The material is distributed under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. From Mariano Tomatis.
With many thanks for Mariano in giving me permission to reproduce his excellent researches!
In response to the accusation of having spent large sums on the construction of a house and its furniture, Saunière writes:
Other priests of my knowledge built like me, bought many goods, houses, assembled a dairy, etc. and ecclesiastical authority left them alone. Others at their death bequeathed fabulous, fantastic sums, from 80 to 100 thousand [francs] and more, and the authority said nothing. Others have always traveled left and right, walked, visited the hot springs, visited Rome, Jerusalem or collected 20-franc banknotes or pieces and the authority never took care of it. For my part, I bought some plot of land, repaired the church, the presbytery, built a house, struggled, broke my bones, spent my belongings and everyone screams agitated and have to complain about the fact that I would spend too much, they ask me who gave me the necessary money, etc.
In response to the accusation of having purchased furniture for over 12 thousand francs, including even a piece of furniture of 3000 francs, he writes:
This is a mistake, I do not own any 3000 (franch) furniture, nor do I have anything similar among all the furniture that can cost such a disproportionate amount. I have not bought furniture at all for a figure of 12 thousand [francs]; it could be that the sum of the costs of the various days required of carpenters to assemble them, together with the costs of the furniture, reaches 12000 [francs]. In any case, to conclude, that I bought for 12 thousand or for 15 thousand, this does not concern anyone other than my conscience.
An analysis of the invoices1 of the Noubel house in Carcassonne allows us to verify the assertion of the priest; in fact the most expensive piece of furniture in Saunière's possession is the vast library of Gothic-style wood mounted in the Magdala Tour: its cost had been 1900 francs. The hypothesis that materials and labour reach 12 thousand francs is confirmed by the same two invoices2, of 5011.70 and 7632.55 francs respectively. The total figure, of 12644.25 francs, is very close to that for which Saunière defends himself; it is reasonable to assume that the bishop had very precise information on the sums spent by the priest.In response to the accusation of selling unauthorized masses inside and outside the diocese, Saunière writes:
It is true, in fact; around 1885, at the beginning of my ministry in Rennes, as there was a total shortage of mass intentions, I began to ask for it, just like some of my confreres, at the Episcopal Secretariat. These gentlemen, after having satisfied our requests two or three times, began to kindly say goodbye to us, telling us that they had no more. Even after a few subsequent requests we didn't get anything. The secretariat had no more masses for us. In reality he had some, we knew it and we had proof of it; but the fees of those masses were not intended for us, poor country curates. Tired of insisting, we began to turn to some religious community of which some more charitable priests had given us the address and, in fact, the fees of the masses were not long in arriving, and they arrived in large numbers. I received as many as I could and gave my confreres the ones I couldn't play.
Some time ago Monsignor Billard3 perhaps wanting to refer to the current bishop and not to Billard, could instead confirm what was already written above: namely the fact that it was Billard who first banned the sale of masses in Saunière. Among the supporters of the lapsus see Christian Doumergue, Bérenger Saunière, prêtre libre à Rennes-le-Château, C. Lacour, Nimes 2000, p. 241."
I learned from people to whom I had repeatedly offered masses and asked me to justify my gesture in some way, but I continued because I did not believe I was hurting, because next to the medium-sized fees I received there were others much higher and finally I continued because I was not at all the only one to act like this, to offer masses out of the diocese despite the repeated prohibitions by Monsignor [the Bishop]
In response to the accusation of having continued in the sale despite the promise to abstain made to the Bishop, he writes:
I had promised Monsignor [the Bishop] not to offer any more masses, but to address the requests to him when I needed them. Although I didn't ask for any more, the requests kept coming to me, and so it was not materially necessary for me to ask him. He then concluded that I was continuing to make offerings only because he had received letters from some people asking him for permission to send me the masses or to continue to do so, and because they had sent him the letters in which I appealed to their good heart by offering them masses. Summary, from my promise to the Bishop to interrupt the offers, I no longer have offers, or in any case I do not remember having done so; but I have continued to receive them.
Saunière adds that, in any case, the direct request for masses was more favourable to him, because with the network of knowledge he had set up he had found buyers who sent him even 3 to 5 francs for each mass, while the bishop would have procured them for him in lower figures, equal to one and a half francs or at most two.
In response to the accusation of having undertaken a real "trade" of harvests and of having enriched ihimself in that very way, he writes:
If by "trade in masses" we mean the fact of giving to others what I could not have celebrated, my answer is: yes, I am guilty. But if by "trade in masses" we mean reselling them to others, for example at the cost of 1 franc or 1 franc and a half, while I had received 2 or more, then I answer I do not remember that I have ever done so. However, I know that someone else has done it, keeping the difference to finance their Works or their Church. As for the question of having enriched myself through fees as the quote implies, I answer that I am anything but rich.
1. Documento 42 in Pierre Jarnac (a cura di), Les Archives de l'abbé Saunière * 101 Documents reproduits d'après les originaux, Pégase, Perpignan 2002.
2. The first invoice covers the period between 28 December 1907 and 20 April 1910, the second partially overlaps with it, covering the period between July 1908 and 30 April 1910.
3. The passage, by others interpreted as slip of the laps, perhaps wanting to refer to the current bishop and not to Billard, could instead confirm what was already written above: namely the fact that it was Billard who first banned the sale of masses in Saunière. Among the supporters of the lapsus see Christian Doumergue, Bérenger Saunière, prêtre libre à Rennes-le-Château, C. Lacour, Nimes 2000, p. 241.
4. The entire questionnaire cited here is reproduced in Claire Corbu, Antoine Captier, L'héritage de l'Abbé Saunière, Bélisane, Nizza 1995, pp. 187-189.