Title XXXVII: On the Chapels of Monks and Other Religious

Latin source headnote: Not monks but secular clerics are placed over a cure subject to a monastery, and they are subject to the bishops.

Urban III.

In churches where monks dwell, let the people not be governed through a monk; rather, let a chaplain who is to govern the people be instituted by the bishop with the counsel of the monks, yet in such a way that both his ordination and deposition and the entire conduct of his life depend upon the judgment of the bishop alone.

Latin source headnote: If a non-cathedral church vindicates a right for itself in another church, it will prevail only as to those things that it proves are owed to it by prescription or in another lawful manner. This it says according to the common and true understanding.

Innocent III, to the Archpriest and Clerics of Saint Cecilia.

Your beloved son M., syndic of your church, constituted in our presence, advancing both the possessory and the petitory action, sought from the administrator of San Lorenzo in Piscinula subjection in scrutinies, baptism, processions, chapters, and similar matters. For since the church of San Lorenzo is situated in your parish, by common law, as the same syndic proposed, it ought to be subject to your church in all the aforesaid matters, unless it could defend itself either by special privilege or by lawful prescription, because it has no privilege of exemption, nor could it allege prescription for itself, since that church of Saint Cecilia had prescribed against it, as he said was lawfully proved through witnesses. Furthermore, when formerly a question concerning the aforesaid matters was being litigated between your church and the aforesaid church before Pope C. of good memory, our predecessor, M., priest of the same church, spontaneously confessed that he owed scrutiny and baptism to the church of Saint Cecilia, and thus acknowledged your right as to ownership. And when your party had produced witnesses sufficient and suitable who firmly asserted that they had summoned him to chapter at different times and that he had come, and they were prepared to swear, the aforesaid priest confessed that he had gone to chapter when summoned. Hence our aforesaid predecessor took care to reinvest your church with possession of chapter, of which it had complained that it was despoiled, saving the right of ownership of the church of San Lorenzo, as is contained in his letters. Through this, therefore, your syndic wished to prove both ownership as to scrutiny and baptism and possession as to chapter.

To these things, however, the administrator of San Lorenzo responded to the contrary, asserting that this church pertained immediately to the Roman Church. For since it had been a monastery of nuns, as is taught from many authentic writings, and since it is generally observed in the City that no monastery is subject to a titular church, it seemed incongruous that regulars should be subjected to seculars. Furthermore, even to this day we freely exercise institution and removal in it, since Pope C. of good memory, our predecessor, also established in it without anyone's contradiction our beloved son M., our scribe, as archpriest. Thus the said administrator wished to prove that the church itself was free and existed in possession of liberty. Therefore, since he has common law in his favor in this—that, namely, all the monasteries of the City pertain immediately to the Roman Church—faith is not in any way to be placed in one affirming the contrary unless he introduces a special privilege concerning this. Moreover, the same administrator entirely denied what was said, that it was situated in your parish. But even if this were true, he could nevertheless defend himself sufficiently by the aforesaid reason. The confession of the priest M. concerning scrutiny and baptism could not prejudice the same church, since issue had not been joined concerning these things in the presence of that same predecessor of ours, as is apparent from the form of the petition and conclusion. Nor had your church used this sentence until now, but had caused it to be suppressed up to these times. (And below:) We therefore, after hearing the things proposed, the reasons and allegations, instruments and attestations having been more fully understood, and counsel having been deliberated with our brothers, condemn the administrator of the same church of San Lorenzo to your syndic as to baptism, scrutiny, and processions, yet in such a way that through this no prejudice is generated against the Roman Church if at some time it should decide to prosecute its own right. But in institution, removal, and chapter we absolve the same administrator entirely from the prosecution of your syndic, imposing perpetual silence upon your syndic concerning this.

Latin source headnote: Individual monks cannot dwell alone in monastic priories, even if they have an apostolic rescript concerning this, unless mention of the Lateran Council is made in it.

Honorius III, to the Bishop of Vannes.

It was proposed on your part before us that, when the abbot and convent of Rivensis in the diocese of Vannes formerly complained that you were endeavoring to compel them to establish several monks in certain of their priories in your diocese, in each of which individual monks had hitherto remained, since their means did not suffice for more, we commanded the Abbot of Saint-Aubin of Angers and his colleagues through our letters that, upon inquiring into the means of those places, they were to cause several monks to be established in each of them if their means sufficed for several; otherwise, by our present authority, they were to prohibit you from troubling the aforesaid abbot and convent concerning the establishment of several monks in them. Hence the same Abbot and Convent of Rivensis in the diocese of Vannes assert that, by occasion of the letters of the Apostolic See, it was granted to them that individual monks may dwell in each of the priories of their places if their means do not suffice for several. But since this is contrary to the Lateran Council, of which no mention is made in the aforesaid letters, you petitioned to be instructed by our response whether it had been our intention through such letters to dispense with the aforesaid abbot and convent contrary to that council. We therefore respond briefly to your fraternity that we do not believe letters of this tenor to have emanated from the Apostolic See. But if perhaps they did emanate through preoccupation, we do not will the aforesaid council to be derogated through this.

Latin source headnote: The ordinary compels an abbot either to recall monks from priories to the cloister or to join companions to them.

The same, to the Archbishop of Bordeaux.

It has reached our hearing, as you signified, that certain monks subject to you by diocesan law dwell alone in certain priories contrary to the statute of the general council. Therefore we command your fraternity that, warning having been premised, you are to compel through ecclesiastical censure, appeal having been removed, the abbots or priors of the same monks either to recall them to the cloister, causing service in those churches to be performed through secular clerics, or to associate other monks with them, with whom they may be able to lead the regular life, provided that you do not extend your hand against exempt persons by occasion of a mandate of this kind.