testify.
The potential for traffic between penitential and antiheretical fora is most dramatically opened up in the Summa on Penance , where Raymond embarks on an interesting piece of casuistry that actually pits the celebrated secrecy (or “seal”) of sacramental
confession expressly against the church’s fear of heresy. Moreover, as Raymond makes clear in the prologue to his Summa , this very explicit treatment was intended for the relatively humble priest as opposed to the trained inquisitor, giving
this advice a very different kind of salience. 81 Raymond begins his discussion of the seal with an enumeration of penalties that await a confessor who reveals a confession,
including the most recent sanctions enjoined by Innocent III at Lateran IV: deposition and imprisonment in a strict monastery. 82 But then the mitigating circumstance of heresy is introduced through a series of shifting lenses. Suppose that a confessor
is confronted by an unrepentant heretic, who will confess only his other sins? or by someone who is prepared to give up heresy
but will not name his former heretical confederates? Or what if he names them but does not wish the priest to reveal their
names—whether because he took a vow of secrecy or because he fears retaliation? What is the priest to do? Raymond answers
that according to some men, the priest should go to the bishop and tell him to beware and keep careful watch over his sheep
because a wolf is loose. Or else he can reveal the information to someone who can profit but will not harm the person of heretical
leanings. 83 But then Raymond goes on to proffer his own utilitarian view on the confessional rights of the unrepentant heretic.
It seems that the priest is not bound on account of the power of [the sacrament of] penance first because he [the confessee]
did not do penance and then because he does not preserve the faith since he is a heretic and an infidel. And therefore faith
should not be kept with such a person. 84
In other words, although the category of heresy is premised on a baptized individual’s ongoing and indeed compulsory membership
in the church, the heretic has nevertheless forfeited the usual protections that his or her now irksome faith would have afforded.
What remains is compulsion. Moreover, the Summa ’s concluding comment on heresy lowers the bar considerably as to where suspicions of heresy should begin: “In sum, note that
a person wavering in faith is an infidel [ dubius in fide infidelis est ], nor are those who are ignorant of the faith of truth entirely to be believed.” 85
A formal petition for Raymond’s canonization was made within four years of his death, a fact that comes as little surprise
considering his prominence in the papal and Dominican circles, as well as the scholarly world at large. 86 Even so, a compelling case for sanctity would be difficult to craft from achievements that were so academic and institutional
at a time when, as we will see, hagiographical culture was progressively favoring qualities like poverty, mysticism, and miraculous
somatism. How would his achievements stack up against such flamboyant competition?
An anonymous life, written before 1351 and accompanying his process of canonization, does its best to bring the great canon
lawyer’s achievements into line with some of the current trends. This task was certainly facilitated by Raymond’s ill-health.
Thus his refusal of the archbishopric was eventually tolerated when “he was seized by a continual fever for three days and
was in the greatest torture in body and mind, until the Lord Pope, at the instance and importuning of certain cardinals, absolved
him from this office and freed him from obedience.” 87 Moreover, in his capacity as confessor to Gregory IX, the pope gave him the nickname “the father of the poor.” This was because
Raymond frequently imposed on his papal penitent, in place of penance, the task of hearing the