The Nuns of Sant'Ambrogio: The True Story of a Convent in Scandal (14 page)

The second type of file comprises important documents from the tribunal’s deciding level: transcripts of the assembly of consultors and their suggested decisions, as well as the handwritten
Decreta
from the assembly of cardinals. Where necessary, written reports or judgments from individual consultors on certain specialist topics were brought into the meetings.

The files connecting the investigating and deciding levels are the summaries of witness examinations (
Relazioni
) and the interrogations of defendants (
Ristretti
). These were first drafted by hand, and then multiple copies were printed secretly and internally for the cardinals and consultors. In the
sommario
, it was common for a selection of key passages from the examinations to be presented verbatim. These reports made by the investigative level formed the basis for the judgments made by the cardinals, and ultimately the pope, in all Inquisition trials. Sometimes the verdict was announced publicly; sometimes it was given in secret. One way of announcing the verdict in public was to publish the text of the judgment on large posters, called
bandi
. The
bandi
were pasted to the doors of the main Roman Catholic churches, and put up in the Campo de’ Fiori. The other option was to forgo a publication of the judgment, informing only the people involved in the trial. This approach was very frequently chosen, usually to protect the people involved.
¹⁰²

In this knowledge, let us take a closer look at the available material on the case of Sant’Ambrogio. First, the files produced by the investigating section of the highest tribunal, which, as usual, start with the
Denunzia
. The denunciator first had to give a valid reason for turning to the Inquisition. The material also had to fall within the Holy Office tribunal’s remit, which meant it must largely pertain to the protection of the true Catholic Faith, and the defense against heresy. Egotistical motives like hatred or resentment, and the intention
to revenge oneself upon or harm an opponent, weren’t recognized. The only acceptable reasons for making a complaint were those of a “superior nature,” like the “unburdening of conscience,” a “zeal for the Holy Faith,” the fear of being excommunicated, and, above all, being instructed to complain by one’s confessor.
¹⁰³

The acceptance of the denunciation followed a fixed pattern:
¹⁰⁴
first, the denunciator gave his personal details and took an oath on the Gospels. Then his verbal complaint was heard in Italian, the first sentence of which had to contain one of the legitimate reasons mentioned above.
¹⁰⁵
There were other standard questions, followed by questions from the investigating judge pertaining to the specific case, each of which was asked in Latin and answered by the witness in Italian. Finally, the notary read out the transcript of the denunciation
ad alta voce
, and this was then signed by the denunciator.
¹⁰⁶
Later examinations followed a similar format.

The next set of documents in the investigative section of a trial is the transcripts of examinations and interrogations, all of them individual hearings. In the Sant’Ambrogio case, the pope expressly instructed that the interrogations should all be transcribed by the second investigating judge, the Dominican Enrico Ferrari. He had already taken down the denunciation. His job was to act as notary, and vouch for the authenticity of the statements. Each transcript starts with the date. There follows an introduction, with a record of the examinee’s personal details, and the oath. Like the investigating judge’s questions, both of these were spoken and transcribed in Latin. And as in the
Denunzia
, the answers from the witnesses and defendants were spoken and transcribed in Italian.

The opening question to the witnesses—as in all the hearings, formulated in the third person singular—was always:
“An sciat, vel imaginetur causam suae vocationis, et praesentis examines?”
(“Does he know, or can he imagine, the reason he has been called to this examination?”)
¹⁰⁷
The witnesses replied in Italian. Agnese Eletta simply answered,
“No, Signore.”
¹⁰⁸
Archbishop Hohenlohe’s answer was much more positive: “I imagine that it could be to do with Princess Katharina von Hohenzollern, and all that she experienced in Sant’Ambrogio in Rome, when she was there as a novice.”
¹⁰⁹
The examination of each witness often lasted several days. As far as possible, their testimonies were taken down verbatim, and thus remained in the first person singular.

The course of a trial before the Roman Inquisition was divided into several clearly defined steps. (
illustration credit 2.3
)

However, the presence of the transcriber in these documents shouldn’t be overlooked. Ferrari was an experienced inquisitor, whose practiced ear may well have heard things implied that a witness didn’t actually say. His “anti-heretical” stance may occasionally have made him—and for the most part, this was probably an unconscious action—overhasty in filing away some statements into particular “inquisitorial drawers.” This should be borne in mind where the transcripts from the nuns’ examinations contain theological terminology that one might not expect to hear from relatively uneducated women.

The defendants’ interrogation transcripts are constructed in a very similar way to those of the witness examinations. The investigating judge, Sallua, always took part in the interrogations. His colleague Ferrari transcribed the nuns’ hearings, and a substitute notary took over for the interrogation of the confessors. Raffaele Monaco La Valletta, who became the assessor in January 1859, was also present for the latter. Sallua confronted the suspects with compromising statements from the witnesses. Unlike the witness hearings, which were purely a series of questions and answers, here there were heated discussions between the judges and the defendants.

Once the tribunal’s lower section had completed the first phase of investigation, the “informative process,”
¹¹⁰
Sallua prepared a
Relazione informativa
, a detailed summary report, for the deciding section. This was first drafted by hand, and then printed secretly and internally in the Vatican and presented to the congregation of cardinals and the consultors. They had to decide whether the informative process had yielded sufficient evidence to move on to an offensive process, and bring formal charges, or whether the trial should be halted.

The Sant’Ambrogio
Relazione informativa
dates from January 1861. It was extremely detailed, and its
sommario
contained a long appendix of word-for-word extracts from the witness examinations. It documented the result of the investigation from the investigating judge’s point of view. Sallua’s handwritten notes on this are the closest we can get to his personal views on the Sant’Ambrogio case. He prepared these
brevi cenni
for his own use, or as the basis for a report to the pope or the cardinals.

Following on from the informative process, the offensive process was also summarized in printed reports. These
Ristretti
—one for each defendant—were compiled by the investigating judge with the help
of a scribe.
¹¹¹
They were then checked over by the fiscal and, where applicable, the defense counsel, before being passed on to the consultors and cardinals via the assessor.

A third phase of the trial, the defensive process, gave the defense counsel the opportunity to reevaluate the witness statements. This stage was omitted in the Sant’Ambrogio case, as neither the defendants nor their counsel requested it.
¹¹²
This meant that the
Ristretti informativi
from the offensive process formed the basis for the verdict by the congregation of cardinals. As usual, a suggested judgment came from the conference of consultors, and the cardinals then came to a decision, which was presented to the pope. Finally, the verdict was announced in a
decreto di condanna
, which as a rule took the form of a notification detailing the names of the people who had been convicted, the offenses, and the reasoning behind the judgment and sentencing in each case. This text was communicated to the guilty parties, either publicly or privately. They were expected to subordinate themselves to the verdict unquestioningly and, if they had been convicted of heresy, to renounce their errors in a ceremonial abjuration. The sentence could be anything up to lifelong monastic imprisonment and, for capital offenses, dismissal from the priesthood. This would mean the accused having to stand trial before a secular court, which could impose the death penalty. When the Inquisition opened the Sant’Ambrogio trial, Maria Luisa, and possibly also her confessors, would have been afraid not only for their reputations, but for their lives and their souls’ salvation.

CHAPTER THREE

The Informative Process and the Devotees of the Mother Founder

THE CONVENT OF SANT’AMBROGIO DELLA MASSIMA

“From the Piazza Mattei, you follow the street that leads to the
Pescheria
; here you see the gate of the new convent, and the outer courtyard with the new church on its far side.… On the left is the gate to the enclosure. Passing through it, you enter a little courtyard to the right, from where you access the Rota.” This is the start of a description of Sant’Ambrogio della Massima, contained in an Apostolic Visitation report from the year 1710.
¹

The convent, which today serves as the office of the procurator general for the Benedictine Congregation of Subiaco,
²
lies in the
rione XI
(11th district) of Sant’Angelo, in the old city of Rome. It is situated next to the former Jewish ghetto, the Marcellus theater, and the Palazzo Mattei, no more than two dozen paces from the famous “Turtle Fountain,” the
Fontana delle Tartarughe
.
³
There is an old legend that says Saint Ambrose’s family’s home stood here in the fourth century, having been erected on the ruins of a temple to Hercules.
⁴
Sant’Ambrogio was named after this famous bishop of Milan.
⁵
The addition “della Massima” appeared for the first time in 1190, though researchers have never agreed on exactly what it refers to. Suggestions range from the convent’s proximity to the Cloaca maxima, or the Porticus maximus, to a daughter of Emperor Maximian named Maxima.
⁶