I came across this fascinating article when looking at the excellent website of Richard Dietrich. It is a very interesting article. I have reposted it here. Unfortunately the article is 20 years old, and I have no idea of how to contact Nicolas Mazet for permissions, but I hope in the spirit of research he will not mind. I accessed it via the Wayback Machine HERE. Any information re: Mr Mazet, please email me at - rhedesium1@outlook.com. Thanks.
Mgr. Billard was born on October 23rd, 1829. He was named Bishop of Carcassonne on February 17th, 1881, replacing Mgr. Leuilleux on July 25th. He was a very strict man regarding esthetics. Upon visiting Sauniere and the church of Sainte-Marie Madeleine in Rennes-le-Chateau, he gave Sauniere instructions to renovate the church, the Presbytery and the cemetery.
Ever since his arrival at Rennes-le-Chateau in 1885, Sauniere asked for masses at the Bishop’s secretary’s office only to be told there were none available yet he knew there was and he had evidence to that. He was well aware of Mgr. Billard’s infinite taste for very rich families, especially the older members of those families. He had a rather tough time of it until the Mgr. passed along masses to the local priest of Rennes-le-Chateau. After threatening to expel Sauniere from the church, Mgr Billard requested that Sauniere pass through him exclusively and told him on several occasions not to go outside the diocese to obtain masses.
Mgr. Billard was no angel and certainly not above dubious activity and conduct as he was brought to court by members of a family from Coursan for having coerced their matriarch into signing over all her belongings over to the Bishop. She was declared of ‘Unsound’ mind. Yet Mgr. Billard arranged to have the will signed over to himself as Monsieur Billard, not Monseigneur (Mgr.) Billard. His Notary was from Rouen; where the actual execution of the will took place. (Jarnac, Archives, p. 464 to 468)
Apparently, Billard conducted himself in this fashion with several families and their patrons. It is certainly not inconceivable that Billard may have shown Sauniere how to do this for himself, as well as others. It is also conceivable that Sauniere may have been shown by his brother Alfred, or vice versa.
One priest in particular accused the Bishop of Simony and having stolen over 1 Million Francs from the Diocese pension fund. After an investigation by the Vatican, it found that Billard had seriously mis-administered his diocese and was forced to give 200 000 francs to the monastery of Prouille. (Jarnac, Archives, p. 464) He passed away on December 3rd, 1901.
Mgr Billard’s replacement, Paul-Felix Beauvain de Beausejour was born December 16th, 1839. He was named Bishop of Carcassonne on May 13th 1902 but in limited fashion; he only gained full control of the Diocese on April 7th, 1904. Mgr. Beausejour found a diocese that was close to ruin due to Mgr. Billard’s mismanagement of the Pension fund but also complete mismanagement of the Diocese. Mgr Billard had let subordinate priests who had been faithful and loyal to him administer their parishes as they saw fit as long as they stayed out of trouble and without undermining his authority. But Mgr. Beausejour had to revamp the administration in order for the financial situation to improve. Did he do this? Not by the looks of it. At least not immediately, in Sauniere’s case anyway, as it took another 4 years before the newly appointed Bishop asked Sauniere to explain his source of income. Mgr. Beauvin de Beausejour requested that Sauniere justify his source of revenue in 1908.
Apparently, several complaints had been lodged against Beranger Sauniere locally but their origins were never revealed; and some were simply inquiries into Sauniere’s character from other countries such as Italy, France, Belgium and Switzerland. (Jarnac, Histoire, p. 193)
The Bishop’s first move was to announce that Beranger Sauniere had been named priest of Coustouge parish as of January 22nd, 1909. In retaliation, Beranger Sauniere tendered his resignation ten days later, on February 1st, 1909. The mayor of the town complained to the Bishop in a letter dated February 6th, 1909, stating that Rennes-le-Chвteau supported it’s priest, Beranger Sauniere, and that in the event the priest was moved, the villages of Esperaza and Rennes-le-Chateau would ‘’desert the Church,’’ (Jarnac, Histoire, p. 194) Sauniere’s replacement would be met with empty seats. The Mayor also mentioned to the Bishop that the Presbytery had been leased for another 5 years therefore, his replacement would have to seek shelter elsewhere. He could not refuse the appointment but he could make it so that the appointment would not have an easy time of it. (Jarnac, Histoire, p. 196)
Abbe Marty began his stay as Rennes-le-Chateau’s priest on July 2nd, 1909, and was installed two days later by the Vicar, M. Saglio, who would later head a commission looking into Sauniere’s affairs. He also took up the duties of priest of Coustaussa in 1910, assuming double duty.
Beranger Sauniere was subject to a hearing on July 7th, 1910, to answer to the charges of acquiring masses, which he could not say or pass along. The official charges were: Mass Trafficking, Disobedience of his Bishop, and to have spent lavishly without records of monies thought to have come from masses acquired. Sauniere was suspended for a period of one month. But, it only applied to the diocese. (Jarnac, Histoire, p. 206) Sauniere never showed up for any hearing and upon learning of the sentence leveled against him sought to have the entire case re-tried. He was thinking of hiring the services of a lawyer, Louis Mis of Limoux, and registered him with the trial authorities as his lawyer. But his final decision rested with Dr. Huget of Agen who was versed in ecclesiastical law whereas M. Mis’ knowledge of ecclesiastical affairs was limited. (Jarnac, Histoire, p. 208)
On the 15th of October, he was slated to appear again but failed to do so and left his lawyer, Abbe Huget, to represent and defend him. Only this time, the third charge was lessened to simply lavish spending – the source of which was not implied as in the first trial. The sentence was handed down on November 5th, leaving doubt because Sauniere himself did not understand the charges against him. The argument supporting the decision included facts that dealt with the third charge against Sauniere – but of the first trial. Mentions of irregular accountability was deemed due to negligent culpability on Sauniere’s part vis a vis his Bishop. He was found guilty of disobedience towards his Bishop because his records were irregular or non-existent. Sauniere was told to spend ten days in an Ecclesiastic retirement home or a Monastery of his choice.
So to recap, charge number one was dismissed because Sauniere presented an argument that led him to believe that he had not partaken in trafficking of masses. He was found guilty of charge number two and had to spend ten days in reclusion in the place of rest of his choice. As for charge three, he was told to meet with his Bishop, or a representative, and forward all financial records within ten days of the said sentence and present them by way of his lawyer. As well the previous One-Month suspension was revoked. (Jarnac, Histoire, p. 211)
The problem with this entire situation is that Sauniere had officially resigned. He did not need to go through an Ecclesiastical court for any charges laid against him, as he was officially no longer a priest. From that point on, be it a suspension, forced reclusion, or anything else an ecclesiastical tribunal brought forth against him, he would not be bound by it. In fact Sauniere’s actions lead to the idea that he wanted a criminal trial instead of an ecclesiastic one.
Sauniere had ten days to appeal. He didn’t. Instead he waited until December 17th, to write to Rome to make a formal complaint. The sentence would stand but Sauniere, playing the fool, stalled by saying he had misunderstood, then he had a friend from Couiza, a doctor, issue him a medical certificate saying he was not in any capacity to travel anywhere let alone to Carcassonne. The authorities agreed to give him until mid-May to recuperate.
Sauniere continued to say he had no records for his source of revenues. All of it was in his head. After a few months of delays, Sauniere presented a list of expenditures thinking this would appease the authorities. Instead he found himself summoned again to appear an answer to the charges but without his lawyer, Abbe Huget, as, according to the tribunal, he could not represent Berenger second time on Novermber 27th, 1911: highly unusual for any legal situation. Sauniere never presented himself and was sentenced in absentia on December 5th.
The issue regarding the third Charge brought against him surfaced as the Tribunal stated that the Charge had been changed and therefore Sauniere could be charged again. They wanted to know who had given money to Sauniere, not just his sources of revenue or the amounts of such revenues. (Jarnac, Histoire, p. 222) Although it could be seen as the Bishopric’s attempt to undermine the anonymity of donors, it was probably due to Mgr. Billard’s actions that brought on such policy.
The sentence itself was a little bit odd considering that it failed to recognize Sauniere’s sources of revenue, which he had outlined in a detailed financial account containing 61 itemized entries – with explanatory notes. Some of the items happened 25 years prior to the trial and since he kept no financial records, he had to rely on his memory and/or, invention. He was finally sentenced to a 3-month suspension, which would extend until he reimbursed all donations given to him. (Jarnac, Histoire, p. 223) Since Sauniere kept no financial records per se, how could he reimburse them? In effect, this was a perpetual suspension, as Sauniere could not provide what he did not have: a detailed registry of all donations. It was also considered immoral to divulge the names of donors, anonymous or public, unless they were to establish altars, calvaries, chapels, hospital wings, etc...
On February 3rd, 1911, the Bishop published an article in La Semaine Religieuse, warning its readers that Sauniere was effectively suspended and banned from practicing the sacraments or any act affiliated with cult. The suspension lasted until Sauniere’s death in 1917. No article ever appeared outside the Diocese regarding the suspension.
One of the most interesting documents written by Sauniere was a questionnaire he was asked to fill out by his lawyer. In it, Sauniere is specific that he did not do anything out of the ordinary in regards to building a house or taking part as other priests had done the same thing. He also complained that other priests were nothing more than globetrotting tourists while he was breaking his back, embellishing the church, spending his savings and all he got was a court case. (Captier, p. 187)
Beranger admitted outright that he sought masses outside the Diocese even though he was told not to but to him, the amounts ascribed as pure ridicule. There was no way he could find that many masses. Records show that Sauniere had 3434 masses from 1899 to 1909. That’s an average of 344 masses a year, or less than 1 mass per day; the maximum allowable, supposedly was 3 a day. Yet the accounting that was presented to Sauniere, to counter his testimony, established the amount at 18000 a year for 10 years, amounting to 180000 francs. (Captier, p. 186) They never took into consideration his base salary – which established him as poor. They never took into consideration the 300 francs per month paid to him by members of the Denarnaud family who stayed with him – which he included in his financial records in the tribunal’s possession. The tribunal only accounted for revenues, not once acknowledging the fact that Sauniere had expenditures even though his documents showed that he did – substantially reducing theTribunals figures.
Sauniere’s accounting shows that, not only did he receive; he also spent in ways that were omitted from any argument presented to him or by him. When he received a mass, he sent a reply letter stating that the letter, or mass had been received and taken care of. In other words, when Sauniere received a mass for 1 franc, he sent a reply letter to the person who requested the mass. In some cases, the reply letter actually cost more than the mass requested. In these specific cases, and in the cases where the masses were equal in cost and price as the reply letters, it would nullify the revenue. These amounts were brought up during his trials as revenues but never as for what they were: revenues that nullified themselves through the Reply Letters. Thus, in some cases, the masses would be told free of charge.
The issue of masses is still a contentious one for all priests; even more so, in Sauniere’s time, due to the state of the world. Wars were developing everywhere in Europe. Many asked that masses be said for their fathers, sons, children, for soldiers that had fallen in battle. Some were requesting masses for soldiers that had fallen 20 years prior. The term ‘Messes a 1 Franc’, which is what Sauniere was doing for the most part and what turned out to be the basis for the mass-trafficking charges against him, actually was simply the mention of a person’s name during a mass. A priest could recite the names of 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 or more names during 1 mass and it would be perfectly legal and within the confines of ecclesiastic law. So it is clear that Mass-Trafficking was not a matter of import. It was brought up to trick Sauniere in admitting something else.
The majority of masses given to Sauniere were during World War 1. Well after his trials and his suspensions. On average there is 1 priest for 1000 citizens. In the case of Rennes-le-Chateau, the exact number is a matter of contention. One author says there were 298 citizens (Riviere, p. 4) yet another says 500. (Bedu, p. 24)
Part of the problem was Marie. She was his maid; everything was transferred into her name because of the 1905 law, which came into effect in 1906. The trust between the two was immense but in now way conjugal. But what is odd is their financial arrangement for her pay and his rent. Did he simply assign the monies to her or did he withhold them as pay versus rent? Were her services rendered in exchange for lodgings and food? If so, there was something odd about that too.
Marie leased the Presbytery after his death for the same price Berenger had paid since the municipality leased the premises to him in 1886 – which she paid without any delays encountered at any time. Did they simply roll-up their sleeves and save every penny they could for 5 years and then start spending lavishly? It seems they did from 1885 to 1891. It is no secret that Sauniere’s spending, for the most part, took place from 1897 to 1906. The rest of the time being spent paying debts – and he also admitted he was in debt during his trials. But was he in debt?
He continued to purchase furniture, drink, food, coveting future resident’s of his “hospital” continually during his tribulations. All with the help of loans of course since Berenger received no salary during his trials and while suspended – loans that were reimbursed in full as agreed to. Secondly, loans are not agreed to unless there are payment plans. Were these in Marie’s name or Sauniere’s? And where exactly did Marie and Berenger get money while he was suspended, especially considering that Marie did not receive a salary from Sauniere during this period? So how and who would give a loan to Marie, or Berenger for that matter when both were without any source of revenue? Did Sauniere mortgage his pension against a loan?
Mgr. Beausejour seems to have weighed the idea of paying Sauniere his retirement pension on condition that Sauniere settle elsewhere, or at least that’s how a letter from Sauniere’s colleague seems to imply the Mgr’s words. (Pretre Libre, Doumergue, p. 210) In other words, if Sauniere left Rennes-le-Chвteau, he would get his pension and would be treated as retired priest. If Sauniere stayed in Rennes-le-Chвteau, he would not be accepted as retired and he would not receive his pension. This very fact could well have been the substance behind Sauniere’s insistence to bring the matter to the Vatican’s attention, as a Pension could not be withheld.
Sauniere the Marguillier
During the Council of Vienna in 1311, it was decided that churches in France would have the administrations of the Marguilliers for all charitable donations. That is any donations given with the poor in mind. These included what is called the Tronc (anonymous box that accepts monies), wills and testaments, general donations and hereditary estates that were established in trust for a yearly amount (legs). Since then, their responsibilities were expanded to include all forms or revenues.
The Marguilliers, also known as Church Trustees in today’s administration, were responsible for all archives relative to the poor who benefited from charitable donations in each parish. But in certain religious orders, the Marguilliers did not follow the same functions. The Marguilliers, in these specific cases, helped those who were responsible for the Sacristy: called Sacristan. One can see them during every church service handling the chalice, the bread, the wine and the bible from which the priest would read. The Sacristy is considered a holy site even though in most cases it is but a small box, closet or room.
Although one would be nominated as the treasurer, he, or she, could not access the funds alone. By rule, a three-lock coffer had to contain the actual funds. Three of the four Marguilliers had a key so as to ensure no one could take monies in the coffer.
Judging by the actions of the region’s priests over a period stretching from 1600 to 1900, we notice that many priests from the 1700’s had questionable financial ‘arrangements.’ On August 6th, 1764, Mgr. le Comte de Saint-Florentin, Minister and Secretary of State, sent a letter to the attention of Mgr de la Cropte de Chanterac, Bishop of Alet, requesting ideas on how to lessen the burden of the homeless on the kingdom. The Bishop replied that it was impossible to underline the expenditure due to the very nature of act of donation. (Alet, Lasserre, p. 274)
Charitable donations were not to be written in balance sheets as the donors were to be kept anonymous, as were the recipients of the donation. The Bishop continued by stating that other churches and organizations were never asked to submit any balance sheet to prove their expenditures were warranted. He also added that a regional office be set up at Alet so he could monitor the revenues slated for charitable works. The office would be the general drop-off point for all donations slated for charity – from every church and organization in the diocese. These would include Rennes-le-Chateau. The very idea of one drop-off point placed a serious burden on the region’s priest’s trust so the Bishop thought that some would continue to administer to the poor as they saw fit but had to provide balance sheets of some form or another showing what the revenues, donations and handouts actually were, all the while respecting the donor’s anonymity.
The newly administered way of doing things would make better use of the Fabrique’s time and apply it for what it was actually meant to do: monitor and amass all donations and revenues slated for charity. The Marguilliers saw concrete results as of their actions but now, unless the Bishop agreed that they continued, some churches saw their revenues go elsewhere, outside of the parish. They could not be held accountable for what was returned to each parish - if anything was returned at all.
And this is where Sauniere is to be sought. As a Marguillier. The question is whether or not he is to be sought as Marguillier of Rennes-le-Chateau or another parish, or parishes? Lets follow Sauniere’s ecclesiastic career for a moment and see where, and when, he could have been a Marguillier of other parishes.
First off, there was his position as Vicar of Alet – definitely a position that could have seen him being coveted to be a Marguillier. There’s him being named Cure of Le Clat – definitely a position of Marguillier. And then again, him being named Cure, this time of Rennes-le-Chateau – again a definite position of Marguillier. The fuzzy area seems to be when he was given fill-in terms at Antugnac and La Serpent. Some of Sauniere’s personal papers clarify the question of whether or not he was a Marguilier. We find it while he was teaching at Antugnac when he stated in his diary that the Marguillиre had done a wonderful job with the altar, and the Sacristy. However, there were no mentions of Marguilliers working in Rennes’s sacristy. (Pretre Libre, Doumergue, p. 78 & 179) Does this mean that Sauniere was not Marguillier at Antugnac? No it does not. It simply outlines the fact that Sauniere complimented people when and where he saw fit. But it is to be noted that the event in question was during the celebration of May 10th, 1890, of the Translation of the relics of Saints Celse and Nazaire; two names mentioned in one of the works found in a highly dubious work called Les Dossiers Secrets.
His personal diary, or parish book, reveal that he traveled to see local priests quite often; some of which were obviously not in a position of a friend so it is quite possible that he was asked to be Marguillier to these parishes. He would have a hand in dictating where, and how, the money obtained for charity would be spent.
Now we have a real dilemma. What constitutes a charitable donation? Is it to ease pain and sufferance? Is it to give food and water to those who can’t afford it? Is it to give shelter to those who need it? Beranger did all of these things. Some of his predecessors in Alet had done the very same thing: Mgr. Valbelle had a road built from Couiza to Limoux and brought water to Alet. Sauniere had a cistern built and had plans for running water and built a road from the valley up to the village.
They were applied more towards Municipal infrastructure than charitable donation. There weren’t that many charities in Rennes-le-Chateau at the time so the amount of monies brought in for charitable deeds and those spent for charitable deeds could never be matched. So, most probably, Sauniere assigned those monies to what he saw as charitable deeds such as the need for running water, a road, telephones, electricity, basically things that would make the members of his flocks’ lives easier. We know he also gave money to the Denarnaud family, to fellow priests, to the sick.
Could his Infrastructure spending could have been behind the accusations brought forth by several authors who say someone in the village was blackmailing Sauniere? The theories abound but no names have ever been forwarded other than a titular position: Instituteur (teacher). The only ‘instituteur’, which could fall within this period at Rennes-le-Chateau, was named Jamet. But could this well be a possible reason for someone blackmailing Sauniere? On its own no. But if Jamet was aware that Sauniere was receiving an extra 75 francs a month for acting as a teacher, or in French Instituteur, he could well have blackmailed Sauniere into secrecy. (Mensior, p. 23) According to Jean Markale, Instituteur Jamet was being paid in cloth, money and jewels to keep quiet about something. (Markale, p. 204)
The church of Rennes-le-Chateau was supposed to be administered by a group of 4 Marguilliers called ‘La Fabrique de la Paroisse’; that is the municipal hierarchy of the village church: the village priest, the mayor, along with two other people who in most cases were children and acted as altar boys.
With all the cuts associated with revenues and the result which amounted to priests living in poverty for the most part, would it be possible that the church of Rennes-le-Chateau was under the administration of only 1 Marguillier: Sauniere? The answer is no, as the report dated 1905 was written by the mayor – as determined by his functions as President of the Marguilliers or as president of outer administrative council. So we know for a fact that there were at least two Marguilliers, if not possibly two more. Another possibility could be M. Antoine Captier as he was the bell-ringer at the time of Sauniere’s original finds during the renovations. La Fabrique paid him a salary of 30 francs a year as bellringer. (Corbu-Captier, p. 90)
Since Sauniere was a sub-ordinate priest to Limoux, maybe the hierarchy of his superiors might shed some light on the status of Rennes-le Chateau. And yet again, we are not disappointed when looking at Notre-Dame de Marceille.
-‘…Jusqu’en 1793, cette Chapelle etait desservie par un prкtre de la doctrine chretienne, nomme par le Provincial des Doctrinaires et approuvй par l’Archeveque de Narbonne. Six marguilliers etaient charges des comptes de la fabrique et de tous les dйtails de l’administration.’ (Notre Dame de Marceille, p. 46)
-‘…Up until 1793, the chapel was served by 1 priest from the Christian doctrine, nominated by the Provincial des Doctrinnaires and approved by the Bishop of Narbonne. Six marguilliers were in charge of the parish’s finances and all details of its administration.‘
What was Notre-Dame de Marceille’s hierarchy concerning the Marguilliers and did this hierarchy extend to all churches within the parishes of Limoux and those which fell under these parishes? The answer is yes. It did extend outside the parish. In fact it extended to any parish that was run by a Marguilliers administration in all of France, not just in the Diocese of Alet. In an ordinance dated August 13, 1814, which was aimed at the parish of Notre-Dame de Marceille of Limoux, we get a glimpse at the Marguilliers’s functions and it’s membership.
-‘…4. L’administration interieur de cette chapelle sera confiee a quatre marguilliers, dont nous nous reservons la nomination et que nous pourrons renouveler tous les ans par moitif, sans entendre nous priver de la faculty et du plaisir de nommer de nouveau ceux a qui leurs affaires premettront de continuer les dites fonctions.
-‘…5. Outre ces quatres marguilliers, il y aura un conseil d’administration compose de MM. Le sous-prefet, le Maire, le President du Tribunal Civil et du Tribunal de Commerce, le Procureur du Roi, le President de la chambre de Commerce, des deux Cures de la paroisse et de la succursale, et des quatres propietaires de la dite chapelle.
-‘…6. Le Chapelain recevra toutes les offrandes pour honoraires des messes qui se delivreront le jour de la Fкte principale et pendant l’Octave, et se joindra pour l’aider dans cette recette un ou deux jeunes ecclesiastiques, qui resident dans la ville. L’Etat de cette recette nous sera envoye, et nous nous reservons d’en faire la distribution, principalement aux pretres de l’arrondissement de Limoux. (Notre Dame de Marceille, p. 48)
So far nothing out of the ordinary. Number 4 states that the interior administration of the chapel will be conducted by 4 Marguilliers and that their nominations are reserved for the council without prejudice and without removing the right to nominate the same people to several terms.
Number 5 stipulates that an outer administration will also be present consisting of the local authorities such as the Sub-Prefect, the Mayor, the President of the Trade Tribunal, the President of the board of trade, the Crown attorney, the two priests of the parish and last but not least, the four owners of the chapel. The chapel of Notre-Dame de Marceille had been sold off to private interests and purchased by four people.
Number 6 states that the Chaplain will receive all honoraries of masses on the said day of worship and on the Octave, and that he will be joined by two young ecclesiastics, who reside in the same town. The said honoraries are to be given in whole to the council who reserves the right of re-distribution, mainly to the priests of town of Limoux.
But what interests us regarding Sauniere is actually what follows:
-‘…7. Toutes les offrandes et quetes en argent, tous les dons de quelque nature qu’ils soient, outre ceux mentionnes dans l’article precedent, seront remis a MM. Les Marguilliers, et le produit en sera employe exclusivement a l’entretien, embellissement et rйparations de la dite chapelle et des autres betiments adjacents.’ (Marceille, p. 48)
-‘…7. All donations and honoraries, of monies, every gift and donation of every nature, other than those mentioned in the previous article, will be handed over to MM. The Marguillers; the goods and their value will be used exclusively for the upkeep, embellishment and repairs of the said chapel and all adjacent buildings.’
This article is exactly what Beranger Sauniere did at Rennes-le-Chateau. He spent money to embellish, repair and upkeep all adjacent buildings of the church. His only mistake was to build: the Villa Bethania, the Calvary garden, and the Magdala tower. He probably would have gotten away with the other constructions but these two specific buildings were new. They were not embellishments to existing buildings; they were not repairs to existing buildings. They were new. In his financial records these two new constructions were included so without knowing it, he was actually saying that these were built with Church donations; something, which seems to have gone un-noticed to either Sauniere or his accusers. Or did it?
As soon as Sauniere stated that he built the Villa Bethania with the idea of it being a retirement home for elderly priests, he was positioning himself exactly where his accusers wanted him. The problem was that a Retirement Home, or Hospital as Sauniere positioned it, was a Church building, a building with religious function. It would be perfectly natural for his superiors to request the buildings be given to the Church in accordance to the rules and guidelines of the Marguilliers administration. However, the buildings were in another person’s name: Marie Denarnaud, his maid.
The next item is also important is this was relative to safekeeping of all funds amassed.
-‘…8. Tous le objets mentionnйes en l’article 7, seront deposes dans une caisse a trois serrures et trois clefs differents, dont une clef restera entre les mains des Marguilliers, une dans celle du chapelain, et l’autre entre les mains d’un des membres de l’administration choisi par elle.’ (Marceille, p. 48)
-‘…8. All objects mentioned in article 7 will be deposited in a three-lock box with three different keys, one of which shall remain in the hands of the Marguilliers, one in the hands of the Chaplain and the other in the hands of one of the members of chosen administration.’
But in the inventory of 1905, a letter from the Mayor to the Ministres des Cultes says that the archives were not in the three-lock box, as there was no three-lock box, they were in the Sacristy. For the sake of argument and to at least give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt, either someone forgot to put them back in with the coffer (we now know there was no 3-lock coffer), someone had more than one key, that Rennes-le-Chateau was never given a three-lock coffer (something which should have happened since the Nicolas Pavillon days) or that the church at Rennes-le-Chateau belonged to a specific order where the position of Marguillier was simply responsible for the Sacristy and felt that placing the parishes’ archives in it would suffice. This also brings up the issue of Trust. Whether or not the other Marguilliers trusted Sauniere enough to entrust him with their keys? Since we know there was no coffer at Rennes-le-Chateau, Sauniere was obviously trusted.
It also provides us with the possibility that Mgr. Beausejour was looking into Rennes-le-Chateau much earlier than 1908. A full three years earlier in fact when he was informed that the Fabrique had no 3-lock coffer. He did not request any further clarification as to why no coffer was present. There is also no evidence to date to support the idea that Mgr. Beausejour made arrangements for one to be provided to the Fabrique; indicating that it’s non-presence, at the time, was not considered a grave situation unless it’s inquiry with the Municipality was to establish a case against Sauniere.
-‘…9. Les Marguillers choisiront entr’eux un tresorier qui sera agrйe et confirme par nous.’ (Marceille, p. 49)
-‘…9. The Marguilliers shall chose amongst themselves, and agree upon, a Treasurer who shall be confirmed by us.
The ‘us’ in this document represents the Bishop of Carcassonne and the Vicaire General, and supported by the Abbe of Saint-Martin.
In general Marguilliers met twice a year to discuss matters of the parish, during which all financial records were to be discussed and supported by all relative invoices, receipts, etc… A copy was to be given to the administration, which would later be compared to the copy on site, at the parish. Although this specific document was in regards to Limoux, such an article was present in general for all parishes run by Marguilliers.
Article 11 is very damaging for Sauniere and the other Marguilliers as if it extended to Rennes-le-Chateau that is if this was an article that was generally used for all parishes in France run by Marguilliers, Sauniere had committed a big mistake.
-‘…11. …Mais quand il sera question d’acquisitions extraordinaires ou de grandes reparations ou reconstructions a faire a la chapelle et batiments adjacents, les Marguilliers seront tenus de presenter leurs idees et leurs plans au conseil d’administration, dont l’approbation sera necessaire. (Marceille, p. 49)
-‘…11…. When the questions of acquisitions or renovations, or reconstruction to the chapel and adjacent buildings are raised, the Marguilliers will be obliged to forward their ideas and their plans to the administrative council if they wish to pursue and bring such actions to fruition.
Neither Sauniere nor any other Marguillier ever provided the administrative council any copies of their ideas or their plans for any construction, renovation, acquisition of land or buildings. It must also be remembered that the Presbytery – which was an adjacent building to the church – did not belong in any fashion, way or form to the Bishopric. It belonged to the Municipality. Any attempt by the Church to take a stand of ‘ownership’ or decision-maker in regards to the Presbytery was fruitless.
The Church had no jurisdiction over the adjacent buildings other than the Cemetery. And yet again, we find ourselves in a veil of confusion. Sauniere did renovate the Cemetery, and the area surrounding the Calvary: at his own expense. The Fabrique refused to pay for any of it. So it is clear that there was some tension between Sauniere and the Fabrique (Marguilliers). The little park where Sauniere erected the Calvary did not belong to the Fabrique, it belonged to the Municipality.
All plans submitted by Sauniere were submitted to the Municipality, not the Bishopric’s administrative council. Even his plans for the re-design of the cemetery were given to the municipality.
The issue of keys is also important and helps in identifying who the Marguillers were. For this we go to a fire that had broken out in a field just outside Rennes-le-Chateau. Sauniere was away and the firemen needed access to water, except Sauniere had erected a library above the water cistern. When Sauniere learned about the door library being broken into he was livid, going so far as to say that he didn’t have to pass along the key for this – Even though all church property was to be accessed by all 4 Marguilliers. Personal property was not to be accessed by all 4 except that the laws of Separation between Church and State outlined that a priest, technically speaking, owned nothing. Sauniere believed his ‘office’ was off limits and as such did not belong to the church or the municipality. He even filed a complaint with the authorities for breaking and entering.
Again we have another problem as during Sauniere’s trials, the other Marguilliers were apparently not asked to provide any documentation, nor were they asked to appear in front of the tribunal investigating Beranger Sauniere. None of them were accused of any wrongdoing in the matter. So, we have documents that are accessible to anyone and a committee that is supposed to be responsible for the operations and administration of the church in question, failing to provide any insight, rather disassociating itself – and Sauniere – from any wrongdoing.
Sauniere’s accounting records take into account the masses and this is important as, if he was in fact stealing them, he would not have been so naпve as to write them down. Beranger’s own words stated that he was given something; he accepted that something and he partook that something. Were these masses? Were they funds, donations that were coming under his name?
Separating the man from the priest, or from any official function is not an easy task, especially a function as grand as a priest who epitomizes everything that is good, everything that is moral and everything that is legally just. The 1906 law was specific; a priest was to own nothing. Everything he did was for the church and for the flock. He as a human being received nothing. Furthermore, if the masses kept coming, after he was suspended A Divinis and after notification of his suspension was publicly disclosed by way of inclusion in local and regional press, would he be justified in accepting them? Would he have to declare them? Secondly, since he was suspended, did the priest-confessor privilege continue? Did the privilege extend if the person requesting the confession, or mass, was aware that Sauniere had been suspended?
The Caihlles family paid for the altar to be erected for Sauniere’s use in the Church. (Heritage, Doumergue, p. 20) This is nothing new as many families, associations, guilds, brotherhoods do this in local churches throughout the world. And although some say the same family also paid for the Altar used at the Villa Bethania after his suspension was announced, evidence is lacking. This Altar at Villa Bethania also does not resemble the descriptions of the original Altar which some claim was taken out of the church and placed in the Villa for Sauniere’s personal use.
After all, it wasn’t Sauniere’s fault that people were still sending him masses, or asking for a confession. Well after Sauniere’s death, request for masses were still arriving at Rennes-le-Chateau.
So the question begs to be asked. Was Beranger Sauniere justified in refusing to reimburse those who had donated monies, or requested masses, even though he had been suspended? The answer is yes. His superiors never once discussed the issue of moral behavior nor did they request any evidence declaring Sauniere moral or immoral. Although refusal to accept them would, and could have been seen as a moral aspect, the act of acceptance in this case was strictly Sauniere’s decision.
The tribunal against him ruled that Sauniere the man and Sauniere the priest were one and the same and therefore, any revenue generated belonged to the Church. This was echoed in a statement read in the sentencing of the first trial that obviously weighed in on the argument that Sauniere the man was different than Sauniere the priest:
-‘… Il est absolument certain que les dons ont ete faits non a M. Sauniere mais au cure de Rennes-le-Chateau pour les oeuvres de la paroisse et aussi, d’apres lui, pour une maison de retraite pour les pretres ages.’ (Denis, p. 70)
-…It is absolutely certain that these donations were not to M. Sauniere’s attention but in the attention of the priest of Rennes-le-Chateau for the purpose of parish administration and charity but also, according to him (Sauniere), for a retirement home for elderly priests.
The tribunal had stated categorically that Sauniere the man was equal to Sauniere the priest and that both were one and the same. It did not take account anything that Sauniere could have owned previous to the passing of the 1906 law nor the fact that he may have been trying to protect such assets by having them placed under Marie Denarnaud’s name; something which was perfectly legal. The tribunal’s position however shows that they wished to take control of Sauniere‘s mail.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Bishop requested Sauniere place new ads to counter the previous ones. If Sauniere had placed ads requesting masses, he should have placed ads refuting them, or at least ads saying he was suspended. Neither Sauniere or the Bishop, or the Vicar General did this. All they did was place articles stating that Sauniere had been suspended: in the Diocese, not outside the Diocese where Sauniere was advertising. Sauniere, for the most part, had sought masses outside the Diocese. The articles would do nothing to appease the practice they so dearly wishes to see cease immediately. Given Sauniere’s financial ‘troubles’ would the Bishop have agreed to pay for replacement ads? Would he have agreed to pay Sauniere for the unused portion of those ads? (ads are based on a timetable, not on actual sales, responses).
And it is in this environment that we must identify certain sentiment that prevailed in his decision-making; and in the process taken to bring him to account.
The moment Beranger Sauniere was suspended; he ceased to fulfill his functions as priest but also as Marguillier: IF he actually was a Marguillier. This is also important as it renders all requests for masses as his personal mail: which was the case. The requests were coming in under his name, not Abbe Marty, nor under any other priest’s name. The requests came in his name. Therefore, they were his private mail, especially after he was stated as being suspended. His mail was his mail. It did not belong to the parish, his replacement, the Bishop or the church. It belonged to him. Did his Bishop think the same way as Sauniere? The church could not intercept someone’s mail – Priest or defrocked Priest. Did Sauniere have two mail addresses?
We see it every day, people saying that their private life is their private life and has nothing to do with their public life. Politicians, sports figures, royalty, CEOs, etc… Others, such as the press, disagree; saying that it’s the path they chose. Total obedience to the cause is what is expected, be it in the public sector or the private sector. Media conferences called to hear the newly acquired superstar say how enthusiastic he or she is to be there; ready to take on whatever role the team wants them to play. But what happens when they go do groceries, or go to the local store? Should they be harassed simply because they are out in public?
Back when the Cistercians were created, Saint Bernard wanted all monks, and knights in the military orders, to give themselves completely to the cause, just as public figures of today are subjected to. The difference between the two are the media, who did not exist back then but in Sauniere’s day, the press did exist and did not ask anything of Sauniere. It wasn’t a public play that brought troubles onto Sauniere. It was a Bishop who wanted to control every dime in his diocese, a Bishop who was asked to replace a man who had driven the diocese into financial delinquency and quite possibly ruin. When Sauniere failed to conform, criminal accusations were brought up against him. It was the only way to get rid of him. They did get rid of him but failed to realize just how much local priests – who were well liked by their flocks – could muster followings that went beyond legal and recognise practice.
Take for instance Felix Armand, priest of Saint-Martin-du-Lys. He went to Sabadell along with Mgr. De Chanterac in October 1792, three years after the revolution forced priests to recognize the constitution. Upon hearing that his flock missed him terribly, he returned to Saint-Martin-du-Lys in 1793 only to hide in caves called ‘Le trou du Cure.’ (Alet, p. 342) It was only in 1797 that he came out of hiding.
Sauniere’s second trial brought him to write a letter outlining whom donated monies to him – as Priest and Marguillier – and to whom he re-directed those monies for charitable donations. The problem was that there was nothing legal declaring that is where the monies were to be spent. There were no notarized documents outlining a payment of ‘such amount to such persons’ found, or mentioned anywhere in his letter. Nor did he attempt to say there was. Sauniere did just as Mgr. Valabelle and Chanterac had done before the Revolution. And what any priest would have done. No document seems to have been supplied by the Marguilliers or any member of the outer administrative council.
His bookkeeping was itemised so it wasn’t as if he was as naive as Mgr Billard who left dismal records to the point where the Vatican had to step in. Beranger Saunieres books were specific, itemized, well documented – for anything relating to his activities as Marguillier. What was lacking was his itemization of his personal finances, of his personal activities – outside his functions as Marguillier. But the new law was even more specific: priests could not own personal property. Again we find a problem with the accusations leveled against Sauniere as they were unclear as to which period’ revenues were being questioned and looked into. But what about property, which was owned before the law, came into effect? What guidelines were deemed acceptable for priests removing themselves from their wealth without being taken advantage of?
Beranger Sauniere’s direct superiors at Limoux were from the Peres Doctrinnaires, an order responsible for teaching and spreading the church catechism. This order worked in conjunction with the Peres Missionaires of the Lazarites where France shared a border with another country – or that the citizens had foreign influence, and last but not least, that they were under what was called Congregational teaching. Rennes-le-Chateau fell within the last category. Lazarite presence at Limoux, and by extension at Rennes-le-Chateau, began in 1678 after the newly appointed Bishop, Alphonse de Valbelle finished a tour of the Diocese. He had replaced Nicolas Pavillon. Originally stationed at the Seminaire, the Lazarite priests were given charge of Notre-Dame de Marceille.
Then there’s his guests who stayed at Villa Bethania and who gave him money in return. Two of these were also his strongest supporters during his troubles with the Bishop of Carcassonne. Two priests who also spent lavishly and never questioned about their spending habits.
The Tribunal wanted to get back what Sauniere had spent and everything he owned, regardless if he owned it previous to the passing of the 1906 law. But everything was in Marie’s name.
Beranger Sauniere had his will drawn up twice. The first time, Beranger named the Bishop as Beneficiary but in the second drafting, he named Maire Denarnaud as sole Beneficiary. This very act is what probably cost Sauniere all his troubles. If he had a will drawn up, it meant that he owned something; it meant that he was in contravention of the law. Since everything was already in Marie Denarnaud’s name, why draw up a will in her favor? His will was the Ammunition behind the trials against him.
Everything, which should have been signed by Marie, was instead signed by Sauniere: Invoices, recognition of debt, orders and contracts for future work. Making the matter far more complicated for Sauniere than he could have anticipated.
Then we have a loan that Sauniere forwarded to the Fabrique. (Bedu, p. 31)
We also know that the Fabrique was responsible for establishing a priest’s salary. (Riviere, p. 26) And this only after a newly appointed priest makes his appointment formally known to the Fabrique; in Sauniere’s case, 75 francs a month, or 900 francs a year. (Riviere, p. 39)
So to recap Sauniere’s known revenues as established by the Fabrique and by way of Sauniere’s own confessions during his trials:
1. He received 75 francs a month for a total of 900 Francs per year. For having performed the duties of a priest.
2. He received 75 francs a month for a total of 900 Francs per year. For having performed the duties of Instructeurs. He was considered under the Pere Doctrinaires and thus under direct control of Lazarites: Missionary teachers that were allowed to continue congregational teachings after the 1906 law came into effect and well after the Congregation laws accepted and recognized the Lazarites in January 1901.
3. He received 6 Francs per year for upkeep of the Cemetery. We know Sauniere did the upkeep of the Cemetery – which resulted in the townspeople seeking legal means to stop him from doing so as he was not ‘up keeping’ the cemetery.
4. He received 3600 Francs per year as rent for space utilized by a ‘Hospitalized’ family, which seem to be the Denarnaud family.
That gives us a grand total of 5406 Francs per year; a far cry from the 900 Francs per year that established Berenger as poor.
We have a mystery however when it comes to the Denarnaud family. Sauniere’s diaries state that he was giving 100 Francs a Month to the Denarnaud family members: to the Male members of the family. There is no mention of Marie’s salary nor of any financial arrangement between the two; only the rent of 3600 Francs per year. A quick calculation tells us that the Denarnaud rent amounted to 72000 Francs over a 20-year period. So here’s the catch. Sauniere wrote to the Tribunal that savings with the Denarnaud family amount to 52000 Francs. (Riviere, p. 179) We have a difference of 20000 Francs. But there’s more. When Sauniere arrived in Rennes-le-Chateau, the Presbytery was in a state of disrepair. He had to stay with local inhabitants whose house was adjacent to Church property: Antoinette Marre. Antoinette Marre was the maiden name of Antoinette Denarnaud, Sauniere’s first maid. Her daughter, Marie, was brought in to help and later replace her as Sauniere’s maid. But the question has to be asked. At which time did they all move in together in the Presbytery and later Villa Bethania in order for the Denarnaud family to pay Sauniere 3600 Francs a year in rent? It seems that Sauniere did not move into the Presbytery until 1886 (Pretre Libre, Doumergue, p. 20) and possibly as late as 1889 (Denis, p. 36). The Villa Bethania was only finished in 1905.
The Presbytery was rented to Sauniere by the Municipality, not La Fabrique, for the sum of 50 Francs per year and then leased to Marie for the same price. (Les Archives de l’Abbe Sauniere, # 99)
So either Sauniere could not count or he was trying to conceal something. However, the Tribunal did not question this specific entry, instead the placed their efforts in 3 other entries which technically speaking should have been placed in the 3-lock coffer:
-Item # 10 – Quetes dans la Paroisse (funds from the parish).... 300 Francs.
-Item # 11 – Revenus de la Fabrique (Church related revenues)..... 500 Francs -
-Item # 15 – Tronc :une moyenne de 1200 frs par an pendant 15 ans (anonymous drop boxes throughout the church building)…. 18000 Francs.
These were all revenues directly associated with church affairs, totaling 18800 Francs over a 20-year period. It is simple to put 2 and 2 together and assume that these revenues were never handed over to the Diocesan council responsible for the Marguiliers at Rennes-le-Chateau. Marguilliers had to hand over all revenues to the Diocesan council that was responsible for their parish. If they did not, then the Marguilliers would be questioned as to why this was not done. The Marguilliers were asked about the 3-lock coffer in 1905 but that was the extent of any form of questioning. The Diocese laid the blame solely on Sauniere’s shoulders leaving him to answer and remember every penny that came into his hands. And again, Sauniere was including revenues that were not relevant to his posting at Rennes-le-Chateau implying that the period, which interested the Tribunal, was not clearly defined. Or that Sauniere was deliberately adding those numbers to justify his spending.
Under Item # 15, Sauniere wrote that the Tronc had brought in 18000 Francs over a period of 20 years. That amounts to 900 Francs a year: the exact equivalent of his salary, or if applied on a daily basis amounted to 17.31 Francs every Sunday; a very feasible amount given the amount of churchgoers attending his masses. In 1891-1892, there were 80 churchgoers yet in 1895, there were 78 churchgoers. (Corbu-Captier, p. 92) Not everyone gives the same amount on Sundays due to their source of revenues, and since every churchgoer actually gives money, it was left to Sauniere’s liberty to establish a total.
Sauniere’s church certainly could not hold every citizen of RleC, established somewhere between 298 and 500 citizens. Did he perform more than 1 mass on Sundays? What about when he was also responsible for Antugnac? Esperazza? La Serpent?
Then there’s the very first entry on the list: Economies de 30 ans de Ministere… 15000 Francs. This contained his years as Vicar of Alet, his posting in Le Clat and those of Rennes-le-Chвteau, La Serpent (Interim), Antugnac (Interim) and Esperazza (Interim) and amounted to 500 Francs per year. Given that his salary, as known by the Diocese was 900 Francs a year, this placed his savings at 50 to 60 percent of his salary.
Sauniere had unknown revenues mentioned in a letter from Abbe Gazel, which in fact was a small vineyard which he himself stated brought him a bit of money. (Pretre Libre, Doumergue, p. 210) It is feasible that this was included under Item # 25 in the list he handed over to the tribunal, where he states personal work over a 5 year period at 3 Francs a day amounting to 3750 Francs. (Riviere, p. 179) But here again, the vagueness of detail in conjunction with the mention of 3 Francs per day immediately has a bad smell to it. For starters, 3 Francs a day was the maximum a priest could take on a daily basis for masses: 3 masses at 1 Francs a piece. Secondly 3 Francs a day over a 5-year period amounts to 5475 Francs. Not 3750 Francs. In fact, the revenues for his vineyard were placed under item # 21 established as 1600 Francs over a 2-year period from 1908 to 1909. It was not the postcard collection as that was under item # 18. (Riviere, p. 179) So what was item # 25 referring to?
There’s also the dividends from stocks in the Russian Trans-Siberian Railway and a Bank which declared Bankruptcy, leaving its creditors penniless, which were not included as evidence in Berenger’s tribunal. (Etienne Blanc-Delmas, p. 296)
Within the list Sauniere handed over to the Tribunal we find revenues that can be grouped in the following fashion: a) La Fabrique, b) Donations, c) Parish events, d) Commercial business, and e) personal business. This shows that Sauniere was certainly not naive and clearly separated all revenues according to their individual statuses but may not have placed them as such; implying that he was indirectly asking the tribunal to clarify their questions.
Berenger Sauniere was not the only priest to have invested money in the Railroad. Abbe Gelis, the priest who was murdered in his presbytery at Coustaussa, also invested 1000 Francs a year; a year’s salary + an extra 100 Francs. (Mensior, p. 54) Upon his death, investigators found 13000 Francs hidden throughout the Presbytery. (Heritage, Doumergue, p. 28) Where was Gelis getting his money?
When Beranger Sauniere arrived in RleC, he saw a dilapidated church, and Presbytery. In order to make the urgent repairs, he immediately obtained a loan to repair the church from the Comtesse de Chambord worth 3000 francs. Then, he obtained a 1500 franc loan for his room and board and another 1500 francs from the municipality.
A throwback to 1681 and we find Mgr de Valbelle, Bishop of Alet, obtaining a loan for 3000 francs, and 2 more loans, immediately after, each for 1500 francs. (Alet, Lasserre, p. 166) Mgr. Valbelle was also responsible for establishing Lazarite priests in Alet; after Nicolas Pavillon’s death. (Alet, Lasserre, p. 165) Although everyone thought Pavillon was responsible, it turns out that Pavillon ‘fired’ Saint-Vincent de Paul Missionaries in Alet due to their Liberalism. (Alet, Lasserre, p. 152).
Once again we have a bit of a catch as Sauniere was given directives to make immediate repairs to the buildings by none other than Mgr. Billard. The mention was made on the Bishop’s second visit, on July 1st, 1889, and outlines that during the First visit, the Bishop had requested that a Sacristy and a chapel dedicated to the Virgin Mary be added. Renovations were also requested: Altar, Tabernacle, Baptistery (Asmodeus statue), Confessional and a New Chair. ((Pretre Libre, Doumergue, p. 69) Le Fabrique paid a portion of the confessional. (Mensior, p. 45) Yet we find Sauniere claiming the entirety of its payment of 700 Francs under his name. (Riviere, p. 89) The altar was purchased by Mme. Cailhes. (Le Grand Heritage, Doumergue, p. 20).
Sauniere borrowed 250 francs twice. (Grand Heritage, Doumergue, p. 22) La Fabrique spent 711,60 Francs in 1891. (Mensior, p. 36) Was this for the confessional?
But did he really obtain a loan from the Comtesse de Chambord? The answer is simply, we just don’t know. The only mention of it was in Sauniere’s accounting sheet provided during his 1910 trial. There are no other mentions of any donation from the Comtesse de Chambord. (Pretre, Doumergue, p. 29) His first accounting sheets provided to the ‘Officialite’ did not contain any reference to the Comtesse. (Pretre, Doumergue, p. 245).
It is odd that Sauniere had the donation in his possession after he returned from his six-month sentence he received for breaking electoral laws. It is also odd that the donation was received after the Comtesse’s death. Still, and even more intriguing, is why he only mentioned the donation from the Comtesse de Chambord 25 years after she supposedly gave it to him, and in his second trial. The Chambords did give money to priests but there doesn’t seem to be any known legs (a donation taken from a trust or from an estate after death) destined to priests by the Comtesse.
The importance of her donation is in name only, and as an indirect link to her husband the Comte de Chambord who also supported the same causes as Sauniere. There was a substantially larger donation given to Sauniere by a certain M de C in the amount of 20000 Francs. At least that’s what Sauniere stated in his accounting. (Riviere, p. 44).
What is important to understand is that in those days, a stamp could be used as a form of payment; as long as the stamp had a specific seal on it. So if someone was actually sending him money directly for masses, they could do it by way of a stamp with a specific seal on it. A stamp was seen as currency. The stamp could be redeemed at any bank. The question now becomes just how many masses did he receive by way of stamps? Were they enough to warrant the accusation of mass selling, mass fixing or Simony? The answer to all three is no unless Sauniere figured out some way to commit mail fraud by double-billing the stamp. A relatively simple act if one is capable of getting away with it.
It was simple. A note received which outlined the fact that a mass was said for 1 franc: usually a postal order, or Money order. At the top left-hand corner, a stamp with an official registry seal outlining the amount of the postal or money order; whereas a normal stamp would be on the right-hand side. So, Sauniere could have cashed in the postal/money order and then cashed in the stamp with the registry seal on it. In other words, get 2 francs for the price of one. But did this happen? Did Sauniere, or Marie, his maid, cash in twice? In order for Sauniere, or Marie, to do this, they would also need an accomplice at the post-office or the banks in which they were conducting their business. To date, no such evidence has ever surfaced. These were not receipts or invoices, which had stamps at the bottom of the explanations of services rendered. Good examples of these are the receipts for Sauniere’s coffin and the receipt to Antoine Captier for his bell ringing services established at 30 Francs a year. (Corbu Captier, p. 258 and p. 90 respectively).
Something else, which has gone un-noticed, was Sauniere’s Reply letters for every mass he received: replies that cost him money, replies that were sent to Italy, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Belgium. Not to mention replies sent throughout France and locally in his diocese.
Some of the entries in his registry relate to Marie Denarnaud’s family. In some cases, 100 francs, here, 100 francs to another member, sometimes two or three payments a month. We know that one member of her family was handicapped in one-way or another, which was grounds for charitable deed.
But then there’s the court case brought against Sauniere by his own mother, demanding money from him to help her cope. Sauniere agreed to pay a minimal amount, stating what his salary was. So obviously, his credit was not brought into question – as he had none. But also, his actions as Marguillier were not brought into question either – as he could not give any money to members of his own family unless he made a specific request to the Bishop. He never requested money for his own family.
What this court case showed was that Sauniere had no set monthly income that could be guaranteed other than his salary as priest. This goes against any theory that he could purchase goods or services based solely on his salary. Therefore, he had to have had another source of revenue that allowed him to purchase those goods and services on monthly payment plans. He could not declare any of these things without at least having a bank account.
Everything was in Marie’s name but not the Bank account (s) and not the debts. Beranger Sauniere recognized his debts openly so he was publicly separating his private life from his public one. He was suspended, without pay, and expected to survive? His flock probably helped with food and continued to treat him as a priest – which seems to be the case. But what would he do for money? He survived from 1906 until his death in 1917, spending at least 6 years under perpetual suspension.
Was he truly suspended without pay? Not likely since he brought his case to the Vatican, or at least filed a complaint with the Vatican. And although there is no confirmation on the Vatican’s part, that any complaint was ever lodged, if he had lodged a complaint to the Vatican, he would still have been paid while suspended.
Furthermore, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence supporting the idea that Sauniere had recanted his resignation. So if he had resigned and never changed his mind, then technically speaking, he had no income other than his pension; a pension which was being withheld by Mgr. Beausejour. How did the tribunal account for the fact that he was obtaining loans and paying off his debts when he had no source of revenue?
We know for a fact that he was out to find money-generating ventures for his village, postcards, and places of rest for poor priests (such as he himself might one day become). He coveted archeologists to come visit the village.
But what of fact that originally, he had two maids: Marie and her mother? He had two maids on salary. Were their salaries were returned, in part for lodging and in part for food and thus, considered as revenue?
We must not forget the fact that the most important tenet of all remains Marie Denarnaud. What was her salary? How much was she paying for rent? How much did her family pay in rent at the Presbytery?
Marie was never questioned as to the source of Sauniere’s revenues even though she was possessor of buildings paid for with Church funds. She was under the employ of the man they were accusing of Mass-Trafficking. She retrieved Sauniere’s mail – which contained the supposed requests for masses. The questioning of Marie was restricted to ownership of the properties, the lease of the presbytery. There was no question regarding employment or arrangement of payment of salary for employment.