on authorization from the bishop, a degraded priest had lost this mandate and thus the faculties to hear confessions; any attempt to simulate the sacrament would therefore be not only illicit but invalid.Footnote 14 It was not until the late eighteenth century that Enlightenment theologians such as Benedikt Werkmeister (1745–1823) explicitly identified the doctrine of the indelible character as a central obstacle to punishing criminal clerics and removing them from the ranks of the clergy. Because their priestly character endured, bishops often, after a period of penance, permitted such clergymen to return to pastoral work or issued dimissorial letters that allowed them to move to another diocese, thereby making them another bishop’s problem.Footnote 15

As the structure of the rite of degradation followed the progression of holy orders in reverse, beginning with the highest order received and proceeding step by step downward, it is important to keep these steps in mind. At the time there were seven orders (ordines) culminating in the priesthood. Minor orders included porter, lector, exorcist, and acolyte, while the major orders comprised subdiaconate, diaconate, and presbyterate. Four of these, in different ways, were oriented toward the Eucharist: The priest consecrates the Eucharist, the deacon assists and distributes it, while the subdeacon prepares the sacred vessels. The acolyte supplies the wine and water. The remaining minor orders served more indirectly: the porter guards access to the church and repels infidels, the lector instructs catechumens, and the exorcist frees the candidates for baptism through exorcism from demonic influence.Footnote 16 While not all theologians regarded the minor orders as sacramental, there was universal consensus about the priesthood.

Every sacrament was understood to consist of both a material and a formal element. For all orders, the matter was commonly identified with the objects handed over (traditio instrumentorum), and the form with the accompanying words spoken by the bishop. For the porter the instruments were the keys of the church; for the lector, the book of readings; for the exorcist, the book of exorcisms; and for the acolyte, the vessels used at the altar. For the acolyte, some took the matter to be the altar candle, others the sacred vessels. The subdiaconate was ordinarily conferred through the handing over of a chalice and an empty paten, although a minority identified its matter with the transferal of the vestments (tunic, maniple, amice) and the book of the Epistles.Footnote 17 For deacons it was widely held that the matter of the sacrament consisted in the handing over of the Gospel book. Only from the mid seventeenth century was the imposition of hands regarded as the essential matter. For the priestly order many theologians held that the handing over of the chalice and paten with the accompanying words constituted the sacrament.Footnote 18

III. Grounds for Ecclesiastical Degradation

Early modern canonists explained that degradation was not an act of episcopal jurisdiction but rather the reverse side of a bishop’s power to ordain. Only a bishop could perform it, and through it diminished the external effects of ordination.Footnote 19 As the shepherd of his flock, the bishop publicly revoked from the priest every task entrusted to him, thereby demonstrating his unworthiness to exercise the care of souls in light of his egregious offenses. Moreover, by unclothing the cleric and visibly removing the signs of his honor, the rite perpetually and “personally degraded, divested, and stripped him of his orders,” before delivering his then desacralized body to the secular court for execution.Footnote 20 Only the pope himself could reinstate such a publicly degraded cleric. A form or liturgical act for such a dispensation did not exist.Footnote 21

The finality of the procedure distinguished the embodied (actualiter, personaliter) rite of degradation from a merely verbal decree (degradatio verbalis), which could be reversed and allowed for the possibility of reinstating a convicted cleric after he had served his sentence.Footnote 22 Consequently, priests sentenced to lifelong imprisonment were typically subjected not to actual but to verbal degradation when transferred into secular custody – both because they had not been sentenced to death and because imprisonment, however harsh, was almost never a perpetual penalty.Footnote 23 Such convicts could also be returned to pastoral office after serving their sentence, provided they had not incurred personal infamy, for example by being condemned as a rower on the galleys. Already by the seventeenth century even the Roman Inquisition, when sentencing to galley service mainly employed verbal degradation out of clemency.Footnote 24 Thus, the actual ritual of degradation was performed only rarely, and always drew, if done in public, a crowd, as the cases of Giordano Bruno (1600) and Gabriel Malagrida (1761) show.Footnote 25 The leniency with which priests were treated is evident from the fact that sacrilegious acts such as the abuse of a consecrated host for treasure hunting – an offense that would have sufficed to incur the death penalty for a layperson – resulted in Vienna in 1775, in the case of two priests, only in verbal degradation and subsequent imprisonment in a secular prison and workhouse.Footnote 26

Some grave offenses, such as “notorious sodomy,” carried automatically for a priest a punishment with them.Footnote 27 The transgressor became irregular (irregularitas ex delicto) and was no longer permitted licitly to exercise his orders. Irregularity was thus an impediment (impedimentum) to the legitimate exercise of priestly office, rendering him ineptus, not inhabilis. Thus, it was distinguished from excommunication, which was understood as a punitive measure (poena). For an impedimentum did not serve the correction of the offender but the protection of the sacred and the faithful, excluding unworthy priests from administering the sacraments.Footnote 28 While many offenses that rendered a clergyman irregular were committed in secret and depended on the priest’s own conscience to come forward, others, such as murder, were publicly known. Even more concealed crimes could be reported by parishioners to the diocesan court, thereby initiating an investigation.Footnote 29 Once the priest had incurred irregularity, whether automatically or through judicial declaration, he could not simply go to an ordinary confessor and be absolved. The underlying crime was a casus reservatus, so sacramental absolution itself was reserved to the bishop or pope, while the resulting irregularity required a separate dispensation before he could licitly exercise his office again.Footnote 30

A clergyman could be sentenced to actual degradation for crimes such as heresy, witchcraft, murder, violent rape, incitement to murder, sodomy, or other grave sexual transgressions.Footnote 31 Among the latter were bestiality and incest, as the 1641 case of the pastor of Frohnhofen near Augsburg shows, who was degraded for sexual relations with his two sisters.Footnote 32 Especially egregious cases of serious theft or the forgery of documents or money (crimen falsi) could likewise be punished in this way. 1625 in the Habsburg Netherlands, a Williamite friar and a priest were accused of forgery. They were solemnly degraded by Archbishop J. Boonen on a specially erected platform before the main entrance of St. Goedele in Brussels, then handed over to the secular court of Brabant, which had them strangled and subsequently burned the same day, October 8.Footnote 33 Some canonists suggested that degradation should always follow convictions for heresy, forgery, conspiracy against the bishop, and persistent incorrigibility.Footnote 34 Opinions differed, however, as to whether degradation could be imposed for offenses against the ruler (crimen laesae maiestatis), since such crimes fell within the sphere of secular law.Footnote 35 Nevertheless, canonists acknowledged that the bishop, as judge, retained full discretion and was merely bound to impose a “just” and prudent punishment. Moreover, bishops generally proceeded along a recognized distinction from moral theology and canon law: crimes committed in secret were handled quietly to avoid scandal, whereas public offenses, under pressure from secular authorities and the community, called for a visible response to restore the honor and dignity of the priesthood.Footnote 36

This dynamic can be observed in detail in the case of Johann Arbogast Gauch, arrested in 1746 for sexually abusing his students. While the episcopal commissioners conducted a thorough and serious interrogation, the bishop appeared to adopt a strategy of delay, seemingly hoping that the secular ruler of the town where the crimes had occurred would not press too strongly for degradation and capital punishment. Nevertheless, the secular authorities persisted for thirteen months. Under such pressure, the bishop of Constance proceeded with the degradation to demonstrate to the faithful that the Church repudiated the offender, was eager to restore the dignity of the priesthood, and to satisfy the demand for justice. Yet he objected to Prince of Fürstenberg’s public declaration of Gauch’s sentence that the condemned had been a priest.Footnote 37

In the German-speaking lands, the bishop of Würzburg held the unmatched record of degrading 43 priests in 1628/9, who were subsequently executed by the secular government for witchcraft.Footnote 38 However, not every case of a priest accused of witchcraft ended in a conviction, since a successful trial depended on a reliable confession. If an accused repeatedly denied any wrongdoing even under torture or constantly changed his account, he was considered unreliable and his testimony worthless. This was the case with Michael Mattersperger of Frixing in the archdiocese of Salzburg. In 1682 he claimed to have had intercourse with Satan in the form of a woman, to have sodomized his altar boys, and to have carried out baptisms in the devil’s name. Yet he was not convicted, as he repeatedly contradicted himself, confessing to everything and nothing until the line between truth and fantasy blurred.Footnote 39 An expert opinion sought from Rome leaned toward degradation and capital punishment.Footnote 40 Yet the archbishop felt unconvinced and preferred to incarcerate the priest. Perhaps Mattersperger deliberately shaped his statements to influence the outcome in his favor, because not only he but also his successor in the parish, Johann Philipp Stainberger – accused of incest with his sister – showed a striking familiarity with ecclesiastical penal law and thereby avoided being punished to the fullest extent of the law.Footnote 41 The final heresy trial conducted by the Inquisition in Portugal, that of the Jesuit Gabriel Malagrida, led to his conviction in 1761 on the basis of two manuscripts found in his possession. He was degraded, strangled, his body burned, and the ashes cast into the Tagus River.Footnote 42

IV. The Embodied Divestment from the Clerical Estate

From the moment of first tonsure, a clergyman enjoyed the privilegium fori, which granted him a degree of immunity from secular jurisdiction. Yet, according to canonists, those in minor orders could be handed over to a secular judge without formal degradation, whereas those in major orders had first to be degraded.Footnote 43 Only a handful of detailed records survive that show how such degradations were actually carried out. These few cases nonetheless make clear that, alongside heresy, sodomy, forgery, and witchcraft, murder was also a common ground for degradation.

One particularly noteworthy murder case occurred at the Baroque Abbey of Lambach, situated on the banks of the picturesque Traun River in Upper Austria. Abbot Placidus Hieber, who restored the damaged monastery after the Thirty Years’ War, transformed its Gothic church into the well-known Baroque masterpiece it remains today, and established its remarkable library, met a violent death in 1678. He suspected nothing when he dined with several confreres on September 9. A few hours after the meal, however, Hieber was seized by violent intestinal cramps and collapsed. He died three days later, at the age of sixty-four, in the thirty-eighth year of his abbacy. The other guests survived, and physicians concluded that he had been poisoned with arsenic. The commissioners of the local ordinary, the Bishop of Passau, soon suspected the cook, Father Ernst Fischer. The monk confessed that he had killed his abbot in revenge for being reprimanded over his conversations with a local woman. And indeed, his revenge had been “sweet,” for he had laced the abbot’s dessert – an apple pie served with sweet wine sauce – with poison.Footnote 44 The prosecution of homicide, a capital offense, fell to the secular authorities, yet it was exceedingly rare for ecclesiastical officials to surrender a clergyman for this purpose unless aggravating circumstances were present. In Fischer’s case, the decisive factor was that his victim had been his religious superior.Footnote 45 A priest guilty of a crime that under secular law carried the death penalty could not be handed over to a civil judge or executioner until he had first been stripped of his clerical status.

V. The Rite of Formal Degradation

In its internal structure, the rite of formal degradation resembled the profanation of a church (exsecratio), from which not only the sacred objects were removed, but also altar and walls were washed to symbolically revoke their former consecration.Footnote 46 Unlike profanation, the procedure for degradation was set out in detail in the Pontificale Romanum of 1595, although it permitted local bishops to introduce small, prudent modifications.Footnote 47 In the decades following its promulgation, the rite appears to have been used with some frequency, but by the mid-seventeenth century it had already become rare. Church authorities then seemingly preferred verbal degradation as the more suitable penalty, since it often limited suspension to a particular office, such as that of a parish pastor, allowing the cleric to maintain his livelihood through Mass stipends while at the same time sparing the church public disgrace. Moreover, a verbal decree was far easier and cheaper to issue than convening several prelates for a formal degradation. After all, canon law required for the defrocking of a deacon three, for that of a priest the participation of six bishops, for a bishop even a jury of twelve.Footnote 48 These hurdles were intended both to safeguard the dignity of the clerical estate and to limit abuse. To prevent the prosecution of clerical crimes from stalling, mitered abbots were allowed to act in place of the originally required six bishops, a practice later confirmed by the Council of Trent.Footnote 49 Given its distinct character, the ritual of episcopal degradation is, however, not considered here.Footnote 50

The Pontificale adopted numerous medieval traditions and left the bishop some freedom in shaping the ceremony: he could perform it either in a church or on a stage ( platea ), with pontifical insignia or without, but he was obliged to remove the liturgical vestments and insignia of the delinquent. Moreover, the ordinary could decide whether the ritual was to be conducted privately – for example, in a small chapel or the sacristy, as the bishop of Würzburg had done for his clerics – or in a public setting.Footnote 51 The latter was usually chosen to deter and to impress upon the witnessing clergymen the grave consequences of certain crimes.Footnote 52 After all, the delinquent perpetually lost his clerical honors ( infamia perpetua ).

For the public ritual, the ordinary chose a suitable and prominent place which could hold a foreseeable mass of spectators. There, a stage was often erected for the occasion, on which stood a table covered with a simple cloth and laid out with the required items: a flask of wine and one of water; a chalice with paten and unconsecrated host; additional vessels of wine and water; a book of the Gospels and one of the Epistles; a basin with towel and napkin; a candlestick with an extinguished candle; the book of exorcisms and a lectionary; keys, scissors, a knife or a piece of glass; and secular vestments for the one to be degraded.Footnote 53

On the same site a chair was prepared for the bishop officiating over the ritual, along with seats for the other officials including the secular judge to whom the delinquent was handed over.Footnote 54 At the promulgated hour, the delinquent was led, dressed in secular attire, to the prepared site. Then he was undressed, and remained, as the Pontificale explained, barely clothed until the clergy chosen by the bishop to assist in the ceremony dressed him with all the vestments of his clerical state, which had been prepared on the table. For a priest, these included the robes of all minors and major orders.Footnote 55 “When he is vested, the degrading bishop, clothed with amice, alb, cincture, stole, and a red cope, and with a simple miter, holding the pastoral staff in his left hand, ascends to the aforesaid place, and takes a seat on the prepared chair…”Footnote 56 While red vestments in the Roman liturgy signified the passion of Christ, the blood of the martyrs, and the fiery tongues of Pentecost, in this context they seem to have evoked the blood that would soon be shed. That interpretation is reinforced by the fact that some canonists note that extinguished red candles (candelae rubrae) were to be used in the ceremony.Footnote 57 Archival records describe also other modifications. For example, in Spain (1720) a bishop wiped the delinquent’s hands and forehead with coarse flax waste instead of using a knife,Footnote 58 and at Fr. Fischer’s degradation, the red candles were lit, unless the report misremembered this fact.Footnote 59 On the occasion of Arbogast Gauch’s degradation for “sodomy” in 1747 at Messkirch, the bishop’s substitute was assisted by the mitered prelates of Petershausen, Waldsee, Isny, Waldkirch and Horb. It took place before the great city gate. For the event, a wall of decorative panels was erected behind the seats of the ecclesiastical dignitaries; at its center a piece of red velvet was attached, and below it a plaque displaying the bishop’s coat of arms, also framed in red velvet. Despising the thought of performing the ritual upon an elevated wooden stage, the presiding prelate had it torn down upon his arrival, commenting sarcastically that he was no “huckster” [Marktschreyer].Footnote 60

The liturgical text, however, prescribed that degradation be carried out with great solemnity (maiori solemnitate), thereby underscoring the importance of the ritual. Clothed in liturgical vestments, the cleric was “devested,” gradually stripped of robes and insignia to mark his exclusion from the clerical state. Just as the reception of these garments had signified admission to a new state of life and the progression of holy orders, their removal signified irrevocable expulsion. While the traditio instrumentorum, together with the prescribed liturgical words, constituted matter and form of the sacrament, degradation sought to undo this by removing the matter through deprivation and countering the form through an explicit revocation. The attempt to undo what was held to be indelible and inerasable around 1500 is described much later, around 1600, by an Icelandic Lutheran pastor, who obviously had no idea how the rite had actually been performed. He claimed that the formulas of priestly ordination were recited backwards, as if degradation were a ritual reversal or counter-spell. This may reflect confessional polemic, reducing Catholic ordination to mere incantation, or simply a misunderstanding of a garbled account later taken at face value. In any case, as told by him such a practice would have been a grave sacrilege, and it is inconceivable to imagine a bishop and his clergy carrying it out.Footnote 61 Far from a counter-spell, degradation was the inversion of investiture, symbolizing the cleric’s loss of public honor. Once stripped, the delinquent was no longer “marked as holy and permanently set apart,” but outwardly indistinguishable from a layperson.Footnote 62

If the degradatio actualis took place publicly, the bishop first addressed the assembled congregation in the vernacular, explaining the verdict. In Latin, he opened the rite by invoking his authority in the name of the triune God and declaring that the clergyman had been convicted and condemned of a crime. Since his crimes were not only grave but also damnable and harmful, “and so enormous that thereby not only the Divine Majesty has been offended, but also the whole city disturbed,” he was found unworthy of any ecclesiastical office and benefice.Footnote 63 While the mention of offending God implied the need for penance and restitution, the text also referred to the grave sin of disturbing (commota) the community. Such turmoil undermined not only faith in the moral integrity of the priesthood but also confidence in the Church’s teachings. This can be seen from the testimony of Gauch’s victims, who submitted to his advances because they believed that such acts could not be sinful if “a learned priest like him” committed them.Footnote 64 Thus, a public degradation also reasserted the moral teachings of the church, which had been undermined by the crime of the clergyman. The bishop continued:

By the authority of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and of our own, we by written sentence forever deprive N.N. of every ecclesiastical office and benefice, and by proclamation we depose him, and we pronounce that, truly and actually, according to the canonical tradition, he is deposed and degraded.Footnote 65

Here the complexity of the ecclesiastical devestiture as a “fashion system”Footnote 66 becomes apparent. It combined two languages, one for the laity and one for the clergy, and a complex ritual complex ritual marking the withdrawal of clerical dignities.Footnote 67 Archival records offer glimpses into the reactions of convicted prisoners upon hearing their sentences. Unkempt and unshaven yet unshackled, Ernst Fischer experienced the reading of his sentence like a “lightning bolt [fulmen],” bursting into tears, whereupon the bishop offered him a salutary admonition not to despair of God’s mercy.Footnote 68 Arbogast Gauch appeared with “as much modesty as steadfastness,” and as the verdict was read, the Jesuit tending to him, began to recite the Psalm Miserere mei. Footnote 69

After the sentence was read the gradual removal of clerical vestments and insignia began starting with the item last conferred at ordination so that the ceremony unfolded as a symbolic return to the moment the condemned man first entered the clerical state.Footnote 70 Each of the four acts of devesting used the direct “we”-form (amovemus, tollimus, exspoliamus, amovemus), framed by the repeated amovemus. The first removed the sacred vessels from him, the second the anointing of his hands, the third the chasuble, and the fourth the stole. While the first two acts focused on his established unworthiness to celebrate the Eucharist, the removal of the chasuble signified the loss of divine charity and, with it, priestly fraternity, while the removal of the stole marked his exclusion from the priestly office itself.

In the ceremony the delinquent was first handed a chalice containing wine and water along with a paten bearing an unconsecrated host. Holding them echoed the moment of his ordination, when he received with these instruments the indelible mark of the priesthood. The bishop now took chalice and paten from him ( aufert ), declaring: “We remove from you – or rather, we show [ ostendamus ] that it has already been removed – the power of offering sacrifice to God and of celebrating the Mass, both for the living and for the dead.”Footnote 71 Next, the cleric’s thumbs and the index fingers of both hands were lightly scraped ( leviter ) with a knife: “We take from you ( tollimus ) with this shaving ( rasura ) the power to offer, consecrate, and bless, which you received in the anointing of the hands and thumbs.”Footnote 72 This echoed priestly ordination, when the candidate’s folded hands had been anointed with the oil of catechumens, beginning from the right thumb to the index finger of the left hand and from the thumb of the left to the index finger of the right, and only then the palms.Footnote 73 Thumbs and index fingers were singled out because they came into direct contact with the consecrated host, the body of Christ, while the palms were merely associated with the good works the priest was to perform. The rite of degradation therefore focused on stripping the cleric of the honor of celebrating the Eucharist, the highest priestly privilege.Footnote 74 For the theologically untrained laity, the symbolic effacing of the anointing could easily be taken for the erasure of the indelible mark itself. This is suggested by the reaction of Anton von Lenz, commissioner to Prince Fürstenberg, who had pressed successfully for the degradation of the sexual offender Johann A. Gauch. He expressed disappointment that no real knife was used, noting that the bishop employed only “a piece of wood in the form of a knife.” The remark suggests that the delinquent deserved to be scraped with an actual blade and casts doubt on whether a wooden knife could achieve what was, in effect, imagined as the removal of the indelible mark.Footnote 75

Only afterwards was the chasuble removed, the bishop lifting it from the upper end of the back (per posteriorem partem caputi): “We strip you of the priestly garment, which signifies charity, because you have stripped yourself of it and of all innocence.”Footnote 76 In the rite of ordination, by contrast, the chasuble had been placed on the candidate from the front, so that a particularly striking reversal emerged here. Moreover, the wording suggested that removal from the clerical state was understood to be entirely the fault of the perpetrator, who had not lived in such a way that, as the ordination formula stated, God might increase the virtue of love (caritas) in him and bring the work to perfection.Footnote 77 The words spoken at degradation were a sobering reminder that he had also failed to live up to the ideals expressed in the prayer following the vesting at ordination. There, God’s blessing had been invoked upon the newly ordained, that he might show due seriousness in all his actions, discipline his life, and become an example to all in justice, constancy, mercy, fortitude, and the other virtues. God had further been asked to keep his ministry pure and undefiled, so that he may attain “in inviolate charity and with a pure conscience to the perfect man, to the measure of the fullness of Christ, on the day of God’s just and eternal judgment.”Footnote 78 At the removal of the stole, the bishop said: “You have shamelessly abused the sign of the Lord through this stole; therefore we take it from you and declare you incapable of ever returning to the priestly office.”Footnote 79 That Arbogast Gauch kissed the stole one last time before it was taken away from him, seemingly impressed even the most vengeful onlookers.Footnote 80 This act, however, bore no resemblance to the ordination, when the deacon’s stole was removed from the left shoulder and placed over both shoulders, crossed upon the chest, signifying the ordinand’s transition to the priesthood, symbolically interpreted as accepting the yoke of Christ.Footnote 81

At ordination, the new deacon received a white stole as a sign of God’s promise to increase his grace in him, and the dalmatic as the “garment of salvation and the vestment of joy,” with the blessing that righteousness might always surround the new minister. Finally, he received the book of the Gospels, together with the power (potestas) to read the Gospel in church for the living and the dead.Footnote 82 In reverse order, the rite of degradation revoked these three privileges both in word and in deed. First, the bishop removed (amovemus) the power (potestas) to proclaim the Gospel, symbolized by the deprivation of the book; the dalmatic was taken away to signify exclusion from the “Order of Levi”; and the stole was removed with accompanying words explaining that it had not been kept “pure” (candida, immaculata) before God, thereby hindering the faithful from imitating Christ.Footnote 83

Now the rite progressed to the degradation from the subdiaconate. In the ordination liturgy, the bishop prayed that the new subdeacons be “diligent and watchful guardians” for the liturgy and faithfully minister at the altar.Footnote 84 For this purpose, they were to touch the cruets containing water and wine, as well as a basin with a towel, while the bishop pronounced another blessing over them. The amice (amictum) was then placed loosely upon the neck (imponit super caput) of the newly ordained, symbolizing the restraint of speech, followed by the imposition of the maniple on his left arm, signifying the good works he was to perform. He was then vested with the tunic “of gladness” as a garment of joy, and received the book of the Epistles together with the potestas to read them in the Church of God for the living and the dead.Footnote 85 In the degradation ceremony these acts were repeated in reverse order. The liturgy now revoked through words and five symbolic actions matter and form of the ordination. First, by taking away the book of the Epistles, the bishop removed from the condemned the authority to read the Epistle. Next came the removal of the tunic, on the grounds that neither his heart nor his body had been constrained by what it signified, namely the bond of “the fear of the Lord, chaste and holy, abiding forever.”Footnote 86 This was followed by the removal of the maniple, since the cleric had not overcome the spiritual snares of the devil nor fulfilled the good works it signified, and finally the amice, because he had failed to restrain his speech.Footnote 87 After this, the cruets for wine and water and the lavabo set were taken away, symbolically and verbally stripping him of the power to enter the sanctuary and touch (tangendi) the sacred vestments.Footnote 88 Only then did the ministers removed from the degraded cleric the cincture, alb, and amice.

The next privations concerned the minor orders. The former priest, now symbolically reduced to the rank of acolyte, whose duties included supplying wine and water for the Mass and lighting the lamps, was made to hold in his hand an empty wine cruet (urceolum vacuum), which the bishop then took from him, saying: “Unclean [immunde] one, you may not carry wine and water for the holy Eucharist.”Footnote 89 In a second action the extinguished candle, which up to then a minister had held, was placed in the delinquent’s hand, from whom the bishop took it with the words: “Relinquish the office of bearing visible light, because you have neglected to provide spiritual light by your conduct; and lay down here the entire office of the acolyte.”Footnote 90 This echoed the admonition in the ordination of acolytes, in which the bishop had warned that they could not please God if, while bearing light in their hands, they served the works of darkness; rather, they were to gird their loins, live chastely, and become children of light.Footnote 91 Symbolically less charged was the removal from the order of exorcist. It consisted in a juridical prohibition against casting out demons or blessing the possessed (super energumenos), together with the removal of the book of exorcisms from his hands. For the degradation of the lector, the delinquent was given the book of the readings, which the bishop then took from him, forbidding him henceforth to read or sing in the church or to bless bread or fruits, because he had not fulfilled his office “faithfully and devoutly.”Footnote 92 At the degradation from the lowest order, that of porter (ostiarius), to whom the keys of the church had been entrusted, and whose duties included striking the cymbal and opening the book for the preacher, the Pontificale stated: “Because you have failed with the keys, give the keys back! And because you have poorly barred the gates of your heart against demons, we remove you from the office of porter: that you may not strike the cymbal, no longer open the church, nor the sacristy, nor the book for the preacher.”Footnote 93 This was a pointed inversion of the ordination rite, underscoring the cleric’s personal culpability – above all, his neglect to “act in such a way as if [he] were to render an account to God for those things that are opened with these keys.”Footnote 94

The last liturgical action of the degradation was the removal of the tonsure, which was preceded by the stripping of the cassock (habitus clericalis). The text closely mirrored that at the very beginning of the ritual, so that both opening and conclusion were framed by the invocation of the triune God and the declaration of deposition. Extraordinarily direct was the use of the verb nudamus, which signified that the delinquent was stripped of every religious ornament and reduced to the outward status of a layperson:

By the authority of Almighty God, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and by ours, we take from you the clerical habit, and strip [nudamus] you of the adornment of religion, and we depose, degrade, despoil, and divest [deponimus; degradamus, spoliamus; exuimus] you of every order, benefice, and clerical privilege; and as unworthy of clerical profession, we reduce you to the servitude and ignominy of the secular habit and state.Footnote 95

He then symbolically eradicated with a razor or a knife the tonsure: “We wish to exclude you, ungrateful son, from the state of the Lord to which you were called, and to take away from the crown of your head the sign of the royal priesthood, on account of your wickedness.”Footnote 96 The Pontificale did, however, permit the ordinary to omit this step, perhaps for the simple reason that a cleric who had sat in prison for weeks or months already bore no visible tonsure because of hair growth.Footnote 97 In the case of the Würzburg degradations the bishop only symbolically cut off a tuft of hair and then handed the condemned over to a present barber, who was to shave the entire head, so that every sign of the tonsure was obliterated.Footnote 98 If one chose, however, to shave the delinquent’s head, it is very likely that he sustained slight wounds. Since the sacred space of the church had to remain free of blood, the barber probably carried out the shaving outside. The illustration of the degradation of the Liège priest Jacques Pierlot in 1786 for a triple homicide appears to suggest such a complete shaving. Whereas he was initially depicted with a full head of hair, he is shown before the execution wearing a cap, presumably to conceal a lacerated scalp.Footnote 99 When the rite was complete, the former cleric was dressed in secular clothes. Anton von Lenz, having studied several canon law commentaries, was astonished when he witnessed the degradation of Johann A. Gauch in 1747. In his estimation, the presider was too careless in his observance of the prescribed form. The bishop had only touched the tonsure but abstained from having the head shaved and even neglected to remove Gauch’s Roman collar, which the priest was left to lay aside himself. Moreover, instead of dressing the serial child abuser in customary, yellow-colored clothes, which visibly identified an infamous person, he was given a white shirt and “a pair of grey trousers trimmed with pewter buttons and lined with red”Footnote 100 before being led back to his prison cell. In comparison, Fischer’s hair had been unevenly cut to eliminate even the trace of his first tonsure, and was “dressed in a torn red undershirt, unbound leggings, and loosely hanging stockings, covered with a coarse woolen cloak.”Footnote 101

After this final symbolic act, the degraded cleric was declared officially deprived of every clerical privilege and handed over to the secular judge, whom the bishop, in what was by then a largely conventional plea, implored to mitigate the sentence and spare his life.Footnote 102 In Gauch’s case, servants of the sovereign carried for the symbolic handing over the so-called “iron hand,” which symbolized the secular authority over life and death.Footnote 103 Only then was the delinquent taken into worldly custody and led away. The rite ended with the silent withdrawal of the bishop and clergy.Footnote 104

VI. Conclusion

The execution of a degraded priest followed sometimes immediately, as in the case of the triple murderer Fr. Jacques Pierlot, or a few days or weeks afterward, such as in the case of Ernst Fischer. For the latter, a report states:

He prepared himself worthily for his merited punishment and final struggle, and courageously exhorted himself, so that the spectators might learn how those abandoned by divine grace fall, and, once restored, rise again. Tears flowed not only down the faces of the onlookers but also even down the cheeks of the executioner. Many were unwilling to witness the carrying out of the sentence; weighed down by grief, they withdrew. His confessor … implored us all to pardon him – especially those whom he had poisoned.Footnote 105

Gauch seems to have been an outlier, because although defrocked in April 1747, he was not executed until the end of November.Footnote 106 Only rarely, however, was a degraded priest spared the death penalty to which he had been condemned, as in the case of Prior Filip de Vos of Elsegem in the Habsburg Netherlands in 1736.Footnote 107

Curiously, although several thousand people were reportedly present at Gauch’s execution, no public record of the event has survived. Not a single newspaper mentioned it, even though it would have offered ample material for confessional polemics. Likewise, the execution of Fischer passed without mention in print. Yet this silence should not be taken to mean that the spectacle left spectators unmoved. Perhaps it was precisely because the event united the harsh restoration of justice with an appeal to divine mercy that it stilled any impulse to publicize what they had witnessed.

Be that as it may, the ritual of degradation emerged in our analysis as an embodied act, a public stripping of dignities and privileges through which a priest was made available to secular justice without removing the indelible mark on his soul . Read as the inverted choreography of ordination, the sequence of the rite desacralized the offender and placed him under a worldly authority. As a public ritual of ecclesiastical governance, it sought to repair clerical reputation, uphold doctrine and social discipline, manage scandal, and synchronize ecclesiastical and secular jurisdiction – presenting a Church that could purge its ranks without denying sacramental ontology. Yet the core tension remained: the ritual could remove everything but the indelible character.

References

1 This article expands upon and develops my earlier work on the topic, cf. Ulrich L. Lehner, “Die Entlassung aus dem Klerikerstand in der Frühen Neuzeit,” Historisches Jahrbuch 43 (2023): 174–205. Common Latin abbreviations from the Pontificale have been expanded. Abbreviations of Archives: AAM= Aartsbisschoppelijk Archief te Mechelen AEL=Archives de l’Etat à Liège, Belgium; AEM=Archiv des Erzbistums München und Freising; ANT=Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo, Lisbon; BayHstAM=Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv München; APS=Archiv der Erzabtei S. Peter, Salzburg; DAW=Diözesanarchiv Wien; FFA=Fürstlich Fürstenbergisches Archiv Donaueschingen; RL=Rijksarchief Leuven. Other Abbreviation: DH=Heinrich, Peter Hünermann, and Helmut Hoping, eds., Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, 37th ed. (Freiburg: Herder, 1991).

2 See Milan Wehnert, Ein neues Geschlecht von Priestern: tridentinische Klerikalkultur im Französischen Katholizismus 1620–1640 (Regensburg: Schnell Steiner, 2016); Joy Palacios, Ceremonial Splendor: Performing Priesthood in Early Modern France (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2022); Ulrich L. Lehner, Inszenierte Keuschheit: Sexualdelikte in der Gesellschaft Jesu im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2023), 9–30; Ulrich L. Lehner, Staged Chastity: Sexual Transgressions of Early Modern Jesuits (New York: Oxford University Press, 2026).

3 Pierre Hurtubise, “Le Prêtre tridentin: idéal et réalité,” in Homo Religiosus – autour de Jean Delumeau (Paris: Librairie Artheme Fayard, 1997), 208–217.

4 On desacralization in general see Andreas Mahler, “The Sacred Becomes Profane–The Profane Becomes Sacred: Observations on the Desubstantialisation of Religious Discourse in the Early Modern Age,” in Knowledge and Profanation (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2019), 133–156.

5 On this ritual in general see Franz Kober, Die Deposition und Degradation nach den Grundsätzen des kirchlichen Rechts (Tübingen: Laupp, 1867); Rudolf Meißner, “Zur Geschichte der Degradation,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 13, no. 1 (August 1924): 488–512; Bernhard Schimmelpfennig, “Die Degradation von Klerikern im späten Mittelalter,” Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 34, no. 4 (1982): 305–323; Marc Dykmans, “Le Rite de La Dégradation Des Clercs: D’après Quelques Anciens Manuscrits,” Gregorianum 63, no. 2 (1982): 301–331; Dyan Elliott, “Dressing and Undressing the Clergy: Rites of Ordination and Degradation,” in Medieval Fabrications, ed. E. Jane Burns (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 55–69. An analysis of the Pontificale of 1595 offers Waldemar Pałęcki, “Celebracja nałożenia kar osobom duchownym i ich zniesienia według potrydenckiego Pontificale Romanum,” Roczniki Teologiczne 64, no. 8 (2017): 111–128. Important remarks about the use of the rite by the judges of the Roman Inquisition in Albrecht Burkardt, “Dégradations, destitutions, abdications, retraites-Fins de carrière au sein de l’Inquisition romaine (fin xvie-début xviiie siècle),” in Crépuscules du pouvoir Destitutions et abdications de l’Antiquité au xxe siècle, ed. Albrecht Burkardt (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2022), 411–436. For an overview of criminal canon law in the Holy Roman Empire see Isabelle Deflers, “Le droit pénal des ecclésiastiques du 16e au 18e siècle dans le Saint Empire Romain Germanique,” in Justice pénale et procès des ecclésiastiques en Europe, XVIe–XVIIIe siècles (Lille: Centre d’Histoire judiciaire, 2005), 63–81.

6 Siegmund Jacob Baumgarten, Untersuchung theologischer Streitigkeiten (Halle: Gebauer, 1764), 3:289.

7 This can be seen especially from the public reaction in the case of Johann A. Gauch of 1747, see Ulrich L. Lehner, “Clerical Child Abuse and Public Justice in Eighteenth-Century Germany,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 2026, 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046926102504. For the medieval context of humiliation in the ritual see Elliott, “Dressing and Undressing the Clergy.” For the public sentiment see also Paolo Sarpi, Historia del concilio Tridentino, 2nd ed. (Geneva: Pietro Auberto, 1629), 345–346.

8 Henrich Martin Gottfried Koester, Deutsche Encyclopaedie oder Allgemeines Real-Wörterbuch aller Künste und Wissenschaften von einer Gesellschaft Gelehrten (Frankfurt: Varrentrapp Sohn und Wenner, 1783), 17:19.

9 Ludwig Ott, Das Weihesakrament, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte IV/5 (Freiburg: Herder, 1969), 48–51; 95–96.

10 DH nn. 1763–1778. On the sacramentality of the ordines in post-Trent theology see Walter Croce, Die niederen Weihen und ihre hierarchische Wertung. Eine geschichtliche Studie, 70 (1948): 257–314; Ott, Das Weihesakrament, 128–139; Ephrem Reese OP, “The Council of Trent and Dionysian Ecclesiastical Hierarchy,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 55, no. 2 (May 2025): 295–323.

11 Hervé Legrand, “Das unauslöschliche Merkmal und die Theologie des Weiheamtes,” Concilium 8, no. 4 (1972): 262–267; Jean Galot, La nature du caractère sacramentel: étude de théologie médiévale (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1956); DH nn. 1767; 1774. For an overview of the theological development in view of twentieth century challenges see John M. Donahue, “Sacramental Character: The State of the Question,” The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 31, no. 4 (1967): 445–464.

12 Benjamin Dahlke, “Die Sakramentalität des Bischofsamtes,” in In verbo autem tuo, Domine. Auf dein Wort hin, Herr, ed. Rüdiger Althaus (Paderborn: Brill Schöningh, 2018), 13–31. For the views after Trent see also Ott, Das Weihesakrament, 136–139.

13 AEM: GR.PR.95 (1678), fol. 208: case of the priest Benedict Pacher, exiled from the diocese of Freising for an immoral life. BayHStAM: Generalregistratur, Fasz. 519/85 (Geheimer Rat): case concerning the rape of a thirteen-year-old girl by the priest Wolfgang Ignaz Horlacher in 1770. BayHStAM: Blechkasten 138 (Hochstift Passau): case of the priest Johann Schmalzgrueber, arrested in 1690 for violent rape, imprisoned and suspended, but not degraded.

14 Enrique López-Dóriga, “Die Natur der Jurisdiktion im Bußsakrament,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 82, no. 4 (1960): 385–427; Hans-Peter Arendt, Bussakrament und Einzelbeichte. Die tridentinischen Lehraussagen über das Sündenbekenntnis und ihre Verbindlichkeit für die Reform des Bussakramentes (Freiburg: Herder, 1981).

15 Werkmeister, “Ein Beitrag,” 450–452. Cf. also Benedikt Werkmeister, Theologisches Gutachten über die Frage: Kann ein in den höhern Weihungen stehender Geistlicher, z. B. ein Priester, seines geistlichen Standes entlassen, und wieder unter die Laien werden? (Frankfurt am Main: Hermann, 1800), 46. Vinzenz Fuchs, “Erpreßter Zutritt zu den höheren Weihen und Zölibatspflicht des Klerikers,” Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht 119, no. 1 (1939): 3–30; Paul Picard, Zölibatsdiskussion im katholischen Deutschland der Aufklärungszeit (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1975). On the contemporary legal sitation see Rafael Rieger, “Das Ausscheiden aus dem klerikalen Stand,” in Handbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts, 3rd ed., ed. Stephan Haering, Wilhelm Rees, and Heribert Schmitz (Regensburg: F. Pustet, 2015), 410–429; Rafael Rieger, “De gravioribus delictis Congregationi pro Doctrina Fidei reservatis: Anmerkungen aus der Praxis zu den schwerwiegenderen Straftaten bei der Feier der Sakramente und gegen die Sitten, deren Behandlung der Glaubenskongregation vorbehalten ist,” Österreichisches Archiv für Recht & Religion 59 (2012): 327–345; Michael O’Reilly, “Recent Developments in the Laicization of Priests,” Jurist 52 (1992): 684–696.

16 Ott, Das Weihesakrament, 76–80. On the relationship of episcopacy to priesthood see ibid., 80–87.

17 Ott, 139–141.

18 Ott, Das Weihesakrament, 143–145.

19 Kober, Die Deposition, 334–335.

20 Prospero Farinacci, Opera Criminalia, 4th ed. (Endter, 1613), 1:274: “…actualiter et personaliter degradatur, exuitur et spoliatur ordinis…”

21 See Martino Bonacina, Tractatus de Censuris, et Poenis Ecclesiasticis (Sumptibus Disiunctae Societatis, 1629), 3:disp. 4, 257–259 and Manlio Sodi and Achille M. Triacca, eds., Pontificale Romanum: editio princeps: 1595–1596, Monumenta liturgica Concilii Tridentini 1 (Città del Vaticano: Libreria editrice vaticana, 1997), 632–635.

22 Martino Bonacina, Tractatus de Censuris, et Poenis Ecclesiasticis (Venice: Sumptibus Disiunctae Societatis, 1629), 3:disp. 4, 257–259; Jacobus Menochius, De arbitrariis judicum quaestionibus et causis (Köln: Anton Hierat, 1607), casus 415, 562. Barbosa Agostinho Barbosa, Pastoralis solicitudinis, sive de officio et potestate episcopi, vol. 3 (Lyon: Philippe Borde & Laurent Arnaud, 1649), pt. 3, alleg. CX, num. 10, 517. For an example for a verbal degradation see also the case of Fr. Matthias Kockelin near Passau for concubinage with several women, see DAW: PP 85, Decree, 17 November 1670, fol. 60–60v. He lost his parish and was incarcerated in Greiffenstein.

23 Francesco Albizzi, De inconstantia in jure admittenda vel non (Amsterdam: Joannes Antonius Huguctan, 1683), 121.

24 Prospero Farinacci, Tractatus de haeresi (Rom: Gerardi Wolsschatij, 1616), 440.

25 Ingrid D. Rowland, “What Giordano Bruno Left Behind: Rome, 1600,” Common Knowledge 14, no. 3 (2008): 424–433. Janusz Królikowski, “Proces Gabriela Malagridy SJ – Propagandowe Preludium Do Kasaty Jezuitów,” in Kasata Towarzystwa Jezusowego – 1773 Rok: Zagadnienia Wybrane, by Janusz Królikowski, ed. Jolanta Kunowska (Uniwersytet Papieski Jana Pawła II w Krakowie. Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 2020), 87–120. On the Jesuit’s life see Matias Rodrigues, Vida Do Padre Gabriel Malagrida (Bélem do Pará, Brazil: Centro de Cultura e Formação Cristã, 2010); Guilerme Marchiori de Assis, “O Processo Inquisitorial Do Jesuíta Gabriel Malagrida: Aspectos Históricos e Jurídicos,” Diálogos Sobre a Modernidade, no. 1 (2018): 26–31.

26 These were the priests Johann Jantsch of Leitmeritz and the Viennese priest Anton Kastner, see Real-Zeitung Wien, 1775, Num. 71, 573. DAW: WP 156, fol. 456–457. For laypeople punished for such crimes see Susanne Hehenberger, “Die beleidigte Ehre GOttes auf das empfindlichste zu rächen, in allweg gesonnen. Blasphemie und Sakrileg im 18. Jahrhundert,” in Wien und seine WienerInnen." Ein historischer Streifzug durch Wien über die Jahrhunderte, ed. Martin Scheutz and Vlasta Vales (Vienna; Cologne; Weimar: Böhlau, 2008), 179–201.

27 The question of “notorious sodomy” is discussed in detail in Lehner, Staged Chastity; Veronica De Jesus Gomes, Atos Nefandos: Eclesiásti cos homossexuais na teia da Inquisição (Curitiba: Editora Prismas, 2015); Veronica De Jesus Gomes, “Prazeres ilícitos: a prostituição homossexual protagonizada por padres na Lisboa Seiscentista,” Anais da Jornada de Estudos Historicos Professor Manoel Salgado 5 (2019): 981–996; Veronica De Jesus Gomes, “As distintas faces da menoridade na Mesa Inquisitorial: uma análise dos testemunhos de meninos sodomizados por padres (Lisboa, 1638),” Revista de História da UEG 11, no. 01 (2022): 1–25.

28 Zeger Bernard van Espen, Ius Ecclesiasticum universum: hodiernae disciplinae, praesertim Belgii, Galliae, Germaniae, et vicinarum provinciarum accomodatum, vol. 1 (Köln: Wilhelm Metternich, 1729), p. tit. 10, c. 7, 371–374. For the canonical understanding of irregularity ex delicto, see Eduard Seitz, Darstellung der katholischen Kirchendisciplin in Ansehung der Verwaltung der Sacramente: eine Anleitung zur geistlichen Amtsverwaltung in Beziehung auf die Taufe, die Firmung, die Buße, den Ablaß, das Abendmahl, das Meßopfer, die letzte Ölung, die erste Tonsur, die Weihe, das Verlöbniß und die Ehe (Regensburg: Manz, 1850), 200–217.

29 On irregularity resulting from homicide see Scherer, „Die Irregularitas ex delicto homicidii“

30 Seitz, Darstellung, 54–55.

31 Kober, Die Deposition und Degradation nach den Grundsätzen des kirchlichen Rechts, 755–57; Barbosa, Pastoralis solicitudinis, sive de officio et potestate episcopi, Bd. 3, Teil 3, alleg. CX, num. 13, 517.

32 Franz Michael Wittmann, Die Jesuiten und der Ritter Heinrich von Lang oder Nachweis: wie die Gegner der Jesuiten deren Geschichte schreiben (Augsburg: Kollmann, 1845), 38.

33 Jozef De Brouwer, De kerkelijke rechtspraak en haar evolutie in de bisdommen Antwerpen, Gent en Mechelen tussen 1570 en 1795 (Tielt: Veys, 1971), XXVII. Another example of the degradation of a forger and thief is Petrus Tyrant, a priest of the diocese of Saint-Omer. Tyrant was degraded on February 1, 1652 in the archiepiscopal chapel in Mechelen and subsequently handed over to the Council of Brabant, which sentenced him to the amputation of his right hand, followed by strangulation and burning, see AAM: Aartsbisshoppen, Nr. 25/9 Degradatie en bestraffing van Petrus Tarant (sic!); cf. Ludo Vandamme, “On de passie van de kapelaan van Jean Piere Dumoulin en Veronique Lambert,” De Franse Nederlanden 29 (2004): 153–160.

34 Pietro Follerio, Canonica Criminalis Praxis (Venice: Ioannem Antonium Salernitanum, 1570), 272. Cf. the interesting case of a degradation and execution of a Bohemian priest in 1631 for heresy, see Nicolas Richard, “La dégradation d’un prêtre à Prague le 7 avril 1631: justice ecclésiastique et réforme catholique au début de la guerre de Trente ans,” Histoire, economie societe 35, no. 1 (2016): 75–87.

35 Barbosa, Pastoralis solicitudinis, vol. 3, pt. 3, alleg. CX, num. 13, 517.

36 Jacques Chiffoleau, “Ecclesia de occultis non iudicat. L’Eglise, le secret et l’occulte du XIIe au XVe siècle,” Micrologus. Nature, Sciences and Medieval Societies 13 (2006): 359–481.

37 FFA: Ecclesiastica 88/III, 7: Nr. 32 Prince Bishop of Constance to Prince Fürstenberg, 11 April 1747.

38 Harald Schwillus, Die Hexenprozesse gegen Würzburger Geistliche unter Fürstbischof Philipp Adolf von Ehrenberg (1623–1631) (Würzburg: Echter, 1989). Since ecclesial judges were not allowed to pronounce a death sentence, the criminal clergy were sentenced by secular judges, see James Q. Whitman, The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 37–50; Lotte Kéry, “Criminal Law,” in The Cambridge History of Medieval Canon Law, 1st ed., ed. Anders Winroth and John C. Wei (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), 495–510. On the canonist principle ecclesia abhorret a sanguine, see Michèle Bordeaux, “Le Sang Du Corps Du Droit Canon Ou Des Acceptions de l’adage «Ecclesia Abhorret a Sanguine»,” Droit et Société 28, no. 1 (1994): 543–563.

39 AEM: AB004/3, PfarrA4951, „Freiwillige Aussag“, 14 March 1682. Similar problems observed Schwillus, Die Hexenprozesse. For the legal context of his offenses see Kober, Die Deposition, 772; Ignacio Lopez de Salcedo, Practica criminalis canonica (Mainz: B. Lippium, 1610), c. XC, 300; Juan Bernard de Díaz, Practica criminalis canonica (Lyon: Rouillium, 1554), c. 80, 177.

40 AEM: AB004/3, PfarrA4951, „ad S. Augustinum,“ 15 August 1682, images 493–494, signature illegible.

41 AEM: AB004/3, PfarrA4951, Sententia, 23 December 1682, image 535. For Stainberger see AB004/3, PfarrA4842, esp. images 866–869. The problematic nature of confessions in witchcraft trials and other inquisitorial trials have long been exposed by historians, see for example James S. Amelang, “Between Doubt and Discretion: Revising the Rules for Prosecuting Spanish Witches,” in Making, Using, and Resisting the Law in European History, ed. Günther Lottes and et al. (Pisa: Edizioni Plus, 2008), 77–92; Gustav Henningsen, The Witches’ Advocate: Basque Witchcraft and the Spanish Inquisition, 1609–1614 (Reno: University of Nevada Press, 1980).

42 ANT: Inquisição de Lisboa, proc. 8064. The trial records comprise about 1,000 pages. For the table of contents see: https://digitarq.arquivos.pt/viewer?id=2308165. For the context of the trial see Królikowski, “Proces Gabriela Malagridy SJ.” On Malagrida’s life see Rodrigues, Vida Do Padre Gabriel Malagrida.

43 Farinacci, Tractatus de haeresi, 440. Christopher Robert Cheney, “The Punishment of Felonous Clerks,” The English Historical Review 51, no. CCII (1936): 215–236; Robert Génestal, Le privilegium fori en France du décret de Gratien à la fin du XIVe diècle, par R. Génestal (Paris: El Leroux, 1921); Viliam Štefan Dóci, “Wer darf einen kriminellen Dominikaner richten? Eine Studie zur Kontroverse um das privilegium fori in Bezug auf das crimen laesae majestatis,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 129, no. 2 (2021): 308–329; Elena Postigo Castellanos, “El ‘Privilegium fori’ y el debate sobre la religiosidad de los caballeros de las órdenes monástico-militares castellanas (SS.XVI–XVIII),” in Monarquías en conflicto: Linajes y noblezas en la articulación de la monarquía hispánica, vol. 1, ed. José Ignacio Fortea Pérez (Madrid: Editorial Universidad Cantabria, 2020), 371–422. Notably, the Jesuit Jean-Baptiste Girard, accused of solicitation in the confessional in 1730, was not handed over to the state authorities, see Mita Choudhury, The Wanton Jesuit and the Wayward Saint: A Tale of Sex, Religion, and Politics in Eighteenth-Century France (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2015); Stéphane Lamotte, L’Affaire Girard-Cadière: Justice, satire et religion au XVIIIe siècle (Aix-en-Provence: Presses universitaires de Provence, 2016).

44 Ralf Georg Bogner, “Mord unter Ordensbrüdern. Die Leichenpredigt von Wolfgang Haas auf den vergifteten Lambacher Abt Plazidus Hieber aus dem Jahr 1678,” in Oratio funebris: Die katholische Leichenpredigt der frühen Neuzeit, ed. Birgit Bogner and Ralf Georg Bogner (Amsterdam, 1999), 171–185; Gerald Hirtner, “Der Tod im Kochtopf. Speisekonsum in frühneuzeitlichen Benediktinerklöstern und seine pathogenen und letalen Folgen,” in Kochbuchforschung interdisziplinär (Graz: Unipress, 2017), 55–72.

45 Giulio Cartari, Decisiones criminales fori archiepiscopalis Mediolanensis (Rome: Typographia Vaticana, 1676), 351. For a study of clerical murders see Salvador Daza Palacios and María Regla Prieto Corbalán, De la santidad al crimen: clérigos homicidas en España (1535–1821) (Sevilla: Editorial Renacimiento, 2004).

46 Alex Stock, Poetische Dogmatik. Ekklesiologie (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2014), 1:52–54. For an edition of medieval degradation texts see Dykmans, “Le Rite de La Dégradation,” 320–329.

47 Sodi and Triacca, Pontificale Romanum, 632–642.

48 Farinacci, Tractatus de haeresi, 441. See also Schimmelpfennig, “Die Degradation”; Johannes Baptist Sägmüller, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts, 2nd ed. (Freiburg: Herder, 1909), 800–801. On the degradation of a bishop see Sodi and Triacca, Pontificale Romanum, 632–633.

49 Council of Trent, 13th session (1551), de reform., ch. 4. For the English translation see Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (B. Herder Book Company, 1941), 359. Cf. Barbosa, Pastoralis solicitudinis, vol. 3, pts. 3, alleg. CX, num. 23, 519.

50 Schimmelpfennig, “Die Degradation”; Sägmüller, Lehrbuch, 800–801.

51 Schwillus, Die Hexenprozesse.

52 Sodi and Triacca, Pontificale Romanum, par. 1302, 634. “… ad aliorum terrorem actualis degradatio…”

53 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1302–1303, 634: “In primis in publico extra Ecclesiam paratur aliquis eminens congruentis spatii locus, pro degradatione facienda, supra quem ordinatur una credentia simplici tobalea cooperta, supra quam ponuntur ampulla vini, ampulla aquae, calix cum patena et hostia; unum vas vini, unum vas aquae; liber Evangeliorum, liber Epistolarum, bacile cum buccali et mantili, unum candelabrum cum candela extincta; liber Exorcismorum, liber Lectionum; claves, Antiphonarium, forfices, cultellus aut vitrum; paramenta pro degradando, videlicet, si degradandus sit Archiepiscopus: ordinentur super dictam credentiam superpelliceum, sandalia cum caligis, amictus, alba, cingulum, manipulus, tunicella, stola, dalmatica, chirothecae, alia stola, planeta, mitra, annulus Pontificalis, pallium, baculus pastoralis et aliqua vestis habitus saecularis.”

54 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1303, 634–635: “Item paratur in dicto loco faldistorium pro Pontifice degradatore, sedilia pro officialibus. Vocantur, et ibidem adsint ministri Pontificis; iudex saecularis, cui degradatus committitur; notarius qui processum degradationis legit, si opus erit, vel Pontifici placet; et barbitonsor.”

55 Elliott writes therefore, that “clerical orders are constructed like a kind of palimpsest. Lower orders are contained by the higher …,” see Elliott, “Dressing and Undressing the Clergy,” 58.

56 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1304, 635: “Hora congruenti ducitur degradandus, sive sit Archiepiscopus sive, quicumque alius, quotidiano suo habitu indutus, super dictum locum ad hoc praeparatum; ubi cum fuerit, soluitur, et liber ibidem manet. Tum a clericis induitur omnibus paramentis sui ordinis, ut praemittitur, supra credentiam ordine suo positis, incipiendo a superpelliceo et continuando usque ad ultimum paramentum sui Ordinis. Quo sic induto, Pontifex degradator indutus amictu, alba, cingulo, stola et pluviali rubeis, ac mitra simplici, baculum pastoralem in sinistra tenens, ascendit ad locum praedictum, et ibidem sedet in faldistorio in convenienti loco sibi parato versus ad populum, astante sibi iudice saeculari.”

57 Luigi Maria Sinistrari, Formularium criminale … de incorrigibilium expulsione (Rome: Caroli Giannini, 1754), 2:530. In some areas of Europe, red candles were produced with red lead or cinnabar, whose smoke was to be inhaled for healing purposes, see Felix Platter, Praxeos Seu de cognoscendis, praedicendis, praecavendis, curandisque affectibus homini incommodantibus Tractatus: De Doloribus, Libro vno (Basel: Waldkirchius, 1609), 340.

58 Henry Charles Lea, Geschichte der spanischen Inquisition (Leipzig: Dyk, 1912), 2:268.

59 ASP: Akt 804.

60 FFA: Ecclesiastica 88/III, 7: Nr. 43 Lenz to Fürst Fürstenberg, 24 April 1747.

61 Meißner, “Zur Geschichte der Degradation,” 495.

62 Leonardus Lessius, De iustitia et iure cæterisque virtutibus cardinalibus libri quatuor (Milan: Bidellium, 1618), lib. 2, c. 11, 92; Elliott, “Dressing and Undressing the Clergy,” 63; Andreas Krass, Geschriebene Kleider: Höfische Identität als literarisches Spiel (Tübingen: Francke, 2006).

63 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1306, 636: “… quod cum non solum grande, sed etiam damnabile et damnosum sit, atque adeo enorme, ut exinde non tantum divina maiestas offensa, sed et universa civitas commota est; et ob hoc indignus officio et beneficio ecclesiastico sit redditus.”

64 Ecclesiastica 88/III, 7: Prince Fürstenberg to the Spiritual Council of Constance of 26 May 1746. On this case see in detail Lehner, “Clerical Child Abuse.”

65 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1306–1307, 636–637: “[I]dcirco nos auctoritate Dei omnipotentis, Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus sancti, & nostra ipsum omni huiusmodi officio, & beneficio Ecclesiastico sententialiter perpetuo privamus in his scriptis, ipsumque ab illis verbo deponimus, & pronuntiamus realiter, & actualiter secundum traditionem canonum deponendum, & degradandum.“

66 Roland Barthes, The Fashion System (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990).

67 Elliott, “Dressing and Undressing the Clergy.” On devestiture at court see Krass, Geschriebene Kleider, 193–232. On the semiotics of clothes see Krass, 1–37. On the meaning of priestly vestments in the Hebrew Bible see Michael D. Swartz, The Signifying Creator: Nontextual Sources of Meaning in Ancient Judaism (New York: New York University Press, 2012), 33–54. On the question of semiotics in law see Thomas-M. Seibert, “Semiotische Aspekte der Rechtswissenschaft: Rechtssemiotik,” in Semiotik/Semiotics Part 3, ed. Roland Posner, Klaus Robering, and Thomas A. Sebeok (Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2003), 2847–2904.

68 ASP: Akt 804, “… sed surgere iussus, cui exinde delictum et fulmen excommunicationis et degradationis publicatum, quod lacrymas largas fluere fecit, quas et extracto ex sacco strophiolo flebiliter abstersit…”

69 For Fischer see ASP: Akt 804. For Gauch see FFA: Ecclesiastica 88/III, 7: Nr. 43 Lenz to Fürstenberg, 24 April 1747.

70 Kober, Die Deposition, 745.

71 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1324, 638: “Amovemus a te, quin potius amotan esse ostendimus potestatem offerendi Deo sacrificium, Missamque celebrandi tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis.”

72 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1326, 638: “Potestatem sacrificandi, consecrandi et benedicendi, quam in unctione manuum et pollicum recepisti, tibi tollimus hac rasura.”

73 Sodi and Triacca, par. 117, 73–74.

74 On the priest as the only qualified celebrant of the Eucharist see the bull Exsultate Deo, DH 1313. See also Council of Trent, 7th Session (1547), Decree on the Sacraments, DH 1609 can. 9; ibid., 23rd Session (1563) on Holy Orders, ch. 4, DH 1767. Cf. Louis Habert, Theologia Dogmatica et Moralis (Augsburg: M. Rieger, 1771), 5:108.

75 FFA: Ecclesiastica 88/III, 7: Nr. 43 Lenz to Fürstenberg, 24 April 1747.

76 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1328, 638: “Veste sacerdotali, caritatem significante, te merito expoliamus, quia ipsam, & omnem innocentiam exuisti.”

77 In the ordination rite the bishop spoke to the ordinand: “Accipe vestem Sacerdotalem, per quam caritas intelligitur; potens est enim Deus, ut augeat tibi caritatem, & opus perfectum.”

78 Sodi and Triacca, par. 115, 72: “… et inviolabili caritate in virum perfectum, in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi, in die iusti & aeterni iudicii Dei, conscientia pura …”

79 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1330, 638–639: “Signum Domini per hanc stolam turpiter abiecisti, ideoque ipsam a te amovemus, quem inhabilem reddimus ad omne Sacerdotale officium exercendum.”

80 FFA: Ecclesiastica 88/III, 7: Nr. 43 Lenz to Fürstenberg, 24 April 1747.

81 Sodi and Triacca, par. 113, 71.

82 Sodi and Triacca, par. 100, 58–59.

83 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1332–1336, 639.

84 Sodi and Triacca, par. 84, 46: “… ut eos in sacrario tuo sancto strenuos sollicitosque caelestis militiae instituas excubitores, sanctisque altaribus tuis fideliter subministrent…”

85 Sodi and Triacca, par. 86–88, 47. For the lose placement on the neck see Aurelius Stehle, Manual of Episcopal Ceremonies: Based on the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, Etc., and Approved Authors (St. Vincent Seminary, 1914), 355.

86 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1340, 639. “Tunica Subdiaconali te exuimus, cuius cor & corpus timor Domini castus, & sanctus in aeternum permanens, non constringit.”

87 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1341–1344, 639–640.

88 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1345–1346, 640.

89 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1348–1349, 640.

90 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1350–1351, 640: “Dimitte perferendi visibile lumen officium, quia praebere spirituale moribus neglexisti, atque universum Acolythatus officium hic depone.”

91 Sodi and Triacca, par. 67, 34.

92 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1352–1355, 640–641.

93 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1357, 641: “Quia in clavibus errasti, ideo claves dimitte; & quia ostia cordis tui male daemonibus obserasti, amovemus a te officium Ostiarii: ut non percutias cymbalum, non amplius aperias Ecclesiam, non Sacrarium, non librum amplius praedicanti.”

94 Sodi and Triacca, par. 50, 27: “Sic agite, quasi reddituri Deo rationem de iis rebus, quae his clavibus recluduntur.”

95 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1359, 641: “Auctoritate Dei omnipotentis, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, ac nostra, tibi auferimus habitum clericalem et nudamus te religionis ornatu, ac deponimus, degradamus, spoliamus et exuimus te omni ordine, beneficio et privilegio clericali; et velut clericalis professionis indignum redigimus te in servitutem et ignominiam habitus saecularis, ac status.”

96 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1361, 642: “Te velut ingratum filium a sorte Domini, ad quam vocatus fueras, abijcimus, et coronam tui capitis, regale quidem signum Sacerdotii, de tuo capite amovemus, propter tui regiminis pravitatem.”

97 Ulrich L. Lehner, Mönche und Nonnen im Klosterkerker. Ein verdrängtes Kapitel Kirchengeschichte (Kevalaer: ToposPlus, 2015), 96–97.

98 Schwillus, Die Hexenprozesse, 88.

99 Anonymous, La vie de Jacques Pierlot, prêtre & marguillier de la paroisse de Vervier …: avec tous les détails de son crime, de sa dégradation, & de son supplice (Liège: Lemarié, 1786). For Pierlot’s trial, which appears to have received little attention from historians, see AEL: Archives de l’Officialité de Liège, Dossiers de procès, T 45: Procès, Nr. 927. See also Conseil privé de la principauté de Liège: BE-A0523_701217_700064_FRE Nr. 93, fol. 175–177; 181–182, https://agatha.arch.be/en/data/ead/BE-A0523_701217_700064#I70121770006493

100 FFA: Ecclesiastica 88/III, 7: Nr. 43 Lenz to Fürstenberg, 24 April 1747. Lenz seems to have thought of the infamous Spanish “sambenito,“ cf. Cloe Cavero de Carondelet and Yonatan Glazer-Eytan, “Infamy within Sight: Making and Unmaking Sambenitos in the Early Modern Iberian World,” Renaissance Quarterly 77, no. 2 (2024): 389–441, https://doi.org/10.1017/rqx.2024.110. For the medieval practice of attaching a yellow cross to the habit of a repentant heretic religious, see Elliott, “Dressing and Undressing the Clergy,” 65.

101 ASP: Akt 804: “Ultimo etiam prima tonsure privatus, et veste Monachiali exutus sub misero aspect capillis sine lege praecisis, subucula rubra lacera, tibialiis sine ligamine, et caligis neglecte pendentibus indutus lacerna …”

102 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1364–1365, 642.

103 FFA: Ecclesiastica 88/III, 7: Nr. 43 Lenz to Fürstenberg, 24 April 1747.

104 Sodi and Triacca, par. 1366, 642.

105 ASP: Akt 804: “… atque in promeritam poenam et luctam ultimam condigne se accinxit, et semetipsum animose cohortatus est, ut spectatores discerent, a divina gratia desertos labi, et refotos resurgere. Lacrimae non spectantium tantum, sed et ipsius carnificis genas rigarunt. Multi executionem sententiae noluerunt aspicere, sed gemitibus gravidi se subduxerunt, confessarius … nobis culpam, et maxime iis, quos venenum infecerat, deprecatus est …”

106 FFA: Ecclesiastica 88/III, 7: Nr. 43 Lenz to Fürstenberg, 24 April 1747.

107 Erik Van Mingroot, “Een beruchte XVIIIde-eeuwse rechtszaak: de moord op prior Filip De Vos van Ten Walle te Elsegem (2 januari 1736),” Handelingen van de Koninklijke Commissie voor de uitgave der oude wetten een verordeningen van België 29 (1981): 143–193; Geert Van Reyn and Ernest Persoons, “De kloostergevangenis van Groenendaal,” Zoniën. Geschiedkundig tijdschrift voor IJse-en Laneland 38, no. 3 (2014): 151–200. See RL: Kerkelijk Archief van Brabant, Priorij van Groenendaal te Hoeilaart, BE-A0518.1818 Cartulaire van Groenendael, 14589, fol. 55r–112v.