Title I: On Accusations, Inquisitions, and Denunciations

Latin source headnote: In judicial proceedings inquiry must first be made concerning the person of the accuser.

Pope Felix.

If the accuser shall not have been lawful, let the accused not be wearied, [because priests ought to be free for sacrificing, etc.]

Latin source headnote: He who did not first give warning is repelled from denunciation.

The same, to the Bishops established throughout Gaul.

If any bishop shall have been accused by those accusers who are to be received, after he himself shall have been charitably admonished by them to amend that very cause, and shall have been unwilling to correct it, not formerly, but now, let his causes be canonically referred to the highest primates, [who in a suitable place within that province, etc.]

Latin source headnote: An accusation against a prelate ought to be handled before those whose interest is involved.

Gregory, to the Duke of Campania.

That conduct of prelates (And below:) But if there is anyone from the monastery of the aforesaid abbot who can say anything that pertains to his fault and guilt, we [wish this not to be neglected, but rather, indeed, together] with those whose interest is involved, we wish the cause to be [altogether] strictly [and solicitously] investigated, so that he may either be condemned or absolved. [But if no one can be found, etc.]

Latin source headnote: One who is accused or denounced concerning some crime cannot meanwhile be promoted.

The same, to the Empress Constantia.

Almighty God: (And below:) [But his other perverse deeds, namely bodily evils, which I have learned—either that he was elected by means of money, or that, while excommunicated, he presumed to celebrate mass—I cannot, for God's sake, pass over without inquiry. But I desire and beseech the Lord that nothing may be found in him concerning those things that have been said, and that his cause may be concluded without peril to my soul. Nevertheless, before these things are ascertained, the most serene lord commanded by a directive sent forth that I receive him when he comes with honor. And] It is very grievous that a man concerning whom so many and such things are reported should be honored, when they ought first to be investigated and examined. [And if the causes of bishops, etc.]

Latin source headnote: A bishop cannot repel from accusing him, by an exception of crime, one whom he previously neglected to separate from his familiar company.

Pope Paschal.

Let it be lawful for none of the bishops to repel from accusing him those whom, before he knew that he was to be assailed by them, he neglected to separate from his common familiar company.

Latin source headnote: One acquitted of a certain crime cannot be accused again of the same crime.

From the Council of Mainz.

Concerning those crimes of which the accused has been acquitted, the accusation cannot be repeated.

Latin source headnote: Those dwelling with the enemies of the accused are repelled from accusation.

Pope Stephen.

Let those dwelling with enemies [also] be repelled from accusation, [and all laymen,] because the affection of friendship is accustomed to incite the vexations of calumny. [Nor are those persons to be received in your accusation, etc.]

Latin source headnote: It prescribes the penance of a calumnious accuser when death or disablement of a limb follows therefrom.

From the Brocardic Book XLIV.

You accused someone, and through your accusation he was killed: unless you did this for the sake of peace, you are to do penance for forty days on bread and water, which is called a carina, together with the seven following years. But if through your delation he was disabled, you ought to do penance through three Lents [on the lawful ferial days].

Latin source headnote: A judge proceeds upon a notorious matter when no one is accusing.

Augustine, on Genesis, concerning the death of Abel.

The evidentness of a perpetrated crime does not require the outcry of an accuser.

Latin source headnote: Laymen or enemies cannot accuse clerics.

Alexander III, to the Bishop-elect of Gaeta.

When P. Manconella, priest, on the one side, and Bonus, priest, and I. Bonus Cocti, his lay brother, on the other, were constituted in our presence, we did not consider that the same I., because he was a layman, ought to be admitted to the accusation of the aforesaid P. And when the aforesaid B. more steadfastly accused the same P. concerning the crime of simony, we repelled him from the accusation, both because he had been brought forward as a witness in that cause, and because the aforesaid I., his brother, had previously accused P. himself before you, especially since P.'s brother had earlier accused the aforesaid B. concerning a similar cause. Therefore, because one after the other was accusing the aforesaid P. with insistent alternation, we admitted neither to his accusation, but considered that purgation concerning the crimes charged ought to be imposed upon both priests. And therefore by apostolic writings, commanding your discretion, we command that each of them cause himself to be purged with three priests. The compurgators, etc. (cf. c. 7, On Canonical Purgation V. 34.)

Latin source headnote: A monk can accuse an abbot, and he will have the necessary expenses of the suit from the goods of the monastery.

The same, to the Bishop of Worcester.

On your part a question of this sort was proposed to us: whether monks ought in any way to be admitted to an accusation of their abbots. Concerning this, indeed, we respond to your prudence thus: monks, unless another manifest and reasonable cause impedes, are by no means to be repelled from accusing him on the ground that they are known to be under the obedience and subjection of the abbot, although they cannot accuse others. And since they have nothing of their own, the necessary expenses ought to be supplied to them from the goods of the monastery until the cause receives its due end. [Concerning confirmations, etc. (cf. c. 2, On Confirmation II. 30.)]

Latin source headnote: A drunken priest who celebrates mass without digestion having first taken place ought to be deprived of his church. This is what it says, in a manner suitable for all who are going to read it.

The same.

If it shall be established that the often-mentioned D. was not granted the aforesaid church perpetually, but was committed to him for a time, and concerning his drunkenness, and that he passed the night in a tavern in such a way that on the next day, no sleep having first taken place, he sang mass: (And below:) But also if he shall have been reasonably convicted of this in judgment before his bishop or archbishop, or, whether accused or called to account, shall have confessed without coercion before several persons, you shall, notwithstanding any appeal, impose perpetual silence upon him concerning the same church, compelling him to desist from assailing B. But if the same church was canonically granted and delivered to the same D., and afterward he was not convicted of any crime for which by law he ought to be despoiled, or if, after an appeal, as he once alleged, he was despoiled of that church, you shall cause it to be restored to him and permit him to remain in peace.

Latin source headnote: An enemy is repelled even from a voluntary exception.

The same.

We remember that already some time ago we commanded you, by way of command, to take care to impart the gift of blessing to our beloved daughter C., abbess of the monastery of Saint Zacharias, whose election we confirmed. But because H. on behalf of the other party approached our presence and appealed from you thereupon to our hearing, proposing that he was accusing her of simony, you therefore deferred carrying our mandate into effect. But because it is not fitting for you in this matter to defer to the appeal of the same H., since it is not lawful for laymen to bear testimony against clerics or monks, and since the same H. was her manifest enemy and bore testimony against her: we, if we remember well, commanded that the same abbess be blessed, and still, appeal having been removed, by apostolic writings we command that, when you have been requested thereupon, you do not delay imparting the gift of blessing to the aforesaid abbess, opposition and appeal ceasing.

Latin source headnote: One saying before a judge that he will accuse someone can, before inscription, desist without penalty and not accuse; but perpetual silence is imposed upon him when he desists. And according to this summary this text is noteworthy. Abbas.

Innocent III, to the Archbishop of Besançon.

Although in blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, the faculty of binding and loosing has been attributed to us by the Lord, which we ought freely to exercise over subjects according to the demand of their merits, nevertheless, following the example of him who saves all and wills no one to perish, we apply ourselves more willingly to loosing than to binding, although there are some faults in which it is a fault to relax vengeance. Indeed, when formerly it had reached the hearing of the Apostolic See from the letters of B., dean of Saint Stephen, and T., I., and M., canons of the church of Besançon, that you had committed various crimes, and you had been denounced by them through the same letters concerning perjury, the crime of simony, and incest, Pope Clement, of happy memory, our predecessor, preserving judicial gravity, assigned to you a definite term at which you should present yourself before the apostolic countenance to respond to the charges. But when you, according to the tenor of the citation made to you, had approached the Apostolic See, with you and the beloved sons I. and O., archdeacons, being constituted before the Apostolic See, we waited for some time to see whether perhaps any persons would proceed against you and, by making inscription, would propound what they had intimated concerning you in their letters. But when no one appeared who would thus assail you concerning the aforesaid matters, lest we should seem to omit anything among the contingencies, we diligently asked I. and O., archdeacons, constituted in our and our brothers' presence, whether they wished to propound anything against you concerning the aforesaid matters for themselves or for others, and whether they would lawfully demonstrate what they had written. They answered that they had written these things not with the purpose of accusing; but because you seemed incorrigible in certain things, they had considered that certain matters concerning you ought to be intimated to the Apostolic See; but the messenger who had approached to obtain the letters had exceeded the form of his mandate. We therefore, desiring to consult your reputation, considered that silence concerning the aforesaid matters ought to be imposed upon the said canons against you, so that henceforth it may not be lawful for them to accuse you concerning these things or even to defame you, following the example of him who, when he had said to the woman, “Woman, has no one condemned you?” and she said, “No one, Lord,” said, “Neither shall I condemn you; go, now sin no more.” But because the aforesaid canons wished to desist short of the bond of inscription, we did not consider that, by permission of law, this ought to be imputed to them. But lest we seem to proceed less canonically in your absolution, although we delight more in the fragrance of the good reputation of our fellow bishops than in their infamy, we considered that the inquiry into your reputation ought to be committed to our venerable brother the Bishop of Chalon and to our beloved son the Abbot of La Ferté. [Given at Rome, etc., on the fourth day before the Ides of June, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: A proctor is not admitted to prosecute a criminal accusation, although he could allege a cause of absence or other exceptions not touching the crime proposed; and one who swore to stand by someone's mandate is not admitted to accuse him if, by force of the oath, it was enjoined upon him that he not accuse. This is what it says, and it is customarily alleged for this proposition, and in this it is very widely known.

The same, to the Archbishop of Salzburg.

The beloved son A., canon of Prague, coming [formerly] to the Apostolic See, proposed before us against our venerable brother the Bishop of Prague, among other things, that, although he was the son of a priest, he had been intruded into the church of Prague, and, contrary to the privilege of the same church, granted to it by imperial liberality and confirmed by the Apostolic See, had rendered homage to the beloved son and nobleman, the Duke of Bohemia, and had received the regalia from him, thereby subjecting the church of Prague to servitude. [He also proposed that he manifestly had a wife, by whom he begot sons; that he fabricated a forged seal; that he was a drunkard, fornicator, and public entertainer, so that on one occasion, together with two jesters, in a contest undertaken against three other entertainers, he was grievously wounded in the nose and almost mutilated in it, as is apparent today, and it is believed that one of the other three jesters against whom he was contending, who died there, was killed by him. To this the same A. added that, after the treasure of the church of Prague, to the amount of a thousand marks, had been badly dissipated by him, he did not fear to confer upon the counsellors of that duke as many as fifty villages and more, to the grave detriment of the church of Prague, and he gave to the duke himself a certain notable castle which had been bestowed upon the same church out of regard for piety by O., formerly Duke of Bohemia.] Wherefore we remember that we cited the aforesaid bishop peremptorily for the feast of the Lord's Resurrection then most recently past. But the same bishop, for his excuse, alleged by messengers and letters the hazards of the roads, the imminent consecration of chrism, and the fact that the son of the nobleman, the prince of Bohemia, was at that time to be baptized by him. Although, judging excuses of this sort frivolous, as they were, we reputed him contumacious, and we could not receive his proctors in a criminal cause, nevertheless we granted to them our beloved sons G., cardinal deacon of Saint Angelo, and H., cardinal deacon of Saint Eustace, as auditors, so that, if they could, they might excuse him in some measure. And when the aforesaid A. repeated the charges before them, to him it was answered on the opposite side that, when letters had formerly been obtained concerning this matter for our venerable brother the Archbishop of Magdeburg, the same A., who alone was proceeding against the bishop, seeing himself fail in the proof of the charges, having put off his clothes and with bare feet, humbly prostrated himself at his feet, sought pardon, and confessed that he had proceeded calumniously against him. But since he had sworn concerning this matter to stand by the mandate of the same archbishop, the latter commanded him under the obligation of the oath taken that he should not thereafter dare to propound such things against the same bishop. Therefore, since it was established to us from A.'s own confession that he had taken an oath of this sort and had received such a mandate, we considered that silence ought to be imposed upon him concerning his assault upon the said bishop, nevertheless imposing upon the same bishop, on account of his contumacy, a citation and, on account of the infamy, purgation.

Latin source headnote: A denouncer of a crime does not make inscription, because he tends toward correction; but an accuser makes inscription, because he tends toward punishment; one excepting, however, makes inscription for an extraordinary penalty if through the exception someone is cast down from what he has obtained, but otherwise it is otherwise. This first. Secondly, it says that, while a crime is examined by way of exception, a proctor can intervene.

The same, to the Prior of Saint Fridianus and Master B., Canon of Pisa.

Concerning those matters about which you wished to consult us, we respond briefly to your inquiry that a crime can be opposed in three ways: by denouncing, excepting, and accusing. When a crime is opposed by way of denunciation, inscription is not necessary; but when it is objected by way of accusation, it is necessary to make inscription, since accusation is instituted for deposition, but denunciation is to be made for correction. But when a crime has been objected by way of exception, a distinction must be made as to why and when it is opposed. If it is objected so that someone may be repelled from accusation or testimony, it is not necessary to make inscription. But when it is opposed so that someone may be excluded from promotion to an office or benefice, if it is objected before confirmation, no one is compelled to make inscription, because a crime proved in this manner impedes the person to be promoted, but does not cast down one already promoted. But after confirmation, namely when someone is to be ordained or even consecrated, because it both repels from obtaining and casts down from what has been obtained, the exceptor, if he fails in proving, is to be bound to an extraordinary indeed penalty according to the judgment of a discreet judge, yet short of the bond of inscription, because, when the crime has thus been proved, he loses what had been acquired for him through election and confirmation; but on this account he does not lose what he had previously. For although the matter concerns a crime, nevertheless a question of this kind is not criminal; whence it can rightly be handled through a proctor. For this, etc. (cf. c. 8, On Penalties V. 37.) [Given at the Lateran on the third day before the Ides of February, in the fifth year of our pontificate, 1203.]

Latin source headnote: General inquisitors, if they have not observed the due order of inquisition, ought prudently and cautiously to correct themselves. This first. Secondly, it sets out the form of oath that inquisitors exact from those under inquiry.

The same, to the Bishop of Vercelli and the Abbot of Tileto.

How and when a prelate ought to proceed to inquire into and punish the excesses of subjects is gathered clearly from the authorities of the New and Old Testaments, from which the canonical sanctions afterward proceeded on this matter. For it is read in the Gospel that the steward who had been defamed before his lord as though he had dissipated his goods heard from him: “What is this that I hear of you? Render an account of your stewardship, for now you will no longer be able to be steward.” And in Genesis the Lord says: “I will descend and see whether they have fulfilled in deed the outcry that has come to me.” From these authorities it is manifestly proved that not only when a subject, but also when a prelate, transgresses, if his excess reaches the ears of the superior through outcry and reputation—not indeed from the malevolent and slanderous, but from provident and honorable persons, nor only once, but often, which the outcry indicates and the defamation manifests—the truth ought to be investigated more diligently before the elders of the church, so that, if the quality of the matter demands it, canonical severity may strike the fault of the delinquent; nevertheless, the same person is not to be both actor and judge, but, as though reputation were making delation or outcry were denouncing, he is to discharge the duty of his office. Although this must be diligently observed with subjects, it must nevertheless be observed more diligently with prelates, who are set up as though a mark for the arrow. And because they cannot please everyone, since by reason of their office they are bound not only to reprove but also to rebuke, and even sometimes to suspend, and at times indeed to bind, they frequently incur the hatred of many and suffer snares. And therefore the holy Fathers providently established that an accusation of prelates not be readily admitted, lest, when the columns have been shaken, the building fall, unless diligent caution be applied, through which the door is closed not only to false but also to malicious incrimination. Yet they wished so to provide for prelates lest they be accused unjustly, that they nevertheless took care lest they offend insolently, finding a suitable medicine against each disease, namely that a criminal accusation, which tends toward diminution of status, that is, toward degradation, is by no means to be admitted unless a lawful inquiry precedes. But when anyone shall have been defamed concerning his excesses to such an extent that the outcry has now risen so high that it cannot longer be dissembled without scandal nor tolerated without danger, one should proceed without a scruple of doubt to inquire into and punish his excesses, not from the tinder of hatred but from the affection of charity, so that, if the excess has been grave, even if he is not degraded from order, he is nevertheless removed altogether from administration; which, according to evangelical truth, is for the steward who cannot render a worthy account of his stewardship to be removed from the stewardship. If you have observed the due order of inquisition concerning our venerable brother the Bishop of Novara, we commend your intention and discretion in the Lord. But if on any occasion you omitted it, lest through a slight shortcut one come to grave loss, we still wish that the order itself be observed at an opportune time, lest injuries arise whence laws arise. And therefore we command that, recurring to the judgment of your conscience, if perhaps as men you transgressed against the prescribed order, let it not shame you to correct your error, you who have been appointed to correct the errors of others, because before the strict Judge, in the measure with which you have measured, it will be measured back to you; in such a way, namely, that you find some suitable occasion through which, lest your authority become cheap, you may desist for the present as cautiously and prudently as you can, because one cannot proceed in orderly fashion from things done in disorder. But if you observed the prescribed order, we will and command that, all favor and fear having been put aside, having God alone before your eyes, walking by the royal road, without acceptance of persons, you proceed in this affair according to the form that we considered should be expressed to you in other letters, and that you fear no man against God, but rather fear God above every man. We wish the form of oath that you received from the clergy of Novara concerning the inquiry to be made in this affair to be observed in similar cases, namely that the clerics swear that concerning those things which they know or believe ought to be reformed in their church, both in head and members, excepting occult crimes, they will tell the inquisitors the pure and full truth. (And below:) But the constitutions which we learned that you not so much made as renewed for the correction of excesses and reformation of morals, we approve, wishing that you cause them to be laudably observed by the clerics, commanding the prelates on our behalf, etc. (cf. c. 17, On Judgments II. 1.) [Given on the fourth day before the Kalends of February, 1206.]

Latin source headnote: If the person against whom inquiry is made swore only to answer what was asked, after confession he is heard when wishing to prove excuses that do not destroy the confession but explain it; it is otherwise if he swore to tell the full and pure truth.

The same, to the Archbishop of Arles and the Abbot of Valmagne.

When the beloved sons the Abbot of Cîteaux and P. and R., monks of Fontfroide, legates of the Apostolic See, had approached the church of Agde in order to exercise the office of legation in it, because many adverse things concerning our venerable brother the Bishop of Agde had been intimated to them through frequent outcry, they wished to descend and see whether he had fulfilled the outcry in deed; and therefore they bound both the bishop and the canons by the bond of an oath, that they should tell them the truth concerning the state of the church. [When the same bishop appealed, they reduced their depositions to writing and sent them to our presence, fixing for the bishop a suitable term at which he should present himself before our countenance to receive the apostolic mandate. But the same bishop, approaching our presence, after he heard his own confessions and the depositions of others, strove to excuse himself in many ways, assigning to us his excuses in writing. We therefore, after diligent counsel had been held with our brothers, considered that the aforesaid bishop ought to be suspended from the administration of the church of Agde because we found him culpable in certain matters, and his confessions made a prima facie case against him, rendering him suspect to us by law, since he had not yet proved his excuses, which nevertheless he steadfastly promised that he would prove.] But because it was not established to us under what form the bishop with the canons of Agde took the oath before the said legates—whether, namely, he so swore that he would tell the full and pure truth concerning the state of the church, or so that he would answer truthfully what was asked—we command [by way of command] your discretion by apostolic writings that you command the same legates on our behalf, strictly in virtue of obedience, that they endeavor faithfully to intimate to you under what form he took the oath. And if, according to their response, he swore under the second form, or he himself before you sufficiently proves that he swore under that form, either through the depositions of the witnesses whom he produced while constituted before the Apostolic See, which we send to you enclosed under our seal, or even of others—since those depositions were not published, nor did he himself take care to renounce the production of witnesses—because according to that form he would not be bound by the obligation of the oath except only to answer the matters asked, you shall take care diligently to hear his excuses, which we send to you enclosed under our seal. And if he shall have proved them evidently, since excuses of this sort do not destroy his confessions but explain them, which are such that they can be turned both toward good and toward evil and therefore ought to be judged from the cause, you shall, the obstacle of appeal having been removed, absolve him completely, since, even if he was found culpable in certain matters, nevertheless, having been punished by the labor and shame that he incurred because of this cause, a slight fault of this sort can lightly be pardoned him. But if he shall have been unable sufficiently to prove those excuses concerning dilapidation, shipwreck, and simony, or if he swore under the first form, since according to that form he ought neither to have concealed truth nor mixed in falsehood, you shall, notwithstanding those excuses which he newly proposed before us, since in his confessions he made no mention at all of them—although he steadfastly asserted that he had expounded several of them to the aforesaid legates, which they did not take care to write down, since he could not prove this by himself, as one who alone was examined by them—take care to remove him, the obstacle of any opposition and appeal having been removed, from the administration of the church of Agde, [causing provision to be made for that church, with the counsel of the same legates, concerning a suitable person through canonical election, etc. Given on the eighth day before the Kalends of June, in the eighth year, 1205.]

Latin source headnote: Inquiry is not made into the truth of crimes unless the infamy is first established; and then not enemies or perjurers, but suitable men, are admitted to prosecute the inquisition and to testimony; and, when the crime has not been proved, purgation is imposed upon those defamed.

The same, to the Archbishop of Tarragona, the Abbot of Saint Mary of Poblet, and the Archdeacon of Barcelona.

Since a bishop ought [according to the Apostle to have good testimony both from those who are within and from those who are without, and according to divine law his garment ought to be woven of scarlet twice dyed and twisted linen, if at any time an adverse rumor against some bishop rises to apostolic ears, from the solicitude of the pastoral office we are bound to descend and see whether he has fulfilled the outcry in deed.] Indeed, when the beloved sons G. Grossi and H., canons of Vic, came to the Apostolic See and proposed before us many grave and enormous things against our venerable brother the Bishop of Vic, because we ought not to pass over them under dissimulation, we considered that the inquiry into them ought to be committed to you, brother archbishop and son archdeacon, imitating the footsteps of him who, when he had a steward and that steward had been defamed before him because he had dissipated his goods, settled an account with him. But the said bishop, approaching our presence before your citation reached him, proposed before us that those who had suggested to us those enormous things concerning him, led by the swelling of malice rather than by zeal for justice, had intimated things of this sort to us, since they were his manifest enemies and associated with his foes, and intended to produce their own blood relatives and accomplices to testify against him, who ought not for any reason to be admitted to denounce or testify, as being transgressors of an oath taken and entangled in other crimes. But lest through a slight shortcut one come to grave loss, we command your discretion by apostolic writings that, unless you know that his reputation has been injured concerning the aforesaid matters, you do not proceed suddenly to inquire into them. But if it is necessary to proceed to inquiry, you shall admit neither the aforesaid persons nor others who shall be established to be his enemies either to prosecute the inquiry or to bear testimony against the bishop himself; but through suitable men you shall inquire more diligently into the truth concerning the things that were done, and, if nothing grave shall have been proved against him, you shall impose canonical purgation upon him. [But if anyone, etc. Given at Ferentino on the Kalends of September, in the ninth year, 1206.]

Latin source headnote: A public concubinary, an excommunicate, a conspirator, and one who did not first give warning are repelled from denunciation.

The same.

When the beloved son (And below:) You shall inquire more diligently into the truth concerning the aforesaid matters, and if it shall be established to you that those in whose name excesses of this sort were reported concerning the bishop were at that time public concubinaries, on account of which a sentence of excommunication was promulgated against them, or that the aforesaid bishop had not been first admonished by them concerning the aforesaid excesses, or that they had conspired against him, you shall repel them entirely from that denunciation. Otherwise, you shall hear the things proposed on each side, nevertheless prohibiting the same bishop by our authority from presuming unduly to burden the aforesaid clerics concerning those matters on which an appeal has lawfully been made to our hearing, until the aforesaid cause has been concluded according to the form of our mandate.

Latin source headnote: A crime proved by way of inquisition is not regularly punished by the ordinary penalty; but if it impedes the exercise of order, deposition is made, as in accusation. And if it impedes only retention of a benefice, deprivation of the benefice is made, nor will the judge be able to moderate this penalty. This is what it says as far as § “The third,” according to the true understanding, not well explained by the writers. — (§ 1.) Inquiry ought not to be made concerning the truth of crimes against one who is not defamed, even if an infamous libel has been offered secretly against him; nor concerning the principal matter is credence given to a witness who, having sworn, says that he is an enemy of the person against whom inquiry is made. The same applies if he says this before the oath, unless it is presumed that he said it fraudulently. This is what it says as far as § “You asked.” — (§ 2.) One is not punished for a crime concerning which there is no proof except through reputation and the belief of witnesses, and through the statements of a few one ought not to be reputed defamed before the judge. This is what it says to the end.

The same, to the Bishop of Geneva and N. of Valence.

Desiring to execute without scruple of conscience the business of the inquisition which we committed to you to conclude concerning our venerable brother the bishop and the canons of Valence, you asked to be taught by an apostolic oracle whether the statements and names of those whom it happens are questioned are to be published, as is customary to be done concerning witnesses in public causes; or whether it is sufficient that only their statements be published, their names being withheld, since the same bishop and canons manifestly know who were questioned; and whether exceptions or replications ought to be admitted against the same statements, since they are admitted against the persons making the statements. To this we respond briefly that not only the statements but also the names themselves, so that it may appear what was said by whom, are to be published, and lawful exceptions or replications are to be admitted, lest through suppression of names boldness be afforded for defaming falsely, and through exclusion of exceptions, for deposing falsely. Secondly, you asked what is to be established [by] you if such a crime shall have been proved against anyone through inquisition as would depose one criminally accused and convicted. In this, indeed, we considered it necessary to distinguish whether it is such a crime, namely, as would impede the exercise of an order received or retention of a benefice even after penance had been performed—for example, if he had committed homicide or obtained an order or benefice through the vice of simony. In that case one will have to proceed as in a judgment of accusation; otherwise the discretion of the judge will be able to moderate the penalty according to the merits of the person and the quality of the excess. § 1. The article of the third doubt contained this: whether, when two or more persons under oath affirm that someone committed some crime while they were looking on, concerning which nevertheless he labors under no infamy, you ought to inflict some penalty upon him; and whether at the petition of certain persons secretly delivering to you certain documents containing defamation of the bishop, one should proceed to an inquisition concerning the things contained in the documents themselves; and whether credence ought to be given to the statements of those who, after the oath, having been asked secretly whether they are enemies of those concerning whom inquiry is made, respond that they do not love them, or directly assert themselves to be their enemies, or even publicly confess this before the oath, nevertheless showing no probable causes of enmity. To these matters likewise we respond that no one is to be punished for a crime concerning which he labors under no infamy or no clamorous intimation has preceded, because of statements of this sort; indeed, depositions concerning it ought not to be received against him, since inquisition ought to be made only concerning those things about which some outcries have preceded. Nor, at the petition of those who secretly present a libel of defamation, is one to proceed to make an inquisition concerning the crimes contained therein, nor is credence to be given, against those concerning whom inquiry is made, to the statements of persons who, after the oath or before it, tacitly or expressly, assert that they are their enemies, unless perhaps before the oath they are presumed to do this fraudulently. § 2. You also asked what ought to be established if it should happen that nothing is found through certain knowledge, but only through reputation and the sworn belief of those who were questioned; and whether anyone ought to be reputed defamed concerning a crime as to which two or three or even more persons have said that he was defamed, although nothing adverse concerning him is heard in public. To this our response is that one will not have to proceed to a sentence of deposition solely on account of reputation and the belief of the deponents; but canonical purgation can be imposed upon the person defamed according to the judgment of the one judging, who ought not to repute him defamed because of the statements of a few, when his reputation among good and grave persons has not been injured. [But you finally, etc. Given at the Lateran on the thirteenth day before the Kalends of January, in the fifteenth year of our pontificate, 1212.]

Latin source headnote: If one whose crime is established in judgment seeks restitution because judicial order was not observed, he is not to be heard; rather, the superior ought to deprive him anew as a notorious criminal. This is what it says, and the case is very noteworthy according to this understanding.

The same, to the Bishop and Dean of Senlis.

At the petition of Walter, formerly Abbot of Corbie, correction of that place having some time ago been committed by us to the beloved sons the scholasticus and Masters R. of Courson and P., canons of Noyon, of the same place, they, approaching the same monastery twice, corrected certain things there and established some matters that had to be established, while the malice of certain persons impeded the prosecution of the inquiry by delaying it; and, to repress their contumacy, they intended to invoke the secular arm. But our beloved son G., cardinal deacon of Saint Mary in Portico and at that time legate of the Apostolic See, *coming meanwhile to that monastery, in the presence of the above-*mentioned G. and without his protesting, began diligently to inquire into the state of the aforesaid monastery. And when, after the inquiry had been completed, he summoned him to Paris to propound against that inquiry whatever he reasonably considered ought to be propounded, the same W., approaching his presence, alleged that he was unable to proceed in the correction of the monastery, which had previously been committed to the aforesaid judges by our authority, and, asserting that he held the cardinal himself suspect for just causes, made an appeal to us; the cardinal, after inspecting those things that had been proved against him, removed him, on the counsel of experts, from the government of the abbey, giving the brothers of the same place free faculty to elect another, who concordantly elected as abbot the beloved son John, Abbot of Corbie and then Prior of Argenteuil, a provident and honorable man. [But when the said W. afterward approached the Apostolic See, asserting that he had been removed from the abbey without reasonable cause by the cardinal himself, who had been circumvented by the false suggestions of certain persons, we, wishing with paternal solicitude to provide for the tranquility of the same monastery, commanded our venerable brothers the Archbishop of Reims and the Bishop of Arras that they devote effective zeal and labor toward a settlement between the same W. and the person substituted for him; otherwise, that they inquire more diligently into the truth both through the aforesaid legate and through others, and faithfully intimate it to us by the feast of Saint Remigius next to come, so that, made more certain through their report, we might proceed in the same affair as we should see that it ought more usefully to be done. Since they were unable to make progress concerning the reformation of peace, as we received from their letters, they proceeded to inquire into the truth concerning all the aforesaid matters, receiving witnesses from each party, and transmitted to us under their own seals what they had found both through themselves and through the inquiry of the cardinal. But recently, when the aforesaid W. and I. were constituted in our presence on this account, the same W. sought to have revoked what had been done by the legate after an appeal to us had been interposed, alleging that, since correction of the monastery had been enjoined upon the aforesaid judges and they, after certain things had been corrected and some matters established there, considered that correction of the others ought reasonably to be deferred, the cardinal could not meanwhile by law proceed to the same matter, since a general mandate does not derogate from a special one. To this it was answered on the opposite side that, since the cardinal proceeded to the inquiry in the presence of W. and without his protesting, the same W. seems in this tacitly to have consented that, after the inquiry had been made, the cardinal should correct what he saw ought to be corrected. Against this the same W. proposed in this manner: that, although he did not consider that he ought to protest immediately when the cardinal began to inquire, believing that he did not wish to proceed against him but usefully to ordain something in the church without burden to himself, nevertheless, after, having been summoned by him, he learned that he intended to proceed against him, he declined his examination by appealing to our hearing. The adverse party proposed in addition that, since the aforesaid judges had omitted to proceed in the correction of the monastery and delay drew danger with it, the cardinal himself, to whom its care pertained by reason of the office of legation enjoined upon him, was able to interpose his own efforts for the reformation of that place. For since, according to the authority of the civil law, even in those cases in which solemn judicial order is observed, the prosecution of a criminal cause is not to be extended beyond two years from the joinder of issue; and since we also are known, when consulted as to how long a delegate from us who had rendered a sentence can interpose his jurisdiction so that the sentence be obeyed, to have responded that he can exercise the jurisdiction committed to him for executing the sentence for as much as one complete year; with the said judges delaying to proceed in the correction, since seventeen months had already elapsed from when they are known to have received the apostolic mandate, the cardinal was not undeservedly able to insist upon the aforesaid correction concerning crimes, although the matter was not being pursued criminally. But to this the other party responded that this would have the color of an excuse if the aforesaid judges, having been admonished by the legate, had neglected to proceed to correction. In that case their defect could perhaps have been supplied by the diligence of the legate, just as it is read in the canons concerning a metropolitan that only then can he do those things that pertain to suffragans when the suffragans neglect to fulfill them.] These things, therefore, and the others that each party took care to propose having been heard, [after both inquiries—namely that of the cardinal and that of the aforesaid archbishop and bishop—had been diligently inspected, we understood from the depositions of sworn persons that, although at the time of W.'s promotion the monastery was burdened by a debt of eight thousand pounds, and not much later the same debt had been reduced to two thousand pounds, it had now nevertheless increased to the sum of six thousand pounds; although, as had happened earlier, the debt ought rather to have been diminished than increased from the revenues of the monastery, unless the negligence of the rector had stood in the way. And although the same W. proposed for his excuse that the debt had been increased on account of expenses made in the cause that he had against the monastery of Cluny, in which he recovered a certain priory, it was nevertheless answered to him on the opposite side that the debt ought not meanwhile to have been increased on account of those expenses, since on this account he had obligated certain possessions of the same priory, especially since scarcely a thousand pounds had been expended in the prosecution of the same affair. The said W. also added that the aforesaid debt increased by occasion of a certain house that he had newly constructed in the town of Corbie. To this the adverse party responded that he could have made expenses of this sort from the revenues of the monastery without the burden of debts, especially since on this account no small assistance had been furnished to him by the burgesses. Moreover, since it was established from his own confession that in chapter he had taken an oath not to contract new debt, and afterward he contracted debt, acting contrary to his own oath, as the witnesses depose, he seemed to be accused of perjury. To this the same W. responded in this way: that, although he first took an oath of this sort, nevertheless afterward a certain statute was made in chapter through which the oath itself was relaxed. But against this the other party replied that, since it was not established that the oath had been revoked through such a statute, and it appeared that the same W. not only took an oath not to contract debt but afterward acted against it, it was manifestly clear that he had incurred the guilt of perjury. Moreover, his insufficiency and dissolute negligence seemed manifestly to be proved. And although some of the witnesses said that, so far as lay in them, he was good, none nevertheless expressly deposed that his provision was useful to the often-mentioned monastery.] Therefore, since sufficient proof in such an affair was made to us concerning such matters on account of which the aforesaid G. deservedly had to be removed, even if he ought to be restored because judicial order had not been observed, nevertheless, on account of the aforesaid causes, we provided that he remain deprived of the government of the abbey, removing by sentence the aforesaid prior, whom, because the aforesaid G. had been removed in a certain manner irregularly on account of legal order not having been observed, we understood for the same cause to have been, by consequence, less lawfully substituted. Because we removed him not on account of a vice of the person or a defect of knowledge, but on account of the solemnity of law that had been omitted, as was said before, we afterward restored him as abbot, [and to the aforesaid W., etc. Given at the Lateran on the seventh day before the Kalends of March, in the thirteenth year of our pontificate, 1210.]

Latin source headnote: An exception of crime does not obstruct one proceeding by a possessory action to acquire a benefice, unless he is defamed concerning it; and upon one defamed, when the accuser does not prove or does not appear, purgation is imposed, in which, if he fails, he is punished as one convicted.

The same.

G., nephew of the late H., our subdeacon, approaching our presence, showed us by his complaint that, when the same H. had entered upon the way of all flesh at the Apostolic See, we considered that the prebend which he had held while living in the church of Cremona ought to be conferred upon him, enjoining upon our venerable brother H., the bishop, and the beloved sons, the chapter of Cremona, that they receive him as a brother and assign to him without any difficulty both a stall in choir and a place in chapter, and the same prebend; to you also, son archdeacon, and to the beloved sons, the provost of Saint Agatha, we commanded that, if the bishop and canons did not fulfill the apostolic mandate, you should take care to execute it, the obstacle of appeal having been removed, restraining opponents by ecclesiastical censure, appeal having been removed. And when you and the same provost, as we received from your letters, had admonished the bishop and canons of Cremona to execute the apostolic mandate, they asserted that our letters had been obtained through suppression of the truth, since, while the aforesaid subdeacon was still alive, they had received the son of a certain noble citizen of Cremona as a canon and had promised him the next vacancy. They also added that before receiving our letters they had sent their messenger to the Apostolic See, and therefore, lest you proceed further, they appealed to our hearing. The young man also, to whom the same prebend had been granted by the bishop and canons, considered that complaint ought to be made to our hearing. Hence you did not proceed further, but intimated to us by your letters the things that had been done. The aforesaid G. therefore sought that, because the canons had acted contrary to the Lateran Council, we not allow the effect of our grant to be impeded, but cause him peacefully to possess the prebend itself. Even if it had been granted to the aforesaid young man, nevertheless our grant, which had preceded it, ought to prevail. But the [beloved] son Bonus Ioannes, messenger of the aforesaid canons and bishop, proposed that, before the apostolic mandate had issued to them, they had granted the prebend itself to the aforesaid young man, and added that the said G. labored under public infamy concerning homicide and perjury. Hence he was not only not to be admitted to the church of Cremona, but rather was to be cast out even if he had been admitted. The bishop also intimated to us by his letters that, when he had received apostolic letters for the same G., he counselled him that, if he could do so with his conscience safe, he should purge himself at least of perjury and homicide, unless a lawful accuser appeared against him; but he himself was unwilling either to perform or to offer purgation. We therefore, attending that the son of the aforesaid nobleman, as the letters of the bishop and canons of Cremona and of our executors attested, was admitted contrary to the Lateran Council to the next vacancy, so that afterward they received as not vacant a prebend which, before a certain messenger could reach Cremona concerning the death of the subdeacon, [to] the aforesaid G. we had granted, by apostolic writings we command your discretion that you declare void and empty what was done concerning the aforesaid young man, and, unless the aforesaid G. was publicly defamed concerning the crimes objected against him by way of exception, namely perjury and homicide, you put into execution the grant made to him by us. Thereafter, if a lawful accuser shall appear, you shall hear the things proposed on each side; and, if the aforesaid crimes or any one of them shall have been lawfully proved against him, you shall, appeal having been put aside, impose upon him perpetual silence concerning the same prebend. But if they shall have been unable to prove them, you shall confirm it to him by apostolic authority. If, however, no lawful accuser shall appear against him, and he is known to be bespattered with infamy concerning the aforesaid crimes, you shall impose canonical purgation upon him; in which, if he perhaps fails, you shall impose perpetual silence upon him. But if he shall have performed the purgation, restraining the opponents from molesting him, you shall condemn those who endeavored to impede him in his lawful expenses.

Latin source headnote: A superior will inquire against a subject, especially a prelate, only concerning those matters on which infamy preceded; and then he will summon him and deliver the articles and names to him, and will publish the statements of the witnesses, and will admit his lawful exceptions, and, when a grave crime has been proved, will remove him from administration. But with regular prelates this order is not to be observed to the letter. And although in this summary a small difference may seem to be drawn between prelates and subjects against whom inquiry is made, nevertheless it is to be drawn, as is apparent in the text.

The same, in the General Council.

How and when a prelate ought to proceed to inquire into and punish the excesses of subjects is clearly gathered from the authorities of the Old and New Testaments, from which the canonical sanctions afterward proceeded, as we formerly distinguished openly and now confirm by the approval of the sacred council. For it is read in the Gospel that the steward who had been defamed before his lord as though he had dissipated his goods heard from him: “What is this that I hear of you? Render an account of your stewardship, for now you will no longer be able to be steward.” And in Genesis the Lord says: “I will descend and see whether they have fulfilled in deed the outcry that has come to me.” From these authorities it is manifestly proved that not only when a subject, but also when a prelate, transgresses, if it reaches the ears of the superior through outcry and reputation—not indeed from the malevolent and slanderous, but from provident and honorable persons, nor only once, but often, which the outcry indicates and the defamation manifests—the truth ought to be investigated more diligently before the elders of the church, so that, if the quality of the matter demands it, canonical severity may strike the fault of the delinquent, not as though the same person were accuser and judge, but so that, as reputation denounces or outcry makes delation, he may discharge the duty of his office. Although this must be observed with subjects, it must nevertheless be observed more diligently with prelates, who are set up as though a mark for the arrow. And because they cannot please everyone, since by reason of their office they are bound not only to reprove but also to rebuke, and even sometimes to suspend, and at times indeed to bind, they frequently incur the hatred of many and suffer snares. And therefore the holy Fathers providently established that an accusation of prelates not be readily admitted, lest, when the columns have been shaken, the building fall, unless diligent caution be applied, through which the door is closed not only to false but also to malicious incrimination. Yet they wished so to provide for prelates lest they be accused unjustly, that they nevertheless took care lest they offend insolently, finding a suitable medicine against each disease, namely that a criminal accusation, which tends toward diminution of status, that is, toward degradation, is by no means to be admitted unless lawful inscription precedes. But when anyone shall have been defamed concerning his excesses in such a way that the outcry has now risen which cannot longer be dissembled without scandal or tolerated without danger, one should proceed without a scruple of doubt to inquire into and punish his excesses, not from the tinder of hatred but from the affection of charity, so that, if the excess has been grave, even if he is not degraded from order, he is nevertheless removed altogether from administration; which, according to the evangelical sentence, is for the steward who cannot render a worthy account of his stewardship to be removed from the stewardship. Therefore, the person against whom an inquiry is to be made ought to be present, unless he absent himself through contumacy, and those articles concerning which inquiry is to be made are to be expounded to him, so that he may have the faculty of defending himself. And not only the statements but also the names themselves of the witnesses are to be published to him, so that it may appear what was said and by whom; lawful exceptions and replications are also to be admitted, lest through suppression of names boldness be afforded for defaming falsely, and through exclusion of exceptions, for deposing falsely. A prelate ought therefore to arise for the correction of the excesses of subjects the more diligently, the more damnably he would leave their offenses uncorrected. Against them—so that nothing be said of notorious excesses—although one can proceed in three ways, namely through accusation, denunciation, and inquisition, nevertheless diligent caution is to be applied in all, lest perhaps through a slight shortcut one come to grave loss: just as lawful inscription ought to precede accusation, so charitable admonition is to precede denunciation, and clamorous intimation is to precede inquisition, with this moderation always applied, that the form of the sentence too be dictated according to the form of the judgment. We do not, however, believe that this order is to be observed altogether with regular persons, who, when the cause requires it, can more easily and freely be removed from their administrations.

Latin source headnote: Metropolitans ought each year to hold a provincial council for the correction of excesses and reformation of morals, in which they ought to appoint suitable persons through the individual dioceses, who are solicitously to investigate and report matters requiring correction at the following council. And bishops ought each year to hold episcopal synods and publish what was transacted in the provincial council; those neglecting these things are suspended from the exercise of office. This is what it says.

The same, in the same council.

As is known to have been instituted formerly by the holy Fathers, let metropolitans not omit to celebrate provincial councils each year with their suffragans, in which they are to have, with the fear of God, diligent deliberation concerning correcting excesses and reforming morals, especially in the clergy, rereading the canonical rules, and especially those established in this General Council, so that they cause them to be observed, inflicting the due penalty upon transgressors. But so that this may be fulfilled more effectively, let them appoint through the individual dioceses suitable persons, namely provident and honorable persons, who throughout the entire year are solicitously to investigate simply and summarily, without any jurisdiction, those things that are worthy of correction or reformation, and faithfully report them to the metropolitan and suffragans and to the others at the following council, so that concerning these and other matters, as shall accord with utility and honor, they may proceed with provident deliberation and cause the things they establish to be observed, intending to publish them in episcopal synods to be celebrated annually through the individual dioceses. But whoever shall neglect to fulfill this salutary statute is to be suspended from the exercise of his office [until he is released by the judgment of his superior.]

Latin source headnote: Sentences of excommunication, suspension, or interdict rendered after denunciation by the denounced abbot, or by another on his behalf, against the denouncing monks or those adhering to them are relaxed. Those despoiled are restored, and oaths concerning concealing the truth are relaxed; the statements of witnesses are delivered to the denounced person, and expenses are supplied from the goods of the monastery to the denouncing monks; and on this account they are not exempted from obedience to the abbot, yet without prejudice to the suit.

Gregory IX, to the Archbishop and the Prior of Saint Mary of Rouen.

Formerly I., V., and P. of the Order of Tiron (And below:) Therefore, lest the reformation of the monastery be delayed, we command that, after sentences of excommunication or suspension, if any, which the same abbot rendered or caused to be promulgated through any judges after the affair had been begun against them and those adhering to them, have been relaxed, and after those whom the same abbot unjustly despoiled while the affair was pending have been restored, proceeding in the affair simply and summarily and without the din of judgments—since it is especially not fitting in this case for servants of God to be entangled in such things—you inquire into those things that you see ought to be investigated concerning persons and regular observances, correcting and reforming both in head and in members those things that you know to require the office of correction and reformation, with oaths, if any, that the abbot had extorted concerning concealing the truth having been relaxed; provided that, while the affair itself is pending, the aforesaid monks obey and attend to the same abbot, yet in such a way that through this the prosecution of the affair cannot be impeded. But if witnesses shall have been produced against the same abbot, you shall provide him a copy of their statements. Moreover, you shall cause the expenses made on this account to be supplied to the aforesaid monks, and to three or four from among them, or to others whom you consider ought to be assumed as suitable to prosecute the said affair, from the goods of the same monastery; and the expenses to be made that are necessary for the prosecution of the affair itself, after accounting for any things that they received on this account, are to be supplied from the goods of the monastery, since they have nothing of their own. Opponents, etc.

Latin source headnote: Against a prelate denounced concerning dilapidation a commission is made to inquire into the truth, and while the affair is pending the power of alienating ought to be interdicted to him.

The same, to the Bishop of Cister. and the Abbots of Alde. and Salen.

The excesses of prelates [are to be corrected the more severely, the more persons are corrupted by their example if they remain uncorrected.] Indeed, the beloved sons C. [C., E., H.] and four other canons of Freising showed by denunciation [to Pope H. of good memory, our predecessor,] that [our venerable brother] the Bishop of Freising so gravely dilapidates and consumes the goods of his episcopate—which, as they say, he obtained less than canonically—that, unless a remedy is applied quickly, the same episcopate will through him be brought to the irreparable disgrace of dissolution; and, prodigal not only of property but also of his reputation and salvation, he leads an enormously dissolute life, [so that there is no place for denying his incontinence, since it is proved by the manifest evidence of cohabitation; moreover, having cast aside the modest gravity of a pontiff, in words and deeds he exhibits himself so frivolous and irreprehensible that his life is a snare and scandal to those for whom he ought to be an example of honor. Therefore, because we neither will nor ought to pass over these things under dissimulation, following the form of the letters that the said predecessor provided should be sent concerning this matter,] we command your discretion [by apostolic writings] that, personally approaching the place, you solicitously inquire into the truth and, faithfully committing it to writing, transmit it to us enclosed under your seals, assigning to the same bishop a term at which he is to present himself [personally] before our countenance to receive according to his deserts; meanwhile the power of selling, giving, infeudating, or in any way alienating the goods of the same church being entirely interdicted to the [bishop]. [But if, etc. Given at the Lateran on the fifth day before the Kalends of May, in the first year, 1227.]