1. “Neither Cursed Nor Possessed: Mental Abnormality in the Late Middle Ages”
International Congress on Medieval Studies 2009, Kalamazoo MI
Alison Spyker
My paper today, “Neither Cursed nor Possessed: Mental Abnormality in the Late
Middle Ages,” will take up a brief note in Michel Foucault’s History of Madness, where he
says “the insane were barred entry to churches, while ecclesiastical law allowed them to
partake of the sacraments.”1
This brief note does not account for the importance of Church
sacraments during the Middle Ages, nor the complexity of thought surrounding the
implications of mental impairment. Religion was a matter of daily concern in the Middle Ages
in a way unfamiliar to us today, as demonstrated by the panel today, both informally and within
formal structures, so it’s perhaps forgivable that Foucault glossed this aspect of disability over.
Yet birth, death, and marriage were facts of everyday life, and the Church made concerted
efforts to sacramentalise them. The disability of religious exclusion, what I have taken to
calling “sacral disability,” is, I believe, a distinct enough manifestation of the dis-abling of
impaired persons that it deserves to be studied in its own right. Today we have heard various
perspectives on this form of disability in miracula, biography, and exemplaria, and I plan to
address the more formal ecclesiastical proscriptions regarding mental abnormality.
Although guidelines for dealing with the mentally impaired and the sacraments appear in the
corpus of canon law and pastoral instruction, for this paper I have chosen to explore the issue in
light of the sacrament of Baptism. I chose Baptism primarily for its perceived purpose and
effect in medieval Christian theology. Baptism, as the effective removal of original and
acquired sin, was considered absolutely necessary for salvation. All those who did not undergo
Baptism (whatever the means) would be damned to torment. As such, the example of Baptism
1
Foucault, Michel. History of Madness. trans. Jean Khalfa. (Routledge). p. 10.
1

2. provides an illustrative sample of the theological discourses surrounding mental abnormality –
the theology of Baptism was enthusiastically inclusive at the least. I’m going to begin by
recounting the theological opinions proffered on the issue, and I ask your patience for the
brevity of the summary. The handout you should have a copy of will provide a fuller account.
On it, and in this talk, I’ve left the specific terms referring to mental abnormality in Latin:
amens roughly corresponds to mental debility, and furiosus roughly corresponds to madness,
though these should be taken as very general guidelines only, not as precise equivalents.
The question of whether or not it was legitimate to baptise a person who was mad goes back to
the very early Church: the earliest mention occurs in the Canonical Responses of Timothy,
Bishop of Alexandria, subsequently becoming a matter of canon during the First Council of
Orange in 441, where it was stated that “they [the sacraments] must be conferred to the
amentes of whatsoever manner of piety.”2
Those who had previously expressed a desire for the
sacrament could have it administered if they became incapacitated somehow. The formula was
repeated at the Second Council of Arles in 452, and eventually became encoded in the
Decretum of Gratian.3
It would seem, then, that madness was never a solid impediment to
baptism, even for those mad from birth. In the high Middle Ages, with the flowering of
scholastic theology and systematic canon law, the question of madness and baptism became the
focus of renewed attention.
In his survey of the history of Church law and mental abnormality, Colin Pickett noted the
opinion of Innocent the Third4
[d. 1216] upheld the right of the mad to receive baptism and laid
out the basis of Innocent’s argument, which you’ll find on your handout as item one. The mad
2
amentibus quaecumque pietatis sunt conferenda
3
c. 7, C 26, q. 6.
4
(c. 1198-1216)
2

3. are compared to infants in their sacramental character, in that they cannot commit actual sin
since they do no possess the intent for it. I’ll be coming back to the distinction between
original and actual sin shortly. Innocent’s elucidation was shortly thereafter included in the
Decretals of Gregory the Ninth and his compiler, Raymond of Peñaforte.
On the scholastic side, Thomas Aquinas addressed the issue with his usual thoroughness. He
distinguished four types of mental impairment, finding an effective difference between those
mad from infancy with no lucid intervals, those who enjoy lucid intervals (even if mad from
birth), those who became mad later in life, and those who suffer a mental impairment but are
nonetheless not mad.5
This is item two on your handout. Aquinas harmonises the statements
of Bishop Timothy and Innocent by finding that those who have always been mad can be
baptised as if infants, but those who became mad later in life or who enjoyed some lucid
intervals were to be baptised or not according to the will they had while lucid. Those who do
not have a healthy mind yet still have the use of reason, he says, should be baptised if they
request it but not against their will. He also discusses madness and Baptism in his commentary
on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, holding much the same opinion in this earlier work as he does
in his Summa.6
He also discusses madmen who baptise, barring them because they cannot have
intent, he says.
Cardinal Henry Segusio, or Hostiensis, took up the problem in his Summa Domini [mid-13th
century]. He, like Aquinas, made a distinction between those mad from infancy and those who
became mad later in life. As you can see on the handout in item three, those who were always
furisosus he, too, likened to infants who had no judgement and could not incur “actual” sin and
could be baptised without consent. Regarding those who had once been sane, Hostiensis
5
Summa Theologiae III, q. 68, a. 12.
6
Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 6 q. 1
3

4. likened them to sleeping people, who could express an opinion prior to their mental inactivity.
He addressed only the negative case, the one who expressed the wish to not be baptised, which
leaves it unclear whether he assumed the default would have been assent.
John de Burgh, an English pastoral writer of the early fourteenth century, took the question in a
different direction. Rather than giving his opinion on the mental state of the person to be
baptised, he addressed the question of the mental state of the baptiser. He gives a
straightforward assertion that anyone can baptise, even heretics, infidels, Jews, and pagans,
“provided that he has the intention to baptise, whether special or general, and he conserves the
form bequeathed by the church, wherefore it is not the merit of the ministers but the virtue of
Christ which operates in baptism.” That is to say, anyone who intended to baptise – even if
they did not believe in baptism themselves – could conduct a sacramental baptism if he
included the Trinitarian formula of “I baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”
and sprinkled the baptisee with water. As a result of thus assertion, he goes on to bar furiosus
from baptising, item four. Referencing Aquinas, he says “Likewise, a drunk, a furiosus, or
anyone lacking the use of reason is not able to baptise, because they are not able to have the
intention of baptising,” even if the form of the sacrament is preserved.7
Perhaps trusting to the
opinion of his predecessors, he does not address the issue of baptising madmen.
Finally, in 1476, we see another very detailed treatment of baptism and mental impairment in
the Summa Angelica of the Italian, Angelo Carletti. He, too, couches his answer in terms of the
intent necessary to baptise: although the faith of the minister of baptism is not necessary, since
it is the faith of the catechumen which is effective, the minister must intend to do what the
catechumen requests (i.e., baptism), and furiosus or amens cannot intend even that. This is
7
Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 6 q. 1
4

5. item five on your handout. He also addresses the question of baptising furiosus or amens (item
six), saying that they should not be unless they requested it before they were impaired (and
those who were always impaired can be baptised). Unlike Aquinas, Carletti does not include a
category of mentally impaired persons who have the capacity to request baptism.
We have, now, a history of thought concerning madness and baptism which is fairly consistent
over roughly a thousand years. It appears to be dry and technical, but there are important
statements made between the lines concerning furiosi and amentes. The first is the unqualified
humanity of those suffering mental impairment. They are in no place regarded as less human,
even those mad from birth. It is a stark contrast to earlier histories of mental impairment. As I
said before, baptism was a sacrament of utter necessity for salvation. The evidence that
madmen were, in theory, to be baptised locates them as members of the same (albeit fallen)
humanity, and capable of the same salvation. As far as sacral disability goes, baptismal
theology acknowledges the mentally abnormal as equally human in spiritual character.
The second statement which should strike you is the complete lack of a moral dimension to
impairment. In none of the passages here, nor any of the canonical and pastoral sources I have
read, is mental impairment connected either with sin or holiness. Despite that which Penelope
Doob and Foucault claim, in this discourse at least, that “all disease comes by the will of God,
and the most common moral justification for disease is that God in his justice inflicts disease
on the unrepentant sinner as a punishment” is not the case.8
Nor are mentally impaired people
conceptualised as R.C. Scheerenberger claims when he notes “some countries held that retarded
people were innocents and children of God, being well received by all religious sects.”9
They
8
Penelope B. R. Doob. Nebuchadnezzar’s Children: Conventions of Madness in Middle English
Literature. (New Haven, Yale UP, 1974). p. 3.; Foucault, Michel. History of Madness. p. 11-12.
9
R.C. Scheerenberger. A History of Mental Retardation. (Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub. Co., 1983), 31.
5

6. hold no especial status, ether negative or positive, in these ecclesiastical writings. Although
they are subject to Original Sin, it is not anything exceptional, and nowhere in the sins which
Baptism removes is madness listed.
Rather, the concerns are entirely pragmatic: who, how, why. The mentally impaired are an
abnormality which needs accounting for in order to achieve a thorough and effective theology.
Especially with such a critical sacrament as baptism, medieval canonists and theologians
needed to be certain of the specifics of administering it, so to avoid ambiguity or – even worse!
– unintentionally causing a person’s damnation. If a furiosus conducted an invalid baptism,
and the catechumen was not offered a proper one, his soul could be in jeopardy. Prohibitions
laid down against mentally impaired persons administering baptism were not formulated with
the intent to disable, though they have that effect; the intent is to ensure that every person
received a sacramentally valid baptism through which they could find salvation. There is a
concern that allowing madmen to baptise would sacrally disable both them and those they
would baptise. It is this same principle which underlies the prohibition against baptising
madmen who never expressed a desire for it while lucid: without proper intent, the sacrament
would be invalid, and there would be a risk that they would not be offered a valid baptism
when lucid again. As a result of this concern, there is a respect for furiosus’ right to agency
displayed – an acknowledgement that they could, in actuality, have will. In Thomas Aquinas
we also are shown that some mentally impaired persons could have will, and could have that
will acknowledged.
I do not intend to paint a rosy picture here. The extent to which the theories and opinions
formulated by the highly educated elite had any practical effect on the lives of the majority
can’t be measured. Certainly the majority of the laity would not have been aware of the fine
6

7. distinctions made by the Angelic Doctor, nor would even the majority of the pastoral clergy.
That said, while this may not have immediately filtered down to the laity, it still shaped the way
madness was conceptualised in sacral situations. It is likely that Baptism, a universally shared
experience of medieval Christians, would have occasionally faced the situations outlined in
these theological sources. I hope today that I have been able to bring to light a small segment
of a discourse which has been hitherto largely ignored in the study of disability in the Middle
Ages, and spur further dialogue exploring the questions of sacral disability.
7

8. Neither Cursed nor Possessed: Mental Abnormality and the Late Medieval Church
ICMS 2009, Kalamazoo MI
Alison Purnell
1. Innocent III on Sin (from Mental Abnormality and Church Law, Colin Pickett, 1954, pp. 50-
51)
“In this matter, he proposes the necessity of the following distinction: Sin is twofold; original
and actual; original, which is contracted without consent, and actual, which is contracted with
consent. Original, therefore, which is contracted without consent, by the Sacrament itself is
remitted without the need of consent (per vim Sacramenti remittitur sine consensu). Actual,
however, which is contracted with consent, is not remitted without consent (sine consensu
minime relaxatur).”
2. Thomas Aquinas – Summa Theologiae (III, q. 68, a. 12)
I answer that, In the matter of furiosi and amentes a distinction is to be made. For some are so
from birth, and have no lucid intervals, and show no signs of the use of reason. And with regard
to these it seems that we should come to the same decision as with regard to children who are
baptized in the Faith of the Church, as stated above (9, ad 2).
But there are other amentes who from the sound mind they had before fell into amentia. And
with regard to these we must be guided by their wishes as expressed by them when sane: so that,
if then they manifested a desire to receive Baptism, it should be given to them when in a state of
furia or amentia, even though then they refuse. If, on the other hand, while sane they showed no
desire to receive Baptism, they must not be baptized.
Again, there are some who, though furiosi or amentes from birth, have, nevertheless, lucid
intervals, in which they can make right use of reason. Wherefore, if then they express a desire for
Baptism, they can be baptized though they be actually in a state of amentia. And in this case the
sacrament should be bestowed on them if there be fear of danger otherwise it is better to wait
until the time when they are sane, so that they may receive the sacrament more devoutly. But if
during the interval of lucidity they manifest no desire to receive Baptism, they should not be
baptized while in a state of amentia.
Lastly there are others who exist as if not wholly of sound mind, yet can use their reason so far
as to think about their salvation, and understand the power of the sacrament. And these are to be
treated the same as those who are sane, and who are baptized if they be willing, but not against
their will. [...] Furiosi and amentes lack the use of reason accidentally, i.e. through some
impediment in a bodily organ; but not like irrational animals through want of a rational soul.
Consequently the comparison does not hold.
3. Hostiensis – Summa Domini (f. 186v)
What concerning furiosi to be baptised? If they were always furiosus, baptism should be held,
where it is called the advantage to be acquired by furiosus, for they and such are put on an equal
level with infants and those sleeping, [...] Furiosi are not burdened by actual sins, therefore it
suffices that they are not able to agree concerning the consecration in distinction 4: “Then, to be
well,” etc. You ask if truly he inclines into furor or begins falling to sleep and is baptised. But
if, however, he was in a contrary will indicated he not be baptised, no character is impressed on
him from his elders (See the subsection, “He who never truly consented”).
8

9. 4. John de Burgh – Pupilla oculi (York Minster Library INC XIII.K.4, f. 3v-4r; 6r)
Fifth is the faith of the one to be baptised, because in adults the proper faith is required, though
in infants an alien faith, as Thomas says. [...] Likewise, a drunk, a furiosus, or anyone lacking
the use of reason is not able to baptise, because they are not able to have the intention of
baptising, according to Thomas in his commentary on the Sentences. Yet, a drunk falling away
from being drunk, and a furiosus coming into a lucid interval, are able to baptise. [...] Boys who
are not competent to deceive, nor know to have the intention to be baptised, neither generally or
specially, do not baptise although, instructed, they profer expressly the sacramental words of
baptism, just as furiosus does not.
5. Angelo Carletti – Summa Angelica (YML INC XV.I.11, f. 20r)
Seventh, it enjoins what is intended: whether as much as it appears that he intended to baptise,
not to only wash, whence according to Innocent in chapter one of de baptismo that it is not
necessary to the effect of baptism that one knows what baptism is; namely, that grace is poured
out, or because it is a sacrament. Nor indeed is it necessary that he believes this himself: on the
contrary, if he believes the opposite and thinks it a trick and a deception. Nevertheless, baptism
has its effect: it does not require, then, that the baptising person know what the church is: nor that
he bear in mind to do what the church does, on the contrary, if he bears the opposite in mind, that
is, he would not do what the church does. Therefore he preserves the form just the same, he is
baptised, provided that he intends to baptise. [...] But Innocent, in his opera, it is believed by
me: although it may be more prudent, wherefore as if furiosus and amens who are able to intend
nothing do not baptise: so it seems that the intention of the one to be baptised is required in any
case, and he is able to intend this to be said, what the church intends.
6. Angelo Carletti – Summa Angelica (f. 21r)
7. Whether intent is required in adults so they can receive baptism. I respond that Richard (in
book 4, distinction 6, article 2, question 3) says that it is so, whether by act or by habit. In act, in
a man who has intention deprived it is not to be received: because it is necessary that he has the
contrary in act, namely, to be received. Another might not reject the contrary, and so not receive
the sacrament. Sylvester, because anyone who prompts so that he consents in act requires actual
consent: otherwise he may not consent either in act or habit, wherefore he may be called a man
disposed by habit, because if actually and deliberately he thinks on this matter, actually he
consents to it. For another, the habitual suffices, just as if any bare catechumen baptised in act,
not thinking on the undertaking of baptism, or furiosus or amens who before amentia had the
intention of receiving, or never had the contrary.
10. Whether amentes or dormientes can be baptised. I respond that if they had consent before
and necessity threatens, they can be baptised. [...] If truly before their amentia or dormitio they
opposed it, it is presumed that the proposition endures. And therefore they receive neither the
character nor the baptism: so in that instance. If truly they do not dissent, Augustine holds,
where he says that they receive the character. This is true according to Richard, where he says as
long as anyone has consented, speaking concerning adults who have had the use of reason.
Differently, in those who never have had the use of reason: wherefore they receive the character.
9