Title XL: On Things Done by Force or Because of Fear

Latin source headnote: If anyone professes religious life through fear of death and afterward does not ratify it, she can leave and contract marriage; it is otherwise if she had freely consented either at the beginning or afterward.

Alexander III to the Bishop of Huesca and the Prior of Saint Mary of Zaragoza.

It has been brought to our hearing that, when a certain noble and powerful man named Atorelia held his wife M. in suspicion, his knights, taking her to a certain wood at his command, wished to kill her with a drawn sword; but at last, moved by pity, they spared her upon this condition, that she should assume the monastic habit in the monastery of Colobris. When her husband heard this, because her life had been spared, he bore it very ill, but nevertheless afterward acquiesced. And thus it happened that he brought two bishops, those of Zaragoza and Tarazona, to that monastery so that they might bless her and impose the veil upon her. But the bishops, ignorant of the affair, having been sent by the husband to impose the veil upon her, and regarding the change in her life as suspicious because she was young and had a little son, met with her separately. She disclosed the affair to them in order, stating that she was entering the monastery from fear of death and not with a good intention, and added nevertheless that she would leave it whenever she could. But the bishops, then fearing for her death and unwilling to disclose what they had heard from her, one of the bishops—namely, that of Tarazona—in order that he might appear to satisfy the tyranny of that husband, pretended to impose the veil upon the woman. At last, however, when the husband had been removed from their midst, the aforesaid woman, leaving the monastery, took another husband. At the insistence of the sisters, the Bishop of Calahorra bound them with the bond of excommunication and placed all his land under interdict, being wholly ignorant of how the matter had proceeded; our venerable brother the Archbishop of Tarragona afterward confirmed that sentence.

We therefore, trusting in your prudence and probity, have judged that this case should be committed to your experience and terminated with a due conclusion. Accordingly, by apostolic writings we command your discretion, by way of precept, that you absolve the aforesaid woman and man from the bond of excommunication, after receiving an oath that they ought to abide by your mandate; then, summoning both the woman and the prioress and nuns of the aforesaid monastery before you, you are to hear the case most diligently and terminate it with a canonical conclusion. But if it is lawfully proved that the aforesaid woman did not enter religious life through fear of death, or that she afterward ratified what she had done, you are to compel her by ecclesiastical censure to return to the monastery and resume the habit which she laid aside. [Given at Benevento.]

Latin source headnote: One who renounces his benefice through fear of losing his patrimony can reclaim it.

The same to the Bishop of Worcester.

The Abbot of Saint Edmund, from whom R., the bearer of the present letters, is known to hold his patrimony, sent his knights and burgesses to his house, as we have received, so that they should expel him from his house and all his possession unless he utterly abjured his church. When the same R., compelled in this way, had done so, the abbot granted the aforesaid church to another. Therefore, because things done through fear and force ought by law to be revoked as void, we command your fraternity by apostolic writings that you restore all things with their integrity to the aforesaid R., [if it is established to be so].

Latin source headnote: One who, from terror of laymen, renounces an election made of himself can be placed over the governance to which he had been elected, if the renunciation was not confirmed by oath or pledged faith.

Clement III.

It has reached our ears, as you have reported, that a certain man elected as pleban of a certain church which pertains to your disposition renounced, from terror of the laymen, the election which had been unanimously celebrated concerning him by the clerics, with one exception; but the one who dissented emitted a declaration of appeal to the Apostolic See before the election. You therefore wished to consult whether a renunciation made from terror of laymen prevents the person who had previously been elected from being assumed to the governance of the aforesaid church, and whether the appeal of the one who swore that he would not elect and appealed lest others elect has force. Let it therefore become known to your discretion through the present letters that a renunciation made from terror of laymen, unless perhaps it was confirmed by an oath or by pledged faith, does not prevent the one who renounced the church from being placed over that same church to whose governance he had previously been elected. Nor, because of the contradiction or appeal of one who publicly confessed that he swore he would not elect, is the election canonically celebrated by the others to be annulled. [Concerning this, etc. (cf. c. 12, On Election, I.6).]

Latin source headnote: One who, through fear which could have befallen a steadfast man, swore to renounce his benefice and renounced it can reclaim it.

Innocent III to the Dean and Subdeacon of Lincoln.

It has reached our hearing, as our beloved son the Master of Chevell. has reported, that, when he had canonically obtained the church of Chevell. by authority of the Apostolic See and had possessed it peacefully for some time, at last, compelled by the gravest fear of the king to swear that he would resign it, he resigned it into the hands of those to whom this pertained. But because things done by reason of force or fear ought to lack the strength of firmness, we command your discretion by apostolic writings that, if it is established to you that the same master was compelled to make the resignation by such fear as could and ought to befall a steadfast man, notwithstanding the aforesaid oath, by which he was bound only to resign and not to refrain from reclaiming, you are to cause the aforesaid church to be restored to him by ecclesiastical censure, the obstacle of any appeal being removed. [Let no letters, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the Nones of February, 1200.]

Latin source headnote: A person absolutely compelled to communicate with an excommunicated person is not excommunicated; it is otherwise if the compulsion was conditional.

The same to the Archbishop of Vidron.

By the sacred canons (And below:) We distinguish whether one who communicates with excommunicated persons against his will is constrained by compulsion or induced by fear. In the first case, indeed, we do not believe such a person to be held by excommunication, since he is proved to suffer rather than to act. But in the second case, although fear diminishes the fault, nevertheless, because it does not wholly exclude it—since no one ought to incur mortal sin for any fear—we believe such a person to be stained with the taint of excommunication. [Although, etc. (cf. c. 38, On the Sentence of Excommunication, V.39).]

Latin source headnote: Relief is not given to one who suffered fear if it was not such as could have befallen a steadfast man.

The same to the Bishops of Marseille and Agde.

Textual note: The Latin Library transcription's cum venerabili fratri has been corrected to the grammatically required cum venerabili fratre.

When our beloved son [the Abbot of Floreia had recently come into our presence, he carefully explained to us—and the letters of the Abbot of the Islands and certain others contained the same thing—that Cistercian brothers had once dwelt in the Islands of Hyères; but, after they had been led into captivity by pagans, since the place was near the sea, certain canons regular transferred themselves there. Although they had now worn the habit of canons regular for thirty years, they nevertheless performed works contrary to regular life; but, returning to themselves by the Lord's inspiration, they wished the monastic order to be planted there according to the institutions of the Cistercians. The diocesan bishop also desired this. Hence, at the insistence of that abbot, we gave a mandate to our venerable brother the Archbishop of Arles that, if the desires of the diocesan bishop and those brothers agreed upon this same thing, he should establish Cistercian monks on the aforesaid island, doing concerning the canons what he believed expedient according to canonical propriety.

Having obtained these letters, therefore, that Abbot of Floreia, returning to his own region, before delivering them to the said archbishop, went with our venerable brother the Bishop of Toulon to the aforesaid place, and they obtained the assent and favour of all the brothers dwelling there to such a degree that the Abbot of the Islands delivered the keys of the house and himself into the hands of the other abbot, making profession, together with certain of the canons, that the Cistercian order would thereafter be observed. Certain of the canons also confirmed this in the hands of that Abbot of Floreia by an oath given, giving him a kiss that they would remain in that order to the end; others promised by sworn security that they would not thereafter, by themselves or by others, act against what had been done; the rest swore that, concerning provision for them, they would abide by the decision of the aforesaid bishop and of the nobleman G. de Fossa, the sacristan, who was absent, his assent having been proved by witnesses. He later confessed this upon returning.

Thereafter that bishop and the Abbot of Floreia informed the said Archbishop of Arles by their letters that the diocesan bishop and the aforesaid canons unanimously desired the transfer of Cistercian brothers there. Accepting this, the aforesaid archbishop confirmed what they had done by the apostolic authority which he exercised, committing his functions to them in this matter so that, in his place, they might bring to completion what they had well begun concerning establishment of the Cistercian order there. Obeying his mandates humbly and devoutly, they took care to bring the things enjoined upon them to completion, giving a mandate to the general chapter of the Cistercians that it should take care to establish its order in the aforesaid place. It was therefore sought on behalf of the already-mentioned Abbot of Floreia that the transfer made be held ratified by us and confirmed by authority of the Apostolic See, and also that all transgressors and opponents who, contrary to the vows and oaths given, were striving to impede what had been done by those persons be struck with a canonical penalty.

But F. the sacristan, P. Warardi, and P. Guil. represented the course of the business differently before our venerable brother P., Bishop of Porto, whom we gave as auditor to them and to the other party. For when the case had been delegated by us to the aforesaid Archbishop of Arles under the form which we have set forth above, the aforesaid abbot, coming to the place with the Bishop of Toulon before presenting our letters to the archbishop—who, according to their tenor, ought to have inquired diligently into each particular—on his own initiative occupied the island with an accompanying multitude, steadfastly affirming that the same place had been assigned to him by us purely and simply, whether they wished it or not. And when they felt themselves aggrieved in these matters, with their abbot denying them all aid—who was said to have conceived hatred and ingratitude against certain of the canons (whence, to their loss, he did not fear to place armed men upon the fortification, the ladder being removed from it lest the canons have the means to ascend)—they appealed to the Apostolic See.

But the said abbots, nevertheless not desisting from the violence begun, when they could not corrupt certain of them by a promise of money, wished to compel them by violence to abide by the mandates of the Bishop of Toulon in these matters. And when they could not obtain even the adjournment of fifteen days which certain of them had requested for full deliberation, they were compelled to swear that they would obey the mandate of the said bishop and of G. de Fossa, a layman who had threatened them with a fall from a steep rock, concerning the aforesaid questions. Others promised into the abbot's hand, reserving a year's probation for themselves, that they would observe the Cistercian rule. But certain others neither swore nor wished to make any promise.

Thus, with the truth of these things concealed, the aforesaid bishop and Abbot of Floreia suggested to the said archbishop that the diocesan bishop and all the canons of the place agreed unanimously concerning the establishment of the Cistercians, and his confirmation was obtained in this way. But when, after a few days had elapsed, the aforesaid canons informed the archbishop of all that had been done, sympathizing with them, he revoked what had been done to their prejudice, restoring them to all the things which they had at the time when the letters were obtained; although afterward, passing over the order of law, he sequestered their possession, striking all opponents with the sword of excommunication. And when, with the canons pressing for restitution, he had heard the confessions and attestations of both parties, he judged that the business itself should be remitted to us.

Therefore, when the parties had appeared at the Apostolic See, the often-mentioned despoiled canons accused the Abbot of Floreia in many ways. First, because he had endeavoured to obtain letters from us by suppression of the truth and assertion of falsehood. For it had been suppressed in them that the church of the Islands of Hyères belonged to the Roman Church alone, as its privileges—the transcripts of which the aforesaid archbishop sent to us—clearly indicate. The suggestion of falsehood is perceived from the fact that all the canons, together with the diocesan bishop, desired the transfer of the order, although their opposition clearly proved the matter to be otherwise. Nor was the often-mentioned Bishop of Toulon their diocesan, since they belonged immediately to the Roman Church; hence his assent in this matter was to be regarded as altogether nothing. Second, because through force and fraud he both seduced and compelled them, so that some of them emitted a vow and others gave oaths.]

We therefore, having more fully understood the arguments and allegations of the parties through the already-mentioned Bishop of Porto, who presented them to us in writing, because it was established to us concerning the vow emitted and the oath given by the canons of the Islands that they would observe the rule of the Cistercians or that they would in no way impede the transfer of that church to their order, and since observance of either does not tend toward loss of eternal salvation, unwilling to open a way to perjuries, notwithstanding the violence which was alleged to have been inflicted—since it involved neither fear of death nor torment of the body, and therefore ought not to have befallen steadfast persons—and notwithstanding the fraud by which they alleged that they had been seduced—since such fraud ought to be imputed not so much to circumvention by the aforesaid Cistercians as to their own foolishness—we have judged, with the counsel of our brothers, that silence must by sentence be imposed upon them concerning the restitution sought. [But because, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the fourth day before the Ides of June, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: When violence has been proved through witnesses, the things lost are proved by oath. And, after the judge has first assessed the value of the things lost and the claimant's oath has followed, condemnation is made.

Gregory IX.

Concerning the fact that your adversary complained that he had been despoiled by you through violence, you judge that proceedings were taken unjustly against you, since he proved the individual things which he lost only by his own oath. But after the violence was established through witnesses, and the things lost through his oath, the judge, after making an assessment according to the quality of the persons and the business, could reasonably condemn you in the valuation of the things lost as declared by the adversary's oath.