Title XXXVIII: On the Right of Patronage

Latin source headnote: If through the discord of the patrons a church lacks an administrator, divine services cease in the church, the relics are removed, and the doors are closed, if provision cannot otherwise be made for the church without scandal. This it says together with the following chapter.

From the Council of Milan.

It has been reported to us that churches established on private property are divided among the heirs, and so great a dissension arises through the same division that four parts are made of one altar and each part has its individual priests, which can in no way be conducted without discord and dissension. Hence it has seemed to us that a church ought not be divided among the heirs of the patron. And if they come into contention and dissensions arise among them on account of which a priest cannot canonically perform his office there, if provision cannot be made otherwise, let it be commanded by the bishop of the city that the solemnities of Mass are in no way to be celebrated there until they return to concord and by equal vote and counsel that church canonically has a priest who may be able freely to exercise his ministry.

Latin source headnote: It is summarized in the preceding chapter.

From the Council of Tribur.

Whatever church is held by several coheirs is to be administered on every side with concordant unanimity, lest through any disputes the service of God be diminished and the care of the people be conducted irreligiously. But if it happens that patrons disagree concerning a church, so that they are unwilling for it to be administered under one priest, and on this account quarrels and contentions begin to become frequent both among themselves and among the clerics, because according to the Apostle it does not befit the servants of God to quarrel, the bishop, if he cannot otherwise provide for it, is to remove the relics from there, place them honorably with great care, and close the doors of the same church, sealing them under his seal, so that no one may celebrate the sacred mystery in it before with concordant unanimity they all elect one priest who is suitable to administer the sacred things and usefully to preside over the people of God.

Latin source headnote: If the patrons disagree in presenting, the person presented by the greater part is preferred if he is suitable; and if this cannot be done without scandal, or the patrons do not present within the due time, the bishop will order the church.

From the Lateran Council.

Because in certain places the founders of churches or their heirs abuse the power in which the church has hitherto sustained them, and, although there ought to be one in the church of God who presides, they themselves endeavor to elect several without regard for subjection, and, although one church ought to belong to one rector, through their disagreement they present several: therefore we establish by the present decree that, if perhaps the votes of the founders have divided into several parties, he is to be placed over the church who is supported by greater merits and is elected and approved by the assent of more persons. But if this cannot be done without scandal, let the bishop order the church as he sees that it can best be ordered according to God. And let him also do this same thing if a question concerning the right of patronage has arisen among some persons and it has not been definitively decided within four months to whom it belongs.

Latin source headnote: Lay patrons who institute and remove clerics in churches, even patronal churches, or otherwise administer their goods, are excommunicated. And clerics who receive institution from laymen are deprived of communion.

From the same council.

Furthermore, because the audacity of certain laymen has advanced so far that, the authority of the bishops having been disregarded, they institute clerics in churches and remove them [even] when they wish, and generally distribute the possession and other ecclesiastical goods according to their will, and presume to burden both the churches themselves and their men with tallages and exactions, we decree that those who henceforth presume to do these things are to be struck with anathema. Moreover, a priest or cleric who receives a church through laymen without the authority of his own bishop is to be deprived of communion; and, if he persists, he is to be deposed from ecclesiastical ministry and order. [Indeed, because laymen, etc.]

Latin source headnote: If a lay patron successively presents two persons and the second is instituted by the bishop, the institution is valid. This it says first. A patron cannot confer a patronal church upon a cleric or another church, or donate it to another.

Alexander III, to the Archbishop of York.

Concerning what you consult us—if a suitable cleric presented to a vacant church was not admitted by the diocesan bishop, and afterward another suitable cleric was presented and, having been instituted by the bishop, held corporal possession, whether, when the first cleric seeks the church, the later one ought to be removed or the later one preferred to the first—there is no doubt that in this case the condition of the possessor is better, because, before the presentation is approved by the diocesan bishop, what had been begun by the patron is not ratified. For the rest, we respond to your prudence that, if laymen draw up instruments for clerics or colleges concerning grants or donations in these or similar words, “I have granted or given the church and confirmed it by the present charter,” if the bishop's consent has not acceded, nothing appears to have been done, because that is held as not given which is given by one who by law cannot donate it.

Latin source headnote: One who purchases or buys a right of patronage ought to be despoiled of it. Or thus: One who buys a right of patronage so that he may present a son or nephew, or whomever he wishes, ought to be deprived of it. This it says, and either reading can be sustained.

The same, to the Bishop of Exeter.

Because certain clerics of your jurisdiction, as we have learned, purchase advowsons of churches, or acquire them in whatever way they can, so that afterward their sons or nephews may be presented to the same churches, we, wishing entirely to eradicate so depraved a custom, nevertheless command and enjoin you by authority of the presents that you take care to prohibit this more strictly, despoiling them, appeal having been postponed, of advowsons acquired in this way.

Latin source headnote: A right of patronage contained in some aggregate of temporal things passes with that aggregate, even if the aggregate passes only as to beneficial ownership, unless the right of patronage is specifically excepted. This it says, and it is a notable case and is alleged daily.

The same, to the Bishop of Hereford and the Abbot of Forde.

We learned from the letters of I., Bishop of Salisbury, that, when the parson of the church of Laton had died, G., a knight who held at farm from the monastery of Winton the vill in which the church is situated, presented the cleric G. to the aforesaid bishop for that vacant church. Afterward, the abbess of the aforesaid monastery, coming to the bishop, presented another to him for the above-written church. When he was unwilling to receive the person presented by her, she lodged a grave complaint against the bishop before the Archbishop of Canterbury. The archbishop, because it seemed to him that the knight's act concerning the aforesaid presentation was of no moment, enjoined the aforesaid bishop by virtue of obedience to receive and induct into possession that person whom the abbess had determined to present to him. (And below:) We command that, if it is established for you that the aforesaid vill was granted at farm to the aforesaid knight without the right of patronage having been excepted, or that, before a controversy concerning the right of patronage arose between the abbess and the knight, the aforesaid G. of Leicester had been instituted in the aforesaid church by the bishop upon the knight's presentation, you are to adjudge that church to him, provided he is otherwise suitable, in such a way that, if the abbess prevails against the knight, he ought to answer to her concerning the temporalities.

Latin source headnote: If a layman grants a church to a cleric or religious place without the bishop's consent, notwithstanding such a grant, which is invalid, he will be able to present to that same church when it becomes vacant and to grant it to another church with the bishop's consent. This it says together with the chapters When Laymen and It Was Suggested, below, in the same title.

The same, to the Bishop of Winchester.

We did not consider, [however], that this should be passed over, concerning which we understood you to be doubtful: if some layman, without consulting the bishop, grants a church that is not vacant to some religious house, and afterward, when it becomes vacant, some cleric is instituted there by the diocesan bishop upon the presentation of the same layman, the prior grant cannot and ought not in any way impede the second institution from being held ratified and firm, since that grant can by law be of no moment: both because it was made concerning a thing not vacant, and because a layman without the bishop's authority can give churches to no one, although he has free power to confer the right of patronage upon a religious place. But if, while the church is vacant, he confers the right of patronage upon a religious place, and afterward someone is instituted in that church without the presentation of the brothers of the same place, according to the rigor of law his institution is to be invalidated.

Latin source headnote: Those instituted in patronal churches cannot be changed by new patrons, nor may alternations of churches be made through them.

The same, to the same.

We have heard, through a complaint sent to us by letter from the prior and brothers of Lauth, that R., formerly Earl of Hereford, acknowledged before I., formerly Bishop of Worcester of good memory, the right that the same prior and brothers ought to have in the church of Wic. from the donation of H. de Lacy, founder of their church and father-in-law of R. himself. Hence the bishop afterward invested the aforesaid prior and brothers with it, no one objecting or contradicting, and they thereafter possessed it quietly and peacefully. Then, when a separation had been pronounced by ecclesiastical judgment between the aforesaid earl and C., his wife, in whose patrimony that church is contained, the same C. married W. of Poitiers, who entirely withdrew the fruits of the aforesaid church from the aforesaid prior and brothers and converted them, without episcopal authority, to the uses of R., priest of the same place. And when afterward, W. having been removed from their midst, the aforesaid C. was joined in marriage to a third husband, namely W. de Mediran, the same W., persisting in the same temerity as the other W., began to maintain and foster the aforesaid R. in the aforesaid church against the aforesaid prior, saying that what the above-named Bishop I. [did] concerning the church, which exists under the advowson of his wife, while she was in the power of that man from whom she is known afterward to have been separated, ought to have no firmness, especially since, as he asserts, his wife's patrimony would not have been restored to him in full unless he could fulfill his will concerning that church. Hence, because it seems altogether absurd, and to be entirely eliminated from the church of God, that at each change of patrons according to human circumstance the orderings of churches should be changed, and it was not lawful for any of the successors to revoke what had thus been done by the above-written H., we command your fraternity by apostolic writings, enjoining that you diligently and studiously inquire into the truth of the matter and, if you find it to be as narrated above, restore the aforesaid church to the often-mentioned prior and brothers, every pretext and appeal ceasing, and cause them to possess it in peace. And let [not] alternations of this kind in churches be presumed by advocates or others, but, delay having been removed, strike those who presume them with the bond of excommunication until worthy satisfaction.

Latin source headnote: A patron cannot confer a church upon a cleric, and, if he confers it, notwithstanding this he can present a rector to the church.

The same, to the Archbishop of York.

When laymen, without the bishops' knowledge or consent, grant to clerics churches in which they have the right of patronage and, afterward, moved by repentance, present others to the same churches to the bishops, and those persons are instituted in the same churches by the bishops upon their presentation, the institution of those who are instituted by the bishop's authority ought to stand and be firmly observed, the prior grant, which is null, having been altogether annulled. For it is not lawful for laymen to ordain clerics in churches by their own presumption.

Latin source headnote: Religious cannot vindicate or retain churches granted to them by laymen without the diocesan's consent, unless they have lawfully prescribed or the diocesan afterward consented.

The same, to the Abbots, Priors, and Clerics Constituted throughout the Archbishopric of York.

By pastoral care we are constrained by necessity and provoked by the authority of the office enjoined upon us to labor with vigilant diligence for the condition of churches, and to provide with more attentive solicitude that they not be conferred upon anyone contrary to the order of law. Hence, commanding through apostolic writings, we command your whole body that none of you presume to vindicate for himself any churches from the donation of laymen, or to retain those acquired in this way, unless the authority and consent of the diocesan bishop are present, unless he is fortified by lawful prescription or has perhaps afterward obtained the consent of the diocesan bishop. For since laymen cannot transfer to others anything except the right they possess, we decree that grants of this kind lack force and judge them to be entirely void.

Latin source headnote: If the patrons of a vacant church do not present within the time granted by law, the bishop will order the church.

The same, to the Bishop of Langres.

But if at any time the ordering of some church belongs to your institution and is maliciously prolonged by a controversy among laymen disputing with one another concerning the right of patronage, let it be lawful for you, by our authority, appeal having been removed, to institute a suitable person in that church, in such a way that the same person is to be presented by the one who prevails in the right of patronage.

Latin source headnote: If the right of patronage of a church comes to exempt persons, through this the episcopal right ought not be harmed in anything.

The same, to the Hospitallers.

Since you have left the world, so that you may be able to please our Creator in the citadel of contemplation, it befits you to abstain from those things that are contrary to reason, or that are subject to reproach or can blacken your reputation or fame. Hence, through apostolic writings, we more strictly prohibit your whole body, when by reason of fiefs bought or otherwise acquired, or even in some other manner, you acquire the right of patronage in parochial churches, from instituting priests in them except through the bishop, or presuming to diminish or in any way remove the bishop's parochial right. Nor are you to dare, contrary to the authentic writings of the Roman Church, to receive at divine offices in your chapels persons excommunicated by that bishop or by your archdeacons.

Latin source headnote: Without the patron's consent no one can occupy a church.

The same.

We learned from the intimation of our beloved son O., a cleric, that, when his brother had liberally conferred upon him the right of patronage that he held in certain churches constituted in the bishoprics of Lincoln and Salisbury, certain priests and others, by occasion of the aforesaid brother of O., occupied those churches by violence without his will and assent, and unjustly keep them occupied. Therefore, because it belongs to us to recall to the path of rectitude those things that are attempted less orderly by some subjects, commanding your fraternity through apostolic writings, we command that, after diligently investigating and learning the truth of the matter, if it is so as has been said, warning having been premised, you are to compel the aforesaid priests who detain those churches to restore them to the aforesaid cleric, to be ordered freely and peacefully through him. But if the aforesaid priests should perhaps be unwilling to acquiesce in your admonition, every pretext and appeal ceasing, you are to subject them to excommunication and their lands, if they have any, to interdict, and cause divine offices to cease in the aforesaid churches as long as they remain occupied by any persons under the authority of the aforesaid knights. But if the detainers of the same churches still do not recover their senses, appeal ceasing, strike them with ecclesiastical censure.

Latin source headnote: A patron cannot retain a church for himself or even grant it to another by his own authority.

The same, to the Bishop of Adonensis.

Your fraternity consulted us as to what you should do concerning clerics who vindicate for themselves by hereditary right churches constructed by their parents and are unwilling to answer to you concerning them, and concerning laymen who endeavor to give the aforesaid churches to their sons or nephews. But since the sanctuary of God cannot be held by hereditary right, and it is entirely unworthy and absurd for anyone to occupy a church by his own authority or to detain churches thus occupied, it is not fitting in any way to tolerate that in your bishopric clerics detain by their own authority churches founded by their parents, or that laymen grant those same churches to sons or any others.

Latin source headnote: A right of patronage cannot be sold by itself.

The same.

But concerning the right of patronage in the aforesaid chapel, we command your discretion that, if R. Brito purchased it, since it is incongruous and entirely dishonorable for a right of patronage, which is annexed to a spiritual thing, to be sold, you are to decree that contract void, the remedy of appeal having been removed, and, supported by apostolic authority, you are not to defer revoking it.

Latin source headnote: A patron cannot confer upon even a religious place the tithes of a church or another spiritual thing without the consent of the bishop or Pope.

The same.

Let no layman confer tithes, a church, or anything of ecclesiastical right upon monasteries or canons without the grant of his pontiff. And if any bishop is unwilling to consent because of wickedness or avarice, let it be announced to the Roman Pontiff, and then let what is to be offered be offered with his license.

Latin source headnote: If a bishop is patron in a church of another diocese, the person presented by him ought to be admitted if he is suitable.

The same.

You signified (And below:) Moreover, if bishops, after their promotion, have obtained from the patrons of churches the presentations of persons to those churches for churches committed to them, suitable persons whom they present to them when vacant are to be admitted.

Latin source headnote: One instituted upon the presentation of a person who then possessed the right of patronage of a church ought not be removed, although that right is afterward evicted from him; it is otherwise if he did not possess it but was only believed to be the patron.

The same, to the Abbot of Saint Albert.

To the consultations (And below: [cf. c. 10, On the Office of a Delegated Judge, I. 29.]) For the rest, if any cleric was instituted by the ordinary judge in some church upon the presentation of one who was believed to be patron of that church, and afterward another person evicts the right of patronage in a judgment, the cleric who was instituted ought not for this reason to be removed from that church if, at the time of his presentation, the one who presented him possessed the right of patronage of the church, since from this no prejudice is generated in the future against the one who ought to have it by right. But if at that time he did not possess the right of patronage, but was only believed to be the patron, when [nevertheless] he was not and did not have possession of the patronage, he will be able to be removed from the same church according to English custom. But donations, etc. (cf. c. 4, On Donations, III. 24.)

Latin source headnote: A second grant of a church made to another church by the bishop and patron is valid notwithstanding a prior grant made by the patron alone.

The same, to the Archbishop of York.

It was suggested to our ears that, when certain churches, with the assent of the lord of the soil and by authority of the Archbishop of York, had been granted and assigned as a prebend to the church of blessed P. of York, the canons of Newburgh endeavor to weaken and invalidate that grant by occasion of a donation that they assert was made to them previously. Hence, although the consent of the patrons is to be sought and awaited in donations of churches, nevertheless, because the churches themselves cannot be canonically granted unless pontifical authority intervenes, we signify to your whole body that the prior grant, if made with the patron's assent and by authority of the diocesan bishop, or if his assent afterward followed, is preferred to the later grant; otherwise, although it was made later, that grant ought to be preferred which is supported by the consent of the lord of the soil and the bishop's authority.

Latin source headnote: One who, after being warned, does not relinquish a church granted to him without the bishop's consent is removed from office and benefice. This it says. — (To this, etc.:) Laymen despoiling a church are excommunicated. This it says.

The same, to the Archbishops and Bishops Constituted throughout England.

It has been reported to us that certain persons, drawn by excessive ambition, by occasion of lay recognition or secular power in the secular forum, without seeking the bishop's hearing, presume to vindicate for themselves in your parishes the patronage of churches and ecclesiastical benefices. Therefore, since persons of this kind do not enter through the door but climb up by another way, and for this reason are unworthy to rejoice in the name or prerogative of a pastor, commanding your fraternity through apostolic writings, we command that, if those who are established to have obtained the patronage of churches or ecclesiastical benefices in the aforesaid manner do not resign the aforesaid things after being admonished, unless they are fortified by prescription or an episcopal grant, you are to render them, the evasion of appeal having been removed, strangers to office and benefice; and, if they do not desist even thus, bind them with the bond of anathema and hold and cause them to be held bound until worthy satisfaction.

To this, because certain laymen despoil churches of lands and other possessions so that they may thus cause ecclesiastical men to litigate before a secular judge, we enjoin you by authority of the presents to take care to prohibit this publicly under threat of anathema. But if anyone is a contemner of your prohibition, if it is manifest, appeal ceasing, subject him to excommunication, and until worthy satisfaction cause him attentively to be avoided as an excommunicated person.

Latin source headnote: If a question of the right of patronage is not terminated within six months from the time of vacancy, the bishop can freely institute a rector there without presentation. This it says. But understand this of ecclesiastical patrons, for in the case of laymen four months suffice.

The same.

It befits you (And below: [cf. c. 4, On Age and Quality, I. 14.]) But as for those churches concerning whose patronage there is a controversy, if the controversy has not been terminated within six months after they become vacant, let it be lawful for you to order them with a suitable person, the obstacle of appeal having been removed. To these things, etc. (cf. c. 27, On Appeals, II. 28.)

Latin source headnote: A patron cannot alienate a right of patronage by his own authority, nor exact anything temporal from the church unless at the time of foundation it was reserved to him by the diocesan.

Lucius III.

Furthermore, because advocates of churches are known to have burst forth into such insolence that they institute and remove priests and other ecclesiastical men in those churches according to the judgment of their own will, and presume to transfer the right of advowson to others under title of donation or purchase and by other contracts even according to their own will, extorting fodrum, lodging dues, regal dues, and similar things from the same churches as though from their own peasants, and reducing to nothing according to their own judgment what the ministers of the churches do without consulting them, we establish by the present decree that they—whether they are called advocates, patrons, vice-lords, custodians, or those having guardianships, or are designated by whatever other name—are to cease from burdens upon churches and exact nothing in them beyond the ancient and moderate revenues instituted by the bishops of the places; otherwise, if they exact anything else, they are to be subjected to excommunication. We also annul by the present constitution contracts of this kind that they have made or will make in the future, and decree that they have no force. Moreover, lest the authority of the present decrees be eluded through the obstacle of appeal either in those things that have been said concerning heretics or in the coercion of advocates that we have described, we deny every remedy of appeal in the aforesaid chapters, intending to furnish no hearing at all to any persons appealing against these things.

Latin source headnote: When several persons are successively presented by a lay patron, a choice is given to the bishop; but among those presented by an ecclesiastical person, the person presented first is preferred. This it says specifically, and it is one of the more principal chapters of the title.

The same, to the Bishop of Norwich.

But when an advocate has presented one suitable cleric to the bishop and afterward, that person not having been rejected, has petitioned that another equally suitable cleric be admitted to the same church, which of them is to be preferred to the other we believe should be left to the bishop's judgment, if the one to whom the right of presenting belongs is a layman. But if a college or ecclesiastical person held the presentation, he who is earlier in time appears to be stronger in right.

Latin source headnote: From the construction of a church made with the bishop's consent, a right of patronage is acquired. This first. A patron does not elect a prelate in a conventual church, but he does so in a chapel. This second. The honor of procession is owed to the patron, and he is supported by the church if he inclines toward poverty. This third. And this text is one of the more principal ones.

Clement III.

It was for us (And below: [cf. c. 27, On Simony, V. 3.]) Furthermore, you asked us whether someone becomes patron by the construction of a church alone, or whether he is to be admitted with the clerics to the election of a pleban, or altogether repelled from it, even if he has alleged that by long custom he ought to participate in the election. To your inquiry we give this response: if anyone has constructed a church with the assent of the diocesan bishop, he thereby acquires the right of patronage. But in a conventual church the patron's assent is more properly requested not for an election of a prelate to be made, but for one already made, unless the patron otherwise obtains from his jurisdiction that he ought to interpose his part in the election to be considered. It is otherwise, however, in a chapel, in which one priest to be instituted is sometimes elected by the patron and presented to the bishop of the place in order to obtain institution. For the foundation of a church, the honor of procession is also reserved to the founder; and if he inclines toward poverty, he is modestly aided by the church, as is established in the sacred canons. [As to the last, etc. (cf. c. 27, On Simony, V. 3.) Given at the Lateran, on the eighth day before the Ides of May.]

Latin source headnote: The patron of a vacant church, although he is a cleric, cannot present himself to it.

Innocent III, to the Archbishop of Rouen.

You petitioned to be instructed through our letters whether some cleric can present himself, if he is suitable, to a vacant church in which he holds the right of patronage. Therefore, since no one ought to intrude himself into offices of ecclesiastical prelacy, we respond to your inquiry in this way: no one can present himself to the parsonship of any church, however suitable he may be and by whatever learning and merits he may be aided. [Given at Rome, on the third day before the Ides of June, in the first year of our pontificate. 1198.]

Latin source headnote: If a question concerning the right of patronage among patrons is not definitively decided within four months, the bishop will order the church without prejudice to them.

The same, to the Bishop of Coventry.

Since prejudice ought not be generated against churches through the disagreements of laymen, we consider it grave and unworthy that, as has been reported to our apostolate, by occasion of the disagreement that is litigated among them concerning the right of patronage, churches remain widowed of rectors longer than is due, which is known to redound to their grave detriment. But because, according to the Apostle, our daily burden is continual solicitude for all the churches, wishing by the debt of the pontifical office to confront those things we have premised, we command your fraternity through apostolic writings that, if a question concerning the right of patronage has arisen among some persons and it has not been definitively decided within four months by the one to whom it belongs, from then onward, appeal having been removed, you are not to defer ordering that church with a suitable person, in such a way that no prejudice ought thereby to be generated in the future against the one who prevails in the right of patronage. [Given at the Lateran, on the third day before the Ides of January. 1199.]

Latin source headnote: A legate a latere can reserve to his own collation a church of which another church is patron, although it is not vacant, and confer it when it becomes vacant. This first. From two persons presented by a lay patron, the superior can institute the second. This second. And thus, as to its meaning, this text contains two different statements, although as to the letter both are intermingled.

The same, to the Archdeacon and Chancellor of Auxerre.

When our beloved son Master Walter de Picerei on his own behalf, and Master Hugh de Feverniaco on behalf of the Dean of Alveoli, were litigating with one another concerning the church of Beauville, we granted to both as auditor our beloved son G., cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in Portico. In his presence the same master, by proposing, showed that, when formerly our venerable brother the Bishop of Ostia, then legate of the Apostolic See in the regions of Gaul, had marked William de Montibus with the clerical character, he commanded our beloved son the Archdeacon of Chartres to reserve for his donation the first church that happened to become vacant in his archdeaconry, prohibiting him from conferring it upon anyone, since he had resolved to provide for the cleric G. from it; and when the church of Berovilla became vacant there, the same archdeacon, contrary to the mandate of that legate, presented the subdeacon G. to it. After his act was quashed by the same legate, the legate granted the church thus vacant to the aforesaid G., [as is contained in his authentic instrument. To this afterward both our venerable brother ...., the bishop, and the said Archdeacon of Chartres, who was patron of the church, furnished assent, as their letters testify; and thus the aforesaid William held the church itself for almost four years and more, and was in no way drawn into a suit by the dean, who equally knew and saw this.]

But when a certain prebend became vacant in the church of Saint Martin in the diocese of Chartres, the bishop took care to assign the said church to the cleric H. upon the archdeacon's presentation, and the prebend to the aforesaid G. Hence H. himself petitioned [humbly] that the same church be confirmed to him, as one which he said he had obtained canonically [without contradiction] and also upon the presentation of the archdeacon, the true patron, [and that perpetual silence concerning it be imposed upon his adversary. The proctor of the said dean, denying this, added that when, at the death of C., formerly Dean of Alveoli, the churches of Franconville and Beauville became vacant, ...., Archdeacon of Chartres, to whom their donation belonged, granted the church of Beauville to his brother G. and, by mandate of the diocesan bishop, corporally invested him with it, as is contained in the letters both of the bishop and also of the archdeacon. But after these things William de Montibus presented to the same archdeacon the letters of the aforesaid legate, in which it was contained that the same legate had retained for himself the donation of one church, whichever should first happen to become vacant in the archdeaconry of Chartres; and through this the same William petitioned that he either confer upon him the other of those churches or reserve it for the donation of the legate. He responded that he could fulfill neither, because he had already assigned both to others. But William himself, approaching the same legate a second time and falsely suggesting that the church of Beauville was vacant, obtained from him that he granted the said church to him in fact and commanded that he be instituted in it. Learning this, the same G., lest anyone disturb him in his possession, appealed to the Apostolic See and, coming personally to the Apostolic See, obtained that the cause itself be delegated to judges. When he afterward returned to his own region, the aforesaid William, distrusting his own justice, renounced in the hand of the said Bishop of Chartres whatever right, if any, he had obtained through the same legate in the aforesaid church. This having been done, the above-named archdeacon presented Master G. de Picerel to the same bishop and caused him, to the prejudice of the aforesaid absent G., to be invested with the aforesaid church. Learning this, the same G., in defense of his right, subjected both himself and that church to the protection of the Apostolic See and, not permitting himself to be cast from possession, appealed to our hearing, adding that all things were to remain in that condition in which they then were. And especially for this reason—namely, because the said archdeacon, by mandate of the Archbishop of Chartres, wished to induct the aforesaid master into corporal possession of the aforesaid church—he appealed to the hearing of the metropolitan; but the same archdeacon nevertheless, after an appeal of this kind, attempted to induct the master himself into possession of that church. Hence, when at the complaint of G. himself our venerable brother ...., Archbishop of Sens, ...., Subdean, and ...., Cantor of Chartres, had committed the same cause, the aforesaid master, cited by them and constituted in their presence, was unwilling to respond; but, immediately interposing an appeal to the Apostolic See, he withdrew from them contumaciously. Nevertheless, proceeding further, they received lawful witnesses against him, through whom it was shown clearly that, after the appeal interposed to the court of Sens, the same master was inducted into corporal possession of that church, as was read in the letters of the same judges. And thus the often-mentioned master, after his custodian had been driven from that church, was reasonably despoiled of it; the church was at length committed to the care of another who, not by authority of the said master but in the name of the aforesaid dean, celebrated in it and received its revenues. Hence, because the same G. said that he had obtained that church in this way, he petitioned that writings be sent to judges who would protect him from the undue molestation of the aforesaid master. But to the contrary the said master replied against him, saying that it was altogether false that the dean had been invested with that church upon the presentation of the true patron and by mandate of the bishop, especially since the bishop confessed in his letters that the same dean had been invested neither with the cure of that church nor with the church itself. Moreover, concerning what the opposing party said—that the aforesaid William, fearing the dean's return, had renounced his right in the hand of the Bishop of Chartres—the same master asserted that it was altogether a lie, since after his return he had possessed that church for three years and more without suit, while the dean himself saw and knew it. But the master himself was unwilling to deny this: namely, that his adversary had appealed to the court of Sens, while the master himself appealed to the Apostolic See and prohibited the dean from presuming to molest him concerning his right. Yet the dean, nevertheless approaching the aforesaid metropolitan, caused the master to be cited. Appearing before him on the appointed day, the master was unwilling to join issue but, renewing his appeal, withdrew. Yet the archbishop nevertheless, as the adversary also confessed, delegated the cause to judges after the appeal. Hence the same master said that, both through his own allegations and also through those things the opposing party had proposed, it was established that he himself had been despoiled after the appeal to the Apostolic See was interposed. Moreover, to what the adversary proposed—that after the dean's appeal to the Archbishop of Sens was interposed the same master had been inducted into possession of that church—the same master said that, if the dean had appealed lest the archdeacon fulfill the execution committed to him, an appeal of this kind was null, since appeal was not to be made from an executor where he was not attempting to exceed the limits of the mandate. He added furthermore that, since the same dean had no right in the church, it was not his concern to appeal; but if he had in any way been able to appeal, because the same master destroyed the appeal that he had interposed to the metropolitan by objecting that an appeal to the Apostolic See had been interposed, he ought not to have been despoiled in the meantime.]

To the contrary the dean's proctor responded that, although the said legate commanded that the first church to become vacant in the archdeaconry of Chartres be reserved for his own donation, nevertheless he could not by law do this concerning the aforesaid church, because such power did not belong to him, since presentation of a cleric to that church belonged to the same archdeacon not as a cleric but as though to a layman by reason of patronage, not by right of the archdeaconry. Hence, since the same archdeacon was in no way bound to observe his prohibition in this, he [indeed] could by law present another to the same church, and his presentation, because it was made concerning a suitable person, ought to be judged firm, [because, even if it were true—which is nevertheless altogether false—that the right of presenting a cleric to that church belonged to the aforesaid archdeacon by reason not of the archidiaconal office but of temporal lordship, and that the legate's prohibition had no force in this respect, since he could not prohibit it to a lay patron, nevertheless for another reason he asserted that the archdeacon's presentation made concerning the aforesaid dean was void and empty: because, when he presented him, the archdeacon had already long before been suspended by our beloved son P., cardinal priest of the title of Saint Marcellus, then cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in Via Lata and legate of the Apostolic See; and that suspension lasted until after the return of the aforesaid Bishop of Ostia, through whose intervention the same archdeacon, constituted in our presence, merited to be absolved from the bond of suspension, as is proved through the letters of the same bishop. But the dean's proctor rejoined to the contrary that, although the archdeacon was held by the bond of suspension, nevertheless, as to a layman, the donation of that church could belong to him by right of patronage, of which he could not be deprived by any reason either through the legate's prohibition or through his suspension, especially since only the archidiaconal office had been interdicted to him.]

We therefore, after those and other things that were proposed before the same auditor and faithfully reported to us through him had been more diligently understood, considering that, even if the aforesaid archdeacon had presented the aforesaid G. to that church as a layman, nevertheless, because the dean himself was not admitted by the diocesan bishop, but the said H., [afterward] presented by the same archdeacon, was instituted by the diocesan bishop, according to the statute of Pope Alexander of good memory, our predecessor, not the first but the second obtained right in the aforesaid church; and even if the aforesaid archdeacon presented the aforesaid G. as a cleric, since in what he did as a cleric he was subject to the legate's jurisdiction, whence, after the same legate had decreed that the donation of that church be reserved for himself, he could not present anyone to it as a cleric, we decree that his presentation made less canonically was void. And, notwithstanding it entirely, we pronounced that the grant of the same church made to the above-named H. had been canonical, nevertheless quashing what was attempted through the delegates of the aforesaid Archbishop of Sens after an appeal was lawfully interposed to us, and adjudging to the same master the aforesaid church, together with the fruits received from it in the meantime, to be possessed fully and peacefully, imposing perpetual silence upon the aforesaid G. concerning this. [Wherefore, to your discretion, etc. Given at Rome, on the ninth day before the Kalends of April, in the ninth year. 1206.]

Latin source headnote: If a lay patron successively presents two persons, the institution of the second is valid notwithstanding an appeal first made by the first; nevertheless, a bishop who maliciously rejected the first is compelled to provide for him in a suitable benefice. And in the final point it is a singular case.

The same, to the Bishop of Ely.

Of the pastoral office (And below: [cf. c. 28, On the Office of a Delegated Judge, I. 29.]) But since it often happens that lay patrons of churches present now one person, now another, to vacant churches, solicitously you petitioned to be instructed through the Apostolic See whether a cleric presented by a lay patron to some church, if the diocesan bishop has not considered that he should be admitted, obtains any right in it from a presentation of this kind; and, if perhaps he has appealed to the Apostolic See, and after the appeal interposed by him the same patron takes care to present another, and the bishop institutes the second person presented, whether the same person ought deservedly to be removed from that church. We therefore, adhering to the footsteps of Pope Alexander of good memory, our predecessor, out of reverence for him, who, distinguishing between persons presented by clerical and lay patrons, judged the condition of the possessor better among those presented by a layman, say that the institution of the person presented in the second place by a lay patron obtains the force of firmness. Nevertheless, we establish that a bishop who maliciously refused to admit a suitable person presented is to be compelled to provide for him in a suitable benefice, so that he may be punished in that respect in which there is no doubt that he offended against him. [You asked, etc. (cf. c. 19, On Privileges, V. 33.) Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of January. 1204.]

Latin source headnote: If someone has been ordained at the presentation of the rector to the title of a church, the patron who did not consent will be able to present to that church when it becomes vacant.

The same, to the Bishop of Orense.

You petitioned to be instructed through the Apostolic See whether, when rectors of parochial churches sometimes present certain persons to be ordained to the titles of their churches, the election of such persons belongs to the rectors themselves or also to the patrons; and, if the patrons' assent is not to be sought in these matters, whether their right of electing remains safe, so that, when those churches happen to become vacant, persons titled in this manner are not to be preferred to others. To this we respond briefly to your fraternity that through intitulation of this kind no prejudice is generated against patrons that would prevent them from presenting others to those churches when they become vacant, unless it proceeded from the patrons' assent. [Given at the Lateran, on the second day before the Ides of February, in the eleventh year of our pontificate. 1209.]

Latin source headnote: Even a patron who is a cleric cannot confer a vacant church, and, if he conferred it, he can nevertheless present to it.

Gregory IX, to the Archbishop of York.

Your letters transmitted to us contained that, when the chapter of York had granted the vacant church of Gameforde, in which they hold the right of patronage, to the cleric R., they afterward presented the cleric L. to you for the same church after an appeal interposed by that R. to the Apostolic See. (And below:) We respond to your consultation in this way: since by force of the right of patronage not collation but presentation belongs to the patron, you will be able to institute in that church the person presented, provided no canonical impediment stands against him, as being the stronger.