PSCR8629

[1739]. Billete de [fray Francisco Antonio de Villar del Saz (Francisco Antonio Ladrón de Guevara)], predicador franciscano descalzo, para [Josefa Moreno y Suárez].

Author(s)	Francisco Antonio de Villar del Saz
Addressee(s)	Josefa Moreno y Suárez
In English	Note from Fray Francisco Antonio de Villar del Saz (Francisco Antonio Ladrón de Guevara), a barefoot Franciscan preacher, to Josefa Moreno y Suárez. The author transmits a number of references and classical quotes trying to convince her into thinking that the relationship they are having is not a sin. Following an accusation of scandalous propositions, a trial against Fray Francisco Antonio de Villar del Saz, also known as Fray Francisco Antonio Ladrón de Guevara, occurred between 1739 and 1744. Eventually the defendant was condemned. He was given away by the parish priest Manuel Antonio Sánchez Niño, who was Josefa Moreno y Suárez´s confessor. Josefa told the aforementioned priest that the defendant arrived in Toledo around 1737, he contacted her and told her he was his brother. She believed him and he took advantage of her, touching her, kissing her and asking her to sleep together. These events occurred approximately between 1738 and Epiphany night of 1739. The defendant justified himself by saying that it was a "test or experience" therefore, it was not a sin. He argued that this kind of relationships were not unlawful in the classics he was reading. Josefa asked him to give it to her in writing and so he did, sending a boy with a paper containing quotes and opinions. As soon as she received it, Josefa took it to her confessor (PSCR5740). A part of the "papers" that Fray Francisco Antonio de Villar del Saz and Josefa Moreno exchanged (PSCR5739 a PSCR5750) were provided to the trial documentation by Manuel Antonio Sánchez Niño. The rest (PSCR8626 a PSCR8629) were provided by Josefa Moreno y Suárez during her second statement (July the 4th 1739) following her confessor´s advice. In 1743, a new proceeding for scandalous propositions against the same defendant was added to the existing one. These propositions were made during a sermon on December the 14th 1742, in Fuentelencina (Guadalajara). Ten letters were added to this proceeding: five of them were written by Miguel Prieto, a superior of the Order of San Bernardo in the monastery of Monsalud (Córcoles, Guadalajara) and addressed to several neighbours from Fuentelencina (Guadalajara); the other five letters are the answers from each one of them, so they admitted when they were called to testify. All the letters sent by Manuel Prieto were answered in the same folio he sent. The letters were integrated to the proceeding documentation because there were doubts regarding a proposition made by the defendant during a mass in honour of the Purísima Concepción (on December the 8th 1742) in Fuentelencina (Guadalajara). On the following 14th of the same month, Cristóbal de Albendea preached in Auñón (Guadalajara) another serious proposition; not longer after that, on the 23rd, the defendant, who belonged to the same convent of Cristóbal de Albendea, repeated the same proposition. Given that the five letters from Miguel Prieto are the same and the answers to it very similar, only the first one from Miguel Prieto (PSCR8630) and two of the answers (PSCR8631 and PSCR8632) have been included. If there is no translation for the letter itself, you may copy the text (while using the view 'Standardization') and paste it to an automatic translator of your choice.

less header data • more header data

Javascript seems to be turned off, or there was a communication error. Turn on Javascript for more display options.

Sentencias de varios autores que corroboran el sentir de cierto quidam que defiende no ser los ôsculos ni abrazos las que dà sobre ôtras q exibiò de ôtros moralistas coincidian con estas.

Torrecilla. tom 1. sum fol 609. S. 4. num 160. No se condena la sentencia q dice: ser licitos los ôsculos, abrazos quando se dàn por delectacion honesta (cómo por mentar la âmistad y venebolencia) aunq de aì se delectacion venerea, no consintiendo la voluntad por fin es honesto y la voluntad no quiere ni consiente en delectacion.

el mismo. in eodm fol num 167. Los abrazos y ôsculos aunq de su naturaleza no son malos, pero quando se exercitan por delectacion venerea y honesta son pecado mortal. Luego (añado yo) los q no son exercitados por la tàl delectacion no sòn pecado. Es la consequencia.

Villalobos. tom 1. fol 724. num 1. y 3. dificult. 9. Los ôsculos y abrazos no son intrinsecamte malos pecado mortal si el ôperante los dirigiesse â mal fin como ordenandolos para la copula. Luego (añado yo) fin no se ordenassen no seran pecado. Es consequencia legitima.

Corella. fol 417 num 262. No se condena el decir q los osculos tenidos no por carnal y sensual sino por el mero gusto sensitivo q ay, no sòn pecado mortal. Habla sobre la proposicion condenada.

Sto Thomas. in 2a lg. art 4. fol 366. La fornicacion se dice q es pecado mortal porq por se impide el bien de la prole q se â de engendrar y at qui, los osculos, âbrazos y tactos para nada de esto desde luego en estas cosas no âcontece q aya pecado mortal. Y asi añade el mismo Doctor Angelico: de dos modos se dice ser cosa pecado mortal. El uno es segun su especie: y de los ôsculos, abrazos ea, segun su razon no nombran pecado mortal.

Cayetano. in eôdem fol. Su expositor dice: los ôsculos ea, pueden tomarse de modos. El primero, absolutamte y assi no contienen alguna cosa inordinada y por tanto pueden licitamte practicar en señal de venebolencia. ea

Fr Ju de la trinidad, en su crisol. tom 2. fol 524. Ay dos modos de delectacion: uno que consiste en cierta proporcion con el organo del sentido del tacto, y este no condena porq no es lascivo ni sensual aunq sea sentido sino licito y honesto: y assi lo enseñan todos los doctores Notesse el que dice que assi lo enseñan todos los Doctores. Mal podra darme el señor cura uno siquiera q enseñe lo contrario.

Y para no cansar, pongo aqui ôtros muchos q todos los tengo en mi celda presentes. Y por las citas podran buscarse. Navarro, cap si cui de pqnit. dist. 1. num 15. Manul Rodrigz in sum.. tom 1 cap 203. num 2. Lessio, lib 4. cap 3 duda 8. num 56. Thomas Sanchez, de matrim lib 9. disp 46. â num 3. Lumbier, sobre la proposicion 40. tom 3. num 918. in 6. edit.. Diana, in sum. fol 719. num 6. Salmaticenses, tom 6. moral. S. 3. fol 177. Dicastillo, de inst.. lib 1. disp 3. duda 15 num 213. Navarra, in manual.. cap 16. num 11. Martino de Magist.. trait.. de temperant.. quest.. 3. de luxur.. Umberto, in exposit.. reg.. Divi August. Gabriel, lect.. 7 in can.. missg., lit.. E. Nider. in sum.. precept.. 6. cap 2. Margarita de confesores, 6. precepto. Viguèr. lib institut.. cap 7. S. 5. vers.. 7. Azòr. part 3. lib 3. vers.. objicies.. San Anton. part 2. tit 5. cap 1. S. 9. Silvio, 2. lg.. quest.. 154. art 4. conclus 4. Salas, 1. 2. quest.. 74. tract. 13. disp 6. sect. 20. num 139. Remigio, in sum. tract.. 2. cap 6. S. 2. num 2.

Y para no cansarme en citas. Pichòr de matrim Vicente varon. Filucio. Frullenhc. Decales. Araujo. Candido. Mora. Hurtado y Zanardo; dicen lo mismo. Y si, aun son necesarios màs, los darè: que estos sòn solamte los que hasta aôra hè visto: quedo esperando tiempo, para buscar mas Doctores, aunq sera trabajo en balde, si el señor cura no me dà uno siquiera, que apruebe su dictamen. Porq tal qual que lo àpruebe, discurro no los habra visto.

citados autores de este papel, 36

Legenda:

Expanded • Unclear • Deleted • Added • Supplied

Download XML • Download text • Wordcloud • Facsimile view • Manuscript line view • Pageflow view • Sentence view

PSCR8629

[1739]. Billete de [fray Francisco Antonio de Villar del Saz (Francisco Antonio Ladrón de Guevara)], predicador franciscano descalzo, para [Josefa Moreno y Suárez].

View options