Saunière’s trial

 

The fighting begins again

The ball was back in the court of de Beauséjour. On November 17, was advised of the sentence in writing by S. Bonnades, the dean of Couiza, indicating that he had 10 days to appeal. He did appeal, on November 30. Why he waited is another small mystery. In short, he was informed that his appeal was too late, that the sentence had gone into force on November 28.

With the sentence now in effect, a ping pong match of letters ensued – as they always seem to do. On December 5, Saunière was informed that he was no longer allowed to say mass.
December 17 was the deadline to produce his accounts, but he failed. The following day, Saunière, apparently told by his lawyer, sent a letter to Rome, to appeal against the judgment. The Congregation of the Sacrament judged the case obscure, and on February 14 1911 returned a “lectum recursum”, which in essence meant that Rome had not resolved the situation; the ball was once again in the court of Carcassonne - literally.

The period had been one of delay, restatements, before the next chapter could begin: On March 9, 1911, G. Cantegril of the court of Carcassonne, noted that Saunière had a certificate from D. Roche, declaring that Saunière’s health did not permit him to undertake the retreat he had been instructed to perform as sentence for his culpability on count 1 and 3.
He seems to have been well enough to write a letter on March 13 1911, to argue about count two. Saunière stated that the only documents he could offer were the breakdown of receipts, already accepted by the court during the proceedings and the certificate from the mortgage registry. As to invoices that would show that the total expense was close to 200,000 francs, he would try to support what expenses he could, but he had not bothered to keep invoices that were more than two years old. In total, he sent 61 documents and asked for their return as they were essential to his personal security. It is a most enigmatic statement! He stated that he hoped to carry out his retreat ten days before Easter at the Grand Seminary in Carcassonne.
In short, Saunière was saying that he could not really prove that he had spent 200,000 francs on repairs work, as Huguet had alleged in court. There were some documents, but not everything had been retained. But that was not Saunière’s only problem – or major problem. Saunière could have lied, saying he had spent 200,000 francs, whereas he had only spent 50,000 francs. The question is why Saunière would have lied about it, and bring himself into trouble. In court, one tends to minimise the amount of trouble, not inflate it. So it seems logical to suggest Saunière at least spent roughly 200,000 francs on repairs work. Again, that was not Saunière’s major problem; the question was where he got it from.
Saunière explained that problem in a letter on March 25, to Cantegril. He argued that the money originated from diverse incomes, including funds from the collecting box, including from visitors from Rennes-les-Bains; a 1887 lottery; his brother’s generosity; the sales of a set of 33 postcards; his collection of 100,000 postage stamps; the occasional sale of furniture and related items, include some income from his lectures on the history of Rennes-le-Château. Even from Saunière’s reply, it is clear that he is clutching at straws. What he is describing is the type of inventory you get from bailsmen. Saunière had to account for 200,000 francs and he was saying he got that money from selling postcards? From the collection box?
Let’s play with this: Let’s assume the total amount of money came from the collection box, that he said masses every week, for a period of 25 years. This would mean that the collection box had to turn over roughly 150 francs per mass. His church only had roughly eighty seats and who would – could – pay 30 Euros every week for a mass? Even at 15 Euros per week, the parishioners came off bad, as they would pay for a mass with the entire village present, yet would pay the same amount that an unknown person was willing to give to Saunière for a private mass!

It did not take the court long to reach the same conclusion. On April 4, 1911, canon Charpentier stated that Saunière’s reply was very incomplete. He wanted to know what documents he had used to calculate the annual income of 1200 francs from the collecting box (this meant that Saunière stated that he roughly got 23 francs per week in this manner). Charpentier also wanted to know the dates of his brother’s largest donations.
Still, Charpentier stated that Saunière’s “expenditure account” was series of documents showing a total sum of 36,000 francs, not 100,000 francs as he claims – and short of the total of almost 200,000 francs that the paper trail had to reveal. But before tackling the missing 100,000 francs, the court wanted to find out about the missing 64,000 francs, which would mean that half of Saunière’s income would be account for. At the moment, about one fifth was account for. The equivalent of 2.5 million Euros was so far not accounted.

On April 8, 1911, Saunière expressed his disappointment about the court’s disappointment relating to the information he had provided. He had not kept ledgers from the income from the collecting boxes. He stated that his brother’s donations came between 1895 and 1903. It was a good answer – whether true or not – for if Saunière had said that the donations came in eg. 1906, they would postdate the building works and the court would continue to fish even harder. Finally, he asks why he, as a priest, needs to submit to such detailed demands, which are normally only required when there is a commercial bankrupt.

A change of tactics

The bishop must have realised that he had to change tack. Therefore, the following day, April 9, a Commission of Enquiry was created to resolve the tricky “count two”: Saunière’s source of income.
Saunière was now finally on his retreat, in the monastery of Prouilhe. The commission informed him that they would like to interview him in person in Carcassonne, on his departure from his retreat at Prouilhe. Saunière, of course, refused, but we have a letter from Saunière, sent to Marie Denarnaud back home.
Dated April 25, the letter talks about his daily routine, the food they are served, and specifically the presence of what seems to be a rather beautiful woman, who seems to liven up his stay. But what is of interest is not his fancies of this particular woman, but two paragraphs.
“They have told me that the bishop of Carcassonne needs to come to Prouilhe. Luckily, I will have left the previous day and therefore I do not need to think of meeting this person who is only beautiful in his name.” It is a play on word on “Beauséjour”, with “beau” meaning beautiful.
Later, he tells Marie that he will be in Limoux at 4 pm, when they will go shopping. These are preparations for their trip to Espiens in late May. Saunière has time to go shopping in Limoux with Marie, but he had no time to appear in front of the commission in Carcassonne. To underline the point, on April 27, he sent the commission a letter, from Prouilhe, declining to attend in person; the entire sequence had already put too much stress on a man who suffered from a heart condition. He respond to their questions in writing.

The commission did not take it to heart. They asked Saunière to justify the 52,000 francs that Saunière said he had been paid by his lodgers. They wanted to know how many, from when and how could they have earned so much. Earning almost 800,000 Euros from people staying in your house was indeed a lot of money.
On May 9, Saglio, president of the commission, did not accept Saunière’s explanations, specifically not on the invoices that had to account for 150,000 francs of his expenses. Saglio could simply not believe that Saunière would not retain these invoices.
On May 14, Saunière replied, saying he was not prepared to submit to further interrogation. On May 27, there is a new attempt of the commission. On June 2, Saunière replies. He feels he is being treated like a prospective bankrupt and is at pains to assure the commission that he is fully solvent and not about to embarrass the diocese with an imminent financial scandal. What Saunière is saying is: “look, I am solvent; I know I have spent a lot of money on my building works, but I can and have paid for it all. I won’t leave the bishop to pick up the tab.” But the underlining point of the commission as to why they want to know, is that they claim it is their bishop: Saunière received this money as one of their employees, not as a private person. Still, Saunière obviously feels he is not – or ever was – one of the bishop’s subordinates. He feels that it was his right – if not his right only – to dispense of the money he received.

Another attempt for further detail is sent off on June 14. Saunière replies on June 20. He repeats his previous assurances about his financial soundness as confirmed by the certificate of the mortgage registry, which is all they need to know. Yet another request for details occurs on July 7, and Saunière provides some of these on July 14. Saunière declares the total cost of the building of the Villa Bethania to be 90,000 francs. He argues that the work began in 1901, completed 1903, but that the entire estate was in the name of Denarnaud. This, it seems, was a stick the commission could use to beat Saunière with. There were no further requests for more detail; the commission began to write its report.

The final verdict

On October 4, the report of the commission goes to the bishop. It states that they have been unable to obtain the information Saunière was asked to provide. Only 36,000 out of 193,000 francs is accounted for. The remaining 150,000 francs is accounted for only by a list of 7 items, with the corresponding figures unsupported by any documents. They feel this is inadequate – if not a sham, though of course the commission would not say such a thing. They do argue that Saunière seems to think that he only had to establish that he was not in debt, not understanding that it was his method of accounting that was being examined. Finally, the commission states that it did not go to Rennes-le-Château, to confront Saunière, as they felt this would be a waste of time.

With the commission’s report finalised, a new summons is prepared on October 30, 1911. Saunière is asked to appear in front of the bishop on November 21, to finalise the avoided sentence of November 5, 1910, count 2, i.e. further information on his accounts.
The verdict is that Saunière decided the use of the funds he received personally, rather than through the bishop’s office. Furthermore, Saunière used some of the money for the Villa Bethania. This land was in the ownership of Denarnaud. As a consequence, he built on land that does not belong to him, and hence the buildings do not belong to him. This was deemed to be a serious problem, for the money had come from the diocese, yet had gone to enrich a private individual, with no apparent benefit to the larger community.

On December 5, the court held its session, with neither Saunière of his representative showing up. Saunière was declared contumacious (stubbornly disobedient; persistently, wilfully, or overtly defiant of authority) and judged as such.
It is stated that 36,000 out of 200,000 francs had been spent on the church and Calvary; the rest had been spent on costly constructions with no useful purpose, on land that did not belong to him or were not even built in his name. He was found guilty of wastefulness and misuse of funds in his care. He was sentenced to a three month’s suspension a divinis, but indefinitely until he returned the goods to the Church. The sentence was without appeal.
It was a harsh judgment, which according to some interpreters is what finally cracked Saunière. But Saunière must have seen this coming. And if his health declined, there could only have been one reason: the enormous amount of fine foods he ate and the enormous qualities of wine and liqueurs he took every day. That he had to walk with a cane because of gout and may have lost the use of one eye had nothing to do with this verdict, but with his lifestyle. And though he may have drunk to forget, he was not out for the count.

The bishop’s sentence was only valid for six months. Then Saunière made an appeal to Rome via Huguet. The Congregation at Rome delivered their judgment in October 1915; the bishop lifted his suspension, but Saunière was never reinstated. He died 15 months later, on January 22, the day in 1909 he was supposed to become the new parish priest of Coustouges.

A new perspective

In conclusion, Saunière was found guilty of negligence and contempt, but cleared by the latter by the intervention of Rome. For the first, he did do his retreat, as ordered by the bishop. He was not, as some argue, found guilty of trafficking in masses and no-one at the time believed that his source of income came from trafficking in masses. What everyone did want to know and Saunière no-one wanted to tell was where the money did come from. Was it merely because our priest was so obstinate and hated de Beauséjour that he wished to defy him at all cost? Perhaps and it should not ruled out. Still, it is clear, as we now know, that Saunière had detailed accounts, both of his income and his expenses. His so-called “carnets” have been the subject of detailed analysis since they were discovered some decades ago. Though they do not list every single item of his income and expenses, they were exactly the type of information the commission was interested in. So why did Saunière not want to surrender these documents to the commission? Was it obstinacy, or was there something in the booklets that he did not want to reveal? Or did he realise that if he was to show the booklets, the commission would only take it one step further, and begin to question why those people gave him money?
The latter seems to be the most logical conclusion: Saunière protected his sponsors; he did not want to reveal why they were offering him large amounts of money. It is clear that it was not for officiating masses; the sums far exceed what Saunière asked for those. But why were they giving Saunière money? What was it that he did for them in return? That is a question that may have been at the origin of the trial and the interest of de Beauséjour.
Though de Beauséjour had a case that his bishopric had been left out of 2.5 million Euros because Saunière did with the money what he pleased, de Beauséjour equally realised that Saunière got the money for a reason that the bishop could not figure out. And if the bishop had figured it out, it is most likely because someone had been telling him of people giving large amounts of money to Saunière. Perhaps they even told him what it was that Saunière was doing for his sponsors. If so, then the bishop may have known the truth, rather than try to fish for the truth by bringing Saunière to court. As any lawyer will tell you, the court is not for establishing the truth… and in the case of Saunière’s trials, the final verdict hinged on what may very well be a false premise: that Saunière received the money in his capacity as a priest, not as an individual. The central question remains: what did Saunière do for his sponsors? That is something the trial never uncovered, and neither will this article.

Filip Coppens