Title III: On Simony, and That Nothing Is to Be Demanded or Promised for Spiritual Things

Latin source headnote: A bishop, or his ministers or notaries, ought to demand nothing temporal for an order conferred by him.

Gregory, presiding over a general synod.

In ordaining a bishop, the pontiff imposes his hand; the minister reads the Gospel lesson; and the notary writes the letter of his confirmation. But just as the bishop ought not to sell the hand that he imposes, so neither ought the minister or notary to sell his own voice or pen in his ordination. We therefore altogether prohibit the person ordained from giving anything for ordination or use of the pallium, or for charters and small loaves. [Concerning the aforesaid things, etc.]

Latin source headnote: One who through money cast someone out of his church and afterward intruded himself is to be deposed.

From the Council of Mainz.

One who through money shall have expelled another priest lawfully ordained in a church, and shall have claimed it for himself in such a manner, is altogether to be deposed.

Latin source headnote: Any Catholic is admitted to accuse concerning the crime of simony.

Pope Deodatus.

If the Lord and master of all, who was without sin, gave one person licence to accuse, how much more is one who is known to be polluted by the stain of Simon to be convicted by the assertion of one person? Therefore, in such a matter no Catholic is to be rejected, but he is to be entreated with great prayers to assert the truth for exposing the rage of simony.

Latin source headnote: A simoniac under accusation is prohibited from the administration of divine things.

The same.

We deemed it necessary to prohibit the accused simoniac most earnestly through our writings from celebrating the solemnities of masses until what he was should be more truly established.

Latin source headnote: It says the same as the preceding chapter, except that the former chapter speaks in accusation and this one in inquisition; as the former speaks of a simoniac in general, this one declares it concerning order.

The same.

Whenever something is said to have been done contrary to ecclesiastical discipline, lest fault from dissimulation reprove us before God, we do not dare to leave it uninquired into. It has therefore reached us that you were ordained through the simoniacal heresy. But many other things were also said here concerning you, among which one was especially important. Therefore we deemed it necessary to prohibit you through our writings from celebrating the solemnities of masses until we should learn more truly what the case is.

Latin source headnote: A simoniac is to be deposed.

Pope Lucius.

For just as the simoniacal pestilence surpasses other diseases by its magnitude, so, without delay, as soon as its signs have become manifest through any person, he ought to be eliminated and repelled from the Church of God. For Peter, the first pastor of the Church, recognizing the inward parts of Simon not by the attestation of any man but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, punished him without any hearing with a terrible and sudden death.

Latin source headnote: A slave, a prostitute, and criminals can accuse a simoniac.

Deodatus.

So great is the stain of this crime that even slaves are admitted to accusation against masters, and any criminals whatever. Likewise, every sinner can sing mass except a simoniac, whom even anyone can accuse so that he may be removed from an order badly received, even a prostitute.

Latin source headnote: It is simoniacal to receive a price for entry into religion, for granting priories or chapels, for instituting prelates, for granting burial, for chrism, for holy oil, for the blessings of those marrying, or for other sacraments; nor does a contrary custom avail. This is what it says together with the following chapter.

Alexander III, in the Council of Tours.

Avarice is not sufficiently usefully reproved by the people if it is not guarded against in every way by those who appear to be constituted in the clergy, and especially those who [having despised the world] profess the name of religious persons [and] the rule. We therefore prohibit that any money be demanded from those who wish to pass into religion. Nor are any priories or chaplaincies of monks or clerics to be sold by annual alienation. Nor is any price to be demanded from the person to whom their government is committed for the commission of them. The authority of the holy Fathers manifestly declares this to be simoniacal. Hence whoever shall presume to attempt anything against this decree, both the person who gave and the person who received or consented, is not to doubt that he will have a portion with Simon. Likewise, let no exaction of any price be attempted for burial or for receiving chrism and oil, nor let anyone defend his guilt under the pretext of any custom, because length of time does not diminish sins but increases them.

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

From the Lateran Council.

Since in the body of the Church all things ought to be handled from charity, and what has been freely received ought freely to be bestowed, it is exceedingly horrible that venality is reported to have a place in certain churches, so that something is demanded for seating bishops or abbots or any ecclesiastical persons in their seat, or for introducing priests into a church, and also for burials and funeral rites of the dead, and the blessings of those marrying, or other sacraments, and the person who needs them cannot receive them unless he takes care to fill the hand of the giver. But many think this to be lawful for them because they believe the law of death has gained force through long custom, not sufficiently attending, because they are blinded by cupidity, that crimes are the graver the longer they have held an unhappy soul bound. Therefore, lest these things be done hereafter, we more strictly prohibit that anything be demanded either for bringing ecclesiastical persons to their seat, instituting priests, burying the dead, blessing those marrying, or conferring or having conferred other sacraments. But if anyone shall presume to act against this, let him know that he will have a portion with Gehazi, whose deed he imitates by the exaction of a base gift. [We prohibit, etc.; cf. c. 7, On Procurations III. 39.]

Latin source headnote: Nothing besides procuration is to be demanded for the consecration of churches.

The same, to the Bishop of Vigilia.

Since the Roman Church, over which, although unworthy, we preside, is the mother and mistress of all churches, we are compelled by the duty of the government received to respond, as the Lord shall grant us, to the consultations of individual persons, so that doubtful questions may be entirely untied by the providence of the Apostolic See. But you asked, brother bishop, that it be written back to your fraternity whether you ought to have anything besides procuration for the consecration of churches. And we respond thus to your consultation: you can and ought to demand nothing besides procuration for the consecration of churches. But you can demand a moderate procuration from the same church, since the Apostle says: “No one is compelled to serve as a soldier at his own expense.”

Latin source headnote: One convicted of simony is to be deposed; the same applies to a defamed person who cannot purge himself.

The same, to the Archbishop of Toledo.

Concerning this, moreover, that the king and his princes are said to have received money from Bernard, formerly Bishop of Osma, so that they would furnish assent to his election, and that the same Bishop of Osma is said to have promised benefices of a fixed revenue to the archdeacon, and a priory to a certain cleric before his election, so that each of them, namely the archdeacon and the cleric, would consent to him, we respond this to your prudence: if it is manifest that the same archdeacon and cleric received what was promised for a cause so iniquitous and detestable, or if they confessed it in court or were lawfully convicted, they are to be perpetually deposed from the ministry of the altar. But if it is manifest, yet they were neither convicted nor confessed concerning it, but labor only under public infamy, canonical purgation ought to be imposed upon them. If they fail in it, they are to be punished as authors of so great a crime. But you ought solicitously to admonish the king and his princes and diligently induce them that, if they received anything from the aforesaid bishop so that they would furnish assent to his election, they restore it without diminution to the church of Osma, since they cannot retain it without grave peril to their salvation.

Latin source headnote: It is simoniacal to promise an ecclesiastical benefice for temporal service.

The same, to the Archbishop of York.

When R., a cleric of Pontefract, and the nobleman V. [W., son of Godric, because of the controversy that was being conducted between them concerning a certain church which the same R. asserted had been given to him by the aforesaid knight,] were constituted in our presence, because the same V. could not delay longer, at his departure he constituted our beloved son Master Milo, your messenger, a sufficient respondent for himself in that cause. And when we understood from the mouth of the aforesaid R. that the aforesaid knight had promised to give him the aforesaid church if he could advance a certain affair of the same knight in our presence, and that through this the promise itself contained simoniacal depravity, we considered that silence concerning the same church ought to be imposed upon R. himself. And therefore by apostolic writings, commanding your fraternity, we command that you in no way permit the aforesaid knight to be burdened by the aforementioned R. or others concerning the aforesaid church by occasion of the aforesaid controversy.

Latin source headnote: A notorious simoniac is deposed from his benefice; the same applies to a defamed person who cannot purge himself.

The same, to the Bishop of Cister.

It has been intimated to our ears that, while the episcopate committed to you was vacant, very many clerics were instituted in churches of your episcopate who are said to have entry through simony and to be bespattered with infamy therefrom. Hence, because it is unworthy that they remain in such a crime or such a base suspicion, by apostolic writings, commanding your fraternity, we command that, if there are any concerning whom it is public and notorious that they entered the aforesaid churches simoniacally, you remove them, appeal ceasing, from the churches acquired in such a manner. But upon those whose crime is not public and notorious, if they labor under public infamy, you shall impose purgation with five or six members of their own order as oath-helpers, within forty days after receipt of these letters; if they fail in it, you shall perpetually deprive them of benefices of churches of this kind, taking more attentive care to receive such persons for their purgation concerning whom it is probable that they ought not to perjure themselves under anyone's influence.

Latin source headnote: It is simoniacal to conceal a sinner for a price or favor, to reconcile one who is not penitent, or to remove from reconciliation one who is worthily penitent.

The same.

Let no priest receive a gift or any temporal advantage—indeed, a spiritual detriment—from anyone publicly sinning or incestuous, in order to conceal his sin from the bishop or his ministers; nor, out of regard for any person, or kinship, or familiarity, sharing in the sins of others, let him refuse to make this known to the bishop. Nor let him bring anyone who is penitent, or less worthily penitent, to reconciliation by grace or favor and bear testimony of reconciliation for him; nor through any malice remove [any other person] worthily penitent from reconciliation, because each is simoniacal.

Latin source headnote: A church cannot be bought or bought back. This is what it says according to the letter.

The same, to the Bishop of Worcester and the Prior of Acre.

We received the complaint of the monks of Acre transmitted to us, that, when they had obtained a certain manor which is called Vella, with its appurtenances, and the church of Genen. from the monks of Cardon under an annual payment of fifteen pounds, and had received a charter concerning it from those monks, a certain prior of theirs, without consulting the chapter, resigned the aforesaid manor and church and charter to the monks of Cardon after receiving money. Hence, because the aforesaid monks of Acre complain that they have been unjustly burdened, and it falls to us to correct anything attempted less than reasonably, we commit the cause itself to your experience, and by authority of the presents we command that, the parties having been summoned before your presence, you hear more diligently the things proposed on each side and conclude the aforesaid cause, the remedy of appeal having been removed, by concord or judgment, knowing that, just as the aforesaid church could not be bought, so neither could it be bought back. But if the monks of Cardon, lawfully cited, disdain to approach your presence and stand in your judgment, you shall introduce the same monks of Acre into possession of those things concerning which the controversy is conducted, opposition and appeal ceasing, and shall not permit them thereafter to be molested without judicial order. But if each of you cannot be present to execute these things, let the other nevertheless execute them.

Latin source headnote: Money ought not to be demanded from churches for chrism, even if custom has this.

The same.

Those things that proceed from the root of avarice and cupidity and burst forth into the appearance of simoniacal depravity are to be completely uprooted, and those things that proceed from thorns and thistles are to be cut away with the sickle of apostolic moderation. But we have heard that you extort coins for chrism from churches with rash audacity, which under different names you now call cathedraticum, sometimes a paschal payment, and at times indeed an episcopal custom. But because this is known to be simoniacal and generates peril to souls, by apostolic writings we command you, and by commanding we enjoin, that from churches, under the pretext of any custom or prelacy, you by no means demand the aforesaid coins hereafter, knowing for certain that, if you presume this with rash audacity, you will not undeservedly be able to fear peril to your order and dignity. Nevertheless also, etc. (cf. c. 12, On Procurations III. 39.)

Latin source headnote: To perform homage for obtaining spiritual things is simoniacal.

The same.

From your diligent report it became known to us that H., Archdeacon of Canterbury, enticed you by many promises, and through the admonition and solicitation of certain great men induced you to perform homage to him and furnish fidelity, in such a way indeed that he would provide you with an ecclesiastical benefice each year. Hence, because an obligation of this sort is sufficiently unlawful and exists contrary to the advancement of your salvation and also his, as your discretion by no means ignores, concerning this you more insistently and supplicantly asked to be absolved by us, adding that henceforth you would receive nothing at all from him from the established benefice. Wherefore we, attending that your petition in this matter is honorable and favorable, absolve you from homage and fidelity to the aforesaid archdeacon, especially since things furnished in this manner are known to be contrary to divine and human laws, by the authority of blessed Peter and also our own, in such a way that you receive worthy penance therefrom from some discreet bishop or priest and endeavor to be reconciled to God according to his counsel. But lest you can be bespattered by any mark or infamy on this account, we have considered that letters of our absolution ought to be granted to you, by which you may exist safe and fortified against the bites of those who bark and which you can display as testimony of our indulgence.

Latin source headnote: An ordination or consecration is not judged simoniacal although something was given to the ordainer without an agreement.

The same, to the Archbishop of Esztergom.

Although we by no means fail to recognize that your questions arise from the fervor of religion and are brought to us from the affection of inward devotion that you have toward us and the Church, nevertheless you must not doubt in these things beyond what is fitting, since human laws say that certain persons, content with slender religious scruple, disdain to furnish even necessary and lawful sacraments, calling that religious scruple slender which hesitates in such things where one ought not to hesitate in any measure. Hence the Psalmist says: “They trembled [with fear] where there was no fear.” Therefore, in this matter—namely that the beloved [son of ours] P., cardinal priest of the title of Saint Lawrence in Damaso, but then cardinal deacon of Saint Eustace and legate of the Apostolic See, approached those parts concerning your election and in order to deliver the pallium to you, and that our beloved son Albanus, your brother, foreknowing his necessity, sent him one horse, with you entirely ignorant, because in coming by sea he brought no mounts or few with him—you ought in no way to fear, since in receiving or giving gifts three things are especially to be attended: namely, the quality of the person giving and the person receiving, the quantity of the gift, and the time of the donation. Let us solicitously consider the quality of the persons, from whom and to whom it was given, namely whether by a poor man to a rich man or conversely, or by a rich man to a wealthy man. Let us more diligently inspect the valuation of the gift and the time of the donation, whether the thing given is of greater or lesser price, and whether it is conferred when necessity is pressing or at another time. When these things have been examined more studiously, we find nothing worthy of reproach in your aforesaid question, as will appear more manifestly to your solicitude in what follows. Therefore, if by right consideration we weigh the person and quality of the aforesaid cardinal and your brother, it was no great thing for one horse to be sent to the cardinal by the same brother of yours, which so great and abundant a man would perhaps give even to a jester who did not ask. But if we consider the necessity of the time, it is established that this was done with no intention other than that the cardinal be aided in the aforesaid circumstance. Wherefore no scruple of doubt ought ever to arise in your conscience concerning this, since the thing given was of small price with respect to the person giving and the person receiving, and neither of them had anything in mind that could or ought to inflict any injury upon you, even in the least; although the horse was sent and bestowed, with necessity pressing, before the examination of the election and reception of the pallium, since it was done against your will and with you entirely ignorant; nor is the thing reputed of such value that it ought greatly to move the mind of the recipient or turn it from a purpose of honor toward something else. But what is written, “Blessed is he who shakes his hands free from every gift,” is said of those gifts that are accustomed to entice or pervert the mind of the recipient, since, even if the person elected himself should offer his ordainer or consecrator an electuary, medicines, or some of the best wine, or other things of this sort that are of small price and ought not to incline or move the will of the recipient, nevertheless the Roman Church is not accustomed to interpret the recipient or giver as offending in these things, [unless these things intervened by agreement, etc.]

Latin source headnote: If an abbot and the senior members of a convent received money by agreement for receiving a monk, they are suspended from office and benefice; money so received is restored, and the person so received is transferred to another monastery.

The same.

F., a priest, coming to us, proposed in a simple report to us that the abbot and brothers of Saint R. were unwilling to receive him as a monk until he agreed to give them thirty solidi for the monastic state. But after the agreement was made, immediately on the following day they clothed him in the monastic habit, and the same monks demanded thirty solidi, the abbot ten, and the household twelve for a meal, asserting this to be from the custom of the monastery. Therefore, because the truth of the matter is not established to us and a deed of this sort seems pernicious, we command your fraternity by apostolic writings that you diligently inquire into the truth of the matter and, if you find it to be so, you insistently admonish the abbot and monks to restore to the aforesaid F. the money so unworthily received, and compel them with all severity; and, suspending the abbot and the senior persons of the monastery from the exercise of office for the excess of so great a depravity, you shall command the said F. to endeavor to serve the Lord in the monastic habit in another monastery.

Latin source headnote: If a person to be ordained gave something by agreement to the person presenting him, it is simoniacal; nevertheless, he is not deposed if it is occult.

The same.

From the letters of your fraternity and from the confession of the priest who bears the presents, we received that, when his archdeacon was unwilling otherwise to present him for the order of priesthood [to be assumed], he paid six solidi to the same archdeacon, and thus, afterward, having been presented by him, he received the order itself. Hence, concerning that on which you sought our counsel, we considered that this response should be made to you: if this is not public but secret, you are secretly to approach the same priest, admonishing him, yet without any coercion, and earnestly inducing him to assume the order of some religious institute and perpetually abstain from the office that he [thus] illicitly acquired. But if perhaps you cannot induce him to assume the order of a religious institute, you are to endeavor to establish some ecclesiastical benefice for his support, on the condition that he ought perpetually to abstain from the priesthood. Otherwise, since his excess is secret, it will not be safe to coerce him unwillingly from the same office. Nevertheless, you shall not postpone imposing secret penance upon him according to what shall seem good to you.

Latin source headnote: It is brief and cannot be summarized more briefly.

The same.

Know that it has reached our hearing—wherefore, if it is true, we greatly marvel and are rightly moved against you—that in the churches constituted in your jurisdiction you by no means permit vicars to minister unless money has been extorted from them, and that you presume each year to burden the persons of churches as though they were servants and tributaries with undue exactions, extorting from them money and procurations, calling them by various names, sometimes the bishop's aid, at times the same bishop's and your customs. If perhaps they oppose rendering these to you, you suspend the same persons and the vicars of the churches from office, and prohibit divine offices from being celebrated in their churches; and, among other things, you presume to extort from them coins for chrism according to your will, to the peril of your salvation, sometimes calling an exaction of this sort, so that you may seem to exact it more freely, an episcopal custom, sometimes synodals, and sometimes paschal coins. (And below:) But because it is not fitting for you to treat clerics so cheaply and dishonorably, we command your discretion by apostolic writings that you by no means demand money from them for exercising ecclesiastical ministry, assigning vicars, or chrism, and that you not presume hereafter to burden them with undue exactions or procurations, or to subject their persons or churches to interdict without manifest reason and a reasonable cause; otherwise, if a repeated complaint concerning this should at any time reach us, we will punish you gravely.

Latin source headnote: Dispensation can be granted to one simoniacally ordained who is not himself a simoniac.

Lucius III.

Concerning persons indeed simoniacally ordained, we cannot give you a certain response according to your petition unless we know more fully how they were ordained, since some persons, although they are ordained simoniacally according to a certain appearance of simony—as, for example, when those ordained are ignorant of it—can nevertheless remain in their orders because they are not simoniacs.

Latin source headnote: If one opposing the person elected ceases from opposition for money delivered with the will of the person elected, the person elected and afterward confirmed is a simoniac and is bound to renounce the benefice.

The same.

Cardinal Matthew showed us by a secret intimation that, when you had been elected to the government of your church by the will of the greater part of the brothers, because, with a few opposing you, you were unable to enjoy due peace, a certain friend of yours, with your knowledge and will, yet disturbed, paid a gift of a certain quantity to the person who seemed to be the master of the discord, and thus the opposition which he had previously maintained became quiet. But now you doubt that you are entirely immune from the stain of simony for as long as you wish to remain in the administration. Therefore, because through the aforesaid cardinal you sought the counsel of the Apostolic See as to what is to be done by you, we respond that you consult your own good greatly if you quickly and spontaneously resign the aforesaid administration, remaining mindful of that evangelical word: “It profits a man nothing if he gains the whole world but suffers detriment to his own soul.”

Latin source headnote: No price ought to be demanded for absolving an excommunicated person.

The same.

Know that it has reached our ears that, when C. of Seneville had been bound by the bond of excommunication because of money that he owed, he satisfied the creditors, but, with the excommunicators seeking ten pounds for absolution, he was unable to obtain the benefit of absolution. Therefore, because it is unworthy and contrary to ecclesiastical reason that the benefit of absolution be bought back, we command your discretion by apostolic writings that, if the aforesaid C. paid the debt for which he had been named in the sentence, you cause him to be absolved freely by apostolic authority, notwithstanding any appeal, if the excommunicators, after being requested, shall not have done it.

Latin source headnote: Monks received through simony, if they are simoniacs, are transferred to stricter monasteries; otherwise, after renunciation, they can be placed in the same monasteries or in other monasteries of the same order.

Clement III.

You wished to consult us concerning regular canons or monks who obtained entry through simony with their own knowledge and contrivance. Hence, since many express authorities are found concerning this, we respond nothing other than what has been established: that they altogether leave the place which they obtained in such a manner and go to solitary places or other stricter monasteries, in which they are to bewail so execrable an excess without interruption. But if the money was given without their knowledge, you shall compel them to renounce the same place, and afterward you can lead them back into it if they can remain there without scandal, or place them in another that is of the same order to serve God.

Latin source headnote: If someone, renouncing a canonry to which he had been admitted simoniacally but in ignorance, is afterward admitted anew to it, he cannot claim anything for himself from the first reception.

The same.

From your intimation it became known to us that your father formerly acquired for you the benefice of a prebend through the intervention of money, and that when afterward, arriving at years of discretion, you received the sign of the Lord's cross, having been led to penance concerning the excess, you freely resigned the said prebend into the hands of the provost and brothers. But the same provost and brothers, taking pity upon you, elected you anew as their canon, in such a way, namely, that through this election you should obtain the last place in choir and in the other places. But because you humbly asked of us whether you could recover your place according to the earlier reception, to you we respond that, remaining content with the indulgence that your brothers are known mercifully to have shown you, you are to dare to claim nothing in that church by reason of the first reception.

Latin source headnote: An election is to be quashed as simoniacal if money was promised to the electors on this account, although the person elected is ignorant, unless this was done in fraud of the person elected. This is what it says first. A bishop does not dispense with a person elected and rejected because of the vice of simony. This is what it says secondly. Abbas.

Celestine III.

It was intimated to us on your part with great diligence that, when four persons had been appointed by the chapter who ought to elect someone as plebanus, the friends of the person concerning whose election there was hope promised one or all of the electors that they would pay money, yet with the person who was afterward elected upon the intervention of a promise of this sort being ignorant of it. (And below:) Therefore, because you wished to consult us concerning this, we respond briefly to your consultation that, unless it perhaps were established that those who made such a promise maliciously did it fraudulently to the detriment of the person who was to be elected, although he himself was not aware of the promise, his election, as presumed through simoniacal depravity, is nevertheless entirely to be rejected. (And below: [cf. c. 25, On the Right of Patronage III. 38.]) Finally, concerning this which we found at the end of your consultation, we considered that this response should be made: someone elected as a plebanus, or priest, or prelate of any church and rejected, as was said, through simoniacal depravity cannot by law obtain any dispensation from his bishop. [Given at the Lateran on the eighth day before the Ides of May.]

Latin source headnote: One who gives money to a prelate so that the latter will not molest him in fact in his right recovers it if the prelate does not observe what was promised. This is what it says by adhering to the letter.

The same, to the Bishop of Lincoln and the Prior of Pontefract.

Our beloved son R., the provost, explained to us that, when the Archdeacon of York did not cease to afflict him with many burdens and various injuries, he promised to give him a certain quantity of money so that he would desist from injuring him; but after receiving the money, the said archdeacon did not leave him in peace, as he promised, and did not cease from molesting him concerning his dignities and benefices. And therefore we command your discretion by apostolic writings that, if the matter stands thus, you compel the archdeacon, by our authority, appeal having been removed, to restore what he received if it shall be established that he acted contrary to his promise, and that you also more strictly prohibit the archdeacon on our behalf from presuming to molest the provost himself or his people while the suit is pending, and, if perhaps he does so, let it be corrected through your solicitude.

Latin source headnote: Nothing ought to be demanded for the blessings of those marrying and the funeral rites of the dead.

Innocent III, to the Abbot of Joug-Dieu and the Prior of Silla.

The parishioners of Villefranche, beloved sons, sent their complaint to us that Damasius, their chaplain, less lawfully demands and extorts money from them for the funeral rites of the dead and the blessings of those marrying. And if perhaps his cupidity has not been satisfied, he fraudulently opposes fictitious impediments to them, lest the bodies of the dead be able to be buried or the blessing of those marrying be celebrated. Therefore, because exactions of this sort oppose the institutions of the sacred canons, we command your discretion by apostolic writings that you admonish the said chaplain to desist from so great a presumption and also make suitable satisfaction for the excess, and more attentively and effectively induce him, inflicting upon him the canonical penalty, appeal having been removed, if he is unwilling to obey your admonitions. [Given, etc., on the second day before the Kalends of June, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: If through accusation it is established that a monk was received simoniacally, the person received and the person receiving are deposed. But if through inquisition, the person received is thrust into a stricter monastery; a worthy penalty is imposed upon the person receiving and the senior persons, and meanwhile they are suspended from the exercise of sacred orders.

The same, to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The beloved son Master A., your messenger, proposed on your behalf that, when, visiting the diocese of Canterbury according to the custom of your predecessors, so that you might correct the things to be corrected and establish the things you should see ought to be established according to God, you found simoniacal depravity to have sprouted in monasteries and regular canonries and religious places, in such a way that many in them were received for a price who ought rather to have been received freely—indeed, even invited to the observance of religion. You therefore doubt whether, because a multitude is found in the cause, something is to be taken away from severity, or whether you ought to exercise the rigor of canonical discipline against such persons. We therefore respond thus to your inquiry: if an accusation shall have been canonically instituted before you against those who have been stained by a taint of this sort, after the crime has been proved by judicial order, you shall exercise the vengeance of canonical severity both against those giving and those receiving. But if it shall have been established to you concerning this through inquisition alone, you shall remove from such places those who were received in them through simoniacal depravity and direct them to stricter monasteries to perform penance. But upon abbots and abbesses, priors, prelates of every kind, and their officials, you shall impose suitable penance, and, until they have performed it, suspend them from the exercise of sacred orders, enjoining upon your bishops that they endeavor to observe this form throughout their dioceses. Nevertheless, that which shall have been freely offered without assessment can be gratefully received.

Latin source headnote: An abbot can except against witnesses who deposed against him concerning simony in a judgment of inquisition on the ground that they are enemies and conspirators; but he cannot oppose other exceptions of crimes.

The same, to the Prior of Saint Victor and Masters I. of Bologna and L. of Modena, Canons.

Although Eli the high priest was good in himself, nevertheless, because he did not effectively rebuke the excesses of his sons, he received the vengeance of divine punishment both in himself and in them when, his sons having been killed in battle, he himself fell from his seat and died with his neck broken. Therefore, a prelate ought 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, so that, just as lawful inscription ought to precede accusation, so charitable correction ought to precede denunciation, and clamorous intimation ought to precede inquisition. “I will descend,” says the Lord, “and see whether they have fulfilled in deed the outcry that has come to me.” For the outcry then reaches the prelate when the excesses of subjects are reported to him through public reputation or frequent intimation; and then he ought to descend and see, that is, send and inquire whether truth accompanies the outcry that has come. For according to the canonical sanctions, if anything concerning any cleric whatever shall reach the ears of the prelate that can justly offend him, he ought not readily to believe it, nor ought the unknown matter inflame him to vengeance; rather, the truth is diligently to be investigated 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 himself were accuser and judge, but so that, as reputation makes delation or outcry denounces, he may discharge the duty of his office, with this moderation always applied, that the form of the sentence too be dictated according to the form of the judgment. Therefore, when those things which were greatly dissonant from regular honor had frequently been intimated to us concerning the Abbot of Pomposa, and when the monks approached our presence, some among them denounced him to us concerning simony, perjury, dilapidation, and insufficiency. When the same abbot excepted against them that fraternal correction according to the evangelical rule had not preceded a denunciation of this sort, and the same monks steadfastly asserted that they had first employed correction of this sort, although the oaths of two monks had been offered to prove this, nevertheless, because they still did not cease to contend concerning it, we, stirred, as we said before, by frequent outcries, wished by virtue of our office to inquire into the aforesaid matters, binding absolutely all the monks who had approached either with him or against the abbot himself by the bond of an oath, so that they would set forth the full truth that they knew concerning the matters proposed. When their depositions, reduced to writing, had been published, they began to dispute concerning them in many ways. But because we learned both from the assertion of the monks and from the confession of the abbot himself that the same abbot had expended entirely no small sum of money left by his predecessor and had obligated the monastery for another, greater sum, we considered that he, as suspect concerning dilapidation according to canonical and lawful sanctions on account of these and other presumptions, ought to be suspended from the administration of the abbey. And because simony seemed to have been proved in many ways against the abbot himself through witnesses, he opposed many exceptions against the witnesses, concerning which there was much dispute on each side: some asserting that in the crime of simony, as [also] in the crime of lèse-majesté, all persons indiscriminately, both infamous and criminal, were to be admitted not only to accuse but also to testify, since an accusation of simony proceeds after the likeness of a public crime and lèse-majesté, with many laws and canons alleged concerning this; others responding to the contrary that, although these two crimes are judged as though equal with respect to accusation, nevertheless they differ in many things, since both one penalty is inflicted for the one and another for the other, and a distinction is assuredly to be made between the persons of accusers and witnesses, since crimes are proved not through accusers but through witnesses, with many reasons and arguments nevertheless brought forward concerning this. But lest either the purity of innocence succumb confounded or simoniacal depravity escape unpunished, we, equity having been weighed, considered that neither all the exceptions opposed against the witnesses were to be admitted, nor were all to be repelled, but we admitted for proof only those opposed exceptions which, perhaps having been proved, would make it appear that the witnesses proceeded not from zeal for justice but from the tinder of malice, namely conspiracies and capital enmities; but the other objections opposed, such as theft and adultery, we considered ought to be repelled because of the enormity of the simoniacal heresy, in comparison with which all crimes are reputed as virtually nothing, because even if they weakened the credibility of the witnesses in some respect, they nevertheless would not destroy it entirely, especially since it happened that other supporting proofs assisted. [Given at the Lateran on the fourth day before the Nones of December, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: This chapter is a gloss upon the preceding chapter. For it tends toward declaring whether and when criminal witnesses are admitted in the crime of simony, and in effect it says the same as the preceding chapter.

The same.

Through your letters you intimated to us that you doubt greatly concerning a certain decretal epistle which you assert was published by us concerning witnesses to be admitted against simoniacal depravity. Know therefore without hesitation that we by no means published that epistle which begins thus, “Although for abolishing,” but we confess that we published another which begins thus, “Although Eli.” For its understanding we believe a distinction must be made whether the person against whom proceedings concerning simoniacal depravity are brought is simply denounced or criminally accused, and whether proceedings are brought according to the rigor of law or according to the moderation of equity. Likewise, whether he is a regular who has already renounced the world or a secular who still exists in the world, and whether he is of an inferior grade or of a more excellent dignity. In addition, whether he was previously of clear reputation and good fame or gravely defamed and very suspect, and whether he can readily be punished or cannot be condemned without scandal. Moreover, whether the witnesses are honorable or criminal, and whether they have already been corrected for the crime or still persevere in the crime. Again, whether the crimes are the same or lesser, equal or greater, and whether the witnesses are believed to have deposed from zeal for justice or from the tinder of malice. Finally, whether the statements of the witnesses alone are brought forward to uncover simoniacal depravity or other supporting proofs also assist. All these things are to be distinguished for understanding that epistle, as the diligent investigator can perceive from the course of the epistle itself. That Abbot of Pomposa, who had long before renounced the world, was gravely defamed concerning simony, perjury, dilapidation, and insufficiency. And when simony seemed to have been proved in many ways [against the abbot himself] through monks who had sworn to bear testimony to the truth, he opposed many exceptions against the witnesses—namely conspiracies and capital enmities, theft, and adultery—in order to remove them from testimony. But we, lest the purity of innocence succumb confounded or simoniacal depravity escape unpunished, admitted for proof only those exceptions through which, perhaps having been proved, it would be established that the witnesses proceeded not [from] zeal for justice but from the tinder of malice, such as conspiracies and capital enmities. But the other exceptions [opposed], such as theft and adultery, we considered ought to be repelled because of the enormity of the simoniacal heresy, in comparison with which the other crimes are reputed as virtually nothing, since, even if proved, they would weaken the credibility of the witnesses in some respect but would not entirely destroy it, with other supporting proofs assisting; especially since the witnesses had [already] been corrected for the crime. Therefore we considered that such persons ought in such a manner to be admitted against such a person, not according to the rigor of law but according to the moderation of equity, since the proceedings were not criminal, so that he would be deposed from order, but civil, so that he would be removed from administration as undeserving and harmful. And assuredly such prelates can be removed from administrations for lighter causes, especially by the Supreme Pontiff, who has the power not only of judging but also of disposing, as the approved custom of certain religious requires. Hence the aforesaid abbot, without awaiting a sentence, yielded for himself as though conscious of guilt.

Latin source headnote: It is not imputed to a confirmed person elected if, while he prohibited it, money was given for his confirmation.

The same, to the Abbot of Gembloux.

As you intimated to us by your letters, when you had been nurtured from tender age in the church of Gembloux and, having become a monk there, in mature age you were at length promoted to the government of the church of Floreffe; but afterward, the Abbot of Gembloux having been removed from their midst, that church which had previously had you as a son called you, unaware and absent, as its father and pastor through canonical election. And because the cathedral church of Liège lacked a pastor, after you had delayed for some days in the church of Gembloux, proceeding to the church of Cologne, which is your metropolis, you meanwhile ministered in the church of Gembloux by its authority. But after a bishop was instituted in the church of Liège, he, having been requested by you, was unwilling to confirm the election made concerning you, alleging nothing other than that you had been translated from a lesser place to a greater. But when you learned that these things were being done to you for the purpose of extorting money, under threat of anathema you prohibited any money from being offered for a deed of this sort. Yet some of the brothers, without consulting you and with you ignorant, acting contrary to the sentence of excommunication made by you, promised money and even paid it, as was afterward reported to you; and thus, having been invited by the bishop, you freely received institution from him, as you sought. Concerning these matters, therefore, your discretion led you to consult us whether, on account of an unknown and prohibited promise, as was said before, the stain of sin is inflicted upon you; or whether, concerning the promise now known to you, you ought to do penance with the brothers who made it, since you were unwilling to adhere to simoniacal depravity, prepared to undergo labor for the flock of the Lord; or whether, although your conscience does not accuse you, you ought to abstain from the government received if we should decree it. Although, according to the institutions of the sacred canons, even little children who obtained churches through money by the cupidity of their parents are bound to resign them, nevertheless, because not to furnish consent and expressly to prohibit something are widely different, we considered that this response should be made: because, contrary to your prohibition and will—from which you afterward by no means departed—someone, with you entirely ignorant, promised and paid money, especially since he is joined to you by no consanguinity, we believe that nothing ought to be imputed to you as penalty or fault, unless perhaps afterward you consented to the promised money being paid or even to the money paid being returned; otherwise it would happen that the deed of someone preparing snares for an enemy would exist to the detriment of the person to whom it was entirely displeasing, and thus someone would report an advantage from his fraud. But it is established that those who gave the money or even received it are culpable to such an extent that, if their excess were manifest to the Church, which does not judge concerning occult things, they would be struck with canonical punishment. [Given at the Lateran on the second day before the Ides of August, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: If a cleric confers his goods upon a church under an agreement that he be received in it as a canon and retain them for himself as a prebend, simony is committed; it is otherwise if this is done without an agreement.

The same, to the Dean of Beauvais.

Your discretion led you to consult us whether, if anyone offers certain things from his goods to some church, seeking that during his life it be lawful for him to hold those same goods in that church as a prebend, the goods ought to be received when offered in this manner, and whether the same cleric can be assumed as a canon of the same church without the vice of simony. We therefore respond thus to your devotion: if any cleric gives or offers his goods with a condition or agreement so that he afterward retains them as a prebend and so that he is admitted as a canon, an offering or reception of this kind cannot occur without the vice of simony, since in such matters every compact or agreement ought to cease according to the canonical sanctions. But if purely and without any agreement or condition he offers some of his goods, humbly asking that he be admitted as a canon and that it be lawful for him to retain his goods as a prebend, and the clerics of the same church consent purely, a reception of this kind without doubt can take place without a scruple of simoniacal depravity. Although we considered that this response should be made because it is given to us to judge concerning manifest things alone, nevertheless, if the person who makes such a donation is led by the intention that through the temporal goods which he offers he may be able to obtain spiritual things, and if the clerics who admit him as a brother would not have admitted him unless they received temporal advantages, without doubt both he and they are judged culpable before the strict Judge, who is the searcher of hearts and knower of secrets. [Given at Rome at Saint Peter's on the third day before the Nones of December, in the tenth year, 1207.]

Latin source headnote: No one ought to receive an order from one whom he believes to be simoniacal; but he can minister in those orders which he previously received from him.

The same, to the Prior of Canterbury.

Through your letters you intimated to us that, when B. had taken the monastic habit in a certain house of the Carthusian order, the term of his probation having been completed, he was ordained subdeacon by the diocesan bishop; but afterward he learned from the report of certain persons that, although the same bishop was otherwise an honorable man, he nevertheless had many times committed the vice of simony. Because of this the same monk, troubled by vehement grief, fears to minister in the order received, being unwilling to be promoted by the same bishop to the higher orders. Wherefore, since it is not lawful for him to leave the hermitage, and the aforesaid bishop does not permit him or anyone else of his diocese to be ordained by another bishop, you asked to be instructed by the Apostolic See what is to be done with the aforesaid monk regarding the order already received and the higher orders to be received. We therefore respond that the same monk may safely minister in the order thus received; but let him not ascend against his conscience to the higher orders, lest perhaps he build unto Gehenna. Although, because he has had an excessively scrupulous conscience, he has fallen into a difficulty of this kind, he will certainly not escape it unless he lays aside his error.

Latin source headnote: Nothing ought to be demanded for chrism or the investiture of churches, nor does custom or a variation of the name excuse it.

The same, to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

To such an extent, at the demand of sins, has simoniacal depravity corrupted the hearts of certain persons, that, to the destruction of canonical sanction and [in], as it were, mockery of divine judgment, panting after shameful gains and saying in their heart, “There is no God,” they cloak simony beneath an honorable name, as though, when the name is changed, the guilt and punishment are transferred. But neither is God mocked, according to the Apostle, nor will such followers of Simon, even if perhaps they elude temporal punishment at present, escape everlasting punishment in the future, since neither will the respectability of the name cloak the malice of the crime, nor will a word be able to abolish the guilt. Indeed, it has reached our hearing that, although formerly certain of your suffragans were accustomed, contrary to the canonical sanctions, to receive a fixed sum of money for chrism, not fearing the canonical penalty and desiring to elude your correction, they anticipate the time for making payment, receiving in the middle of Lent what they were accustomed to receive after Easter; and, so that they may disguise the reason for receiving it, they vary the name of the pennies, now calling the pennies which they first called chrismal and secondly paschal “the custom of mid-Lent.” Certain others, however, vary neither the time of payment nor the name of the things to be paid in any respect, imitating the old custom in all things. But since he who receives the price before he confers the precious thing more expressly exhibits the appearance of a sale than does he who has deferred the time for receiving the recompense by dissembling, and has dissembled by deferring it, although each is dangerous in such matters, and since grace is to be conferred freely, lest it happen that both the reality and the name of grace are forfeited, we command and strictly enjoin your fraternity by apostolic writings that, relying on our authority and your own, you so correct the aforesaid excesses—restraining your suffragans and their officials, after prior instruction, by ecclesiastical censure, with the obstacle of appeal removed, from so unlawful an exaction—that a complaint about this cannot henceforth be brought to us, and the fault of others is not imputed to you as punishment for your negligence. Supported by the same authority, also take care to abolish from your province that depraved custom by which archdeacons demand that a mark of silver be given to them for the investiture of churches, while lesser deans demand a white cow or the payment of a fixed sum of money. [Given at the Lateran on the sixth day before the Kalends of July, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: One ordained subdeacon, who first promised his presenter that he would seek nothing from him, cannot minister in the order received or ascend to higher orders without a dispensation, even if he did not believe that he was sinning.

The same.

Through your letters you intimated to us that, when D., the bearer of the present letters, wished to be ordained subdeacon and did not have a certain title, he entreated a certain priest to present him to the title of his church. When the latter refused to do this, he firmly promised him in return that, if he presented him, he would never seek any portion in his church; and thus he was ordained upon his presentation, nor, as he asserts, did he understand that in this he had done anything unlawful. Wherefore, when he afterward wished to be promoted to the diaconate, and the bishop admonished that no one who had been ordained through the intervention of some promise should come forward, the same man, remembering this promise, refrained from receiving the order of the diaconate, humbly confessing this to you and asking through you to be instructed whether he was guilty by reason of a promise of this kind and whether it was lawful for him to minister in the order of subdeacon received and to ascend to further orders; your fraternity considered that an oracle of the Apostolic See should be sought. We therefore respond thus to your inquiry: unless dispensation is mercifully granted to him, he ought neither to ascend to higher orders nor, according to the rigor of the canons, to minister in the order received.

Latin source headnote: It is simony to give money for obtaining a vicariate or another administration of spiritual or ecclesiastical things, and those giving and receiving are to be cast out from that church. This chapter says this in other words, although it is brief.

The same.

To consult. (And below:) Whoever shall have wished to obtain a vicariate or another administration of ecclesiastical things through money, buyers as well as sellers, are struck down with Simon Magus, and are justly excluded from that church in contempt of which they wished to give and receive money.

Latin source headnote: It is simoniacal to demand anything for the consecrations of bishops, blessings of abbots, and ordinations of clerics, nor does custom excuse it.

The same, in the general council.

As we have learned for certain, in very many places [and] by very many persons, as though by those selling doves in the temple, shameful and depraved exactions and extortions are made for the consecrations of bishops, blessings of abbots, and orders of clerics, and it has been assessed how much is to be paid to this or that person, and how much to another or yet another; and, to the accumulation of greater damnation, certain persons strive to defend cupidity and depravity of this kind through a custom observed for a long time. Therefore, desiring to abolish so great an abuse, we utterly reject a custom of this kind, which is rather to be called a corruption, firmly decreeing that for these things, whether to be conferred or already conferred, no one shall presume to demand or extort anything under any pretext whatsoever; otherwise, both he who receives and he who gives a price of this kind, which is wholly condemned, shall be condemned with Gehazi and Simon.

Latin source headnote: Religious received for a price are expelled from the monastery together with those receiving them, and are confined in stricter monasteries to do penance. But those received before this council were placed in other houses of the same order, unless their multitude prevents it, yet so that they renounce the first reception and are received anew.

The same, in the same council.

Since the simoniacal stain has so infected very many nuns that they scarcely receive any women as sisters without a price, wishing to cloak a vice of this kind under the pretext of poverty, we wholly prohibit this from being done henceforth, decreeing that whoever shall henceforth have committed such depravity, both the one receiving and the one received, whether she is a subject or a prelate, shall be expelled from her monastery without hope of restoration and confined in a place of stricter rule to do perpetual penance. Concerning those, however, who were received in this manner before this synodal statute, we considered that provision should be made thus: removed from the monasteries which they wrongly entered, they are to be placed in other houses of the same order. But if perhaps, because of their excessive multitude, they cannot conveniently be placed elsewhere, lest [perhaps] they wander damnably in the world, let them by dispensation be received anew in the same monasteries, their former places being changed and lower ones assigned. We decree that this is also to be observed with respect to monks or other regulars. But, lest they be able to excuse themselves through simplicity or ignorance, we command that the diocesan bishops cause this to be published each year throughout their dioceses.

Latin source headnote: Bishops ought to demand nothing in order to permit clerics to be instituted in churches subject to them, monks to make profession, or the dead to be buried; otherwise, what was exacted will be restored twofold.

The same, in the same council.

We have heard concerning certain bishops that, when the rectors of churches die, they subject the churches to interdict and do not permit others to be instituted in them until a fixed sum of money is paid to them. Moreover, when a knight or cleric enters a religious house or chooses burial among religious, even if he has left nothing to the religious house, they introduce difficulties and malicious obstructions until some gift touches their hands. Since, therefore, according to the Apostle, one must abstain not only from evil but also from every appearance of evil, we wholly prohibit exactions of this kind. But if anyone shall have been a transgressor, let him restore twofold what was exacted, faithfully to be converted to the use of the houses to whose detriment it was paid.

Latin source headnote: The sacraments are to be conferred freely; nevertheless, the ordinary compels laypersons to observe praiseworthy customs.

The same, in the same council.

It has reached the apostolic hearing by frequent report that certain clerics demand and extort money for the obsequies of the dead, the blessings of those marrying, and similar things, and, if perhaps their cupidity is not satisfied, they fraudulently oppose fictitious impediments. Conversely, certain laypersons, from the leaven of heretical depravity, strive under the pretext of canonical piety to break a praiseworthy custom toward holy church introduced by the pious devotion of the faithful. Therefore, concerning these things, we prohibit depraved exactions from being made and command pious customs to be observed, decreeing that ecclesiastical sacraments are to be conferred freely; but, the truth having been learned, those who maliciously strive to alter a praiseworthy custom are to be restrained by the bishop of the place.

Latin source headnote: He prohibits Cistercian abbots from being solemnly installed, and sets out the form of obedience which they render to their bishops.

Honorius III, to all the Abbots and Brothers of the Cistercian order.

Lest foulness stain the church of God, which Jesus Christ washed with his own blood, lest the wrinkle of duplicity deform it, the filth of cupidity, which is the root of all evils, and the deformity of venality, as a wrinkle contracted under the pretext of custom, are to be utterly eliminated from it, so that the dispensation of the mysteries of God and the mysteries themselves, freely received, may be conferred with gratuitous charity, Gehazi-like depravity having been entirely abolished. How detestable and how dangerous it is to buy or sell these things can clearly be discerned from the fact that the Lord cast those selling and buying sheep and oxen out of the temple and overturned the seats of those selling and buying doves. In the expulsion of the sellers and buyers, indeed, detestation of the crime defiling both is expressed; and in the overturning of the seats it is shown to what punishment those who preside, selling the gifts of God and the ecclesiastical sacraments, are subject. Therefore, lest a crime of this kind, [which] makes equal those whom it defiles, be able in any way to infect prelates and subjects, we most strictly prohibit by apostolic authority that any archbishop or bishop, archdeacon or official of theirs, presume to demand or extort from anyone elected as abbot, for a blessing or installation or for receiving their profession, under the pretext of custom, any palfrey or anything else, by whatever name it may be designated. We also forbid you to furnish in this manner things exacted under a pretext of this kind, since one must abstain not only from evil but from every appearance of evil. Prohibiting also the solemnities of installation from being performed for abbots-elect of your order, we add that archbishops and bishops are to be content with that form of profession which is known to have been instituted from the origin of your order, which is as follows: “I, brother, an abbot of the Cistercian order, promise that I shall perpetually render to you, lord bishop, and to your successors canonically substituted, and to the Holy Apostolic See, with my order preserved, the subjection, reverence, and obedience established by the holy Fathers according to the Rule of Saint Benedict.”

Latin source headnote: A prebend and revenues are owed to one received as a canon, notwithstanding the custom that he did not observe the depraved custom of giving some temporal thing to the canons themselves.

Gregory IX, to the Prior of Saint Thomas of Ascoli.

James, a canon of Ascoli, has set forth that, although he was received as a canon and brother in the church of Teramo, the canons of the same church refuse to assign him a share of the revenues and a prebend, alleging a certain custom that they ought to have a dinner from a newly received canon. Wherefore, we command that, if it is so, you compel the said canons, with appeal removed, to provide for him in the revenues and prebend as for one of the others, notwithstanding such a custom.

Latin source headnote: If someone ordained another under a promise that provision would not be sought from him, the ordainer is suspended for three years from conferring orders, and the presenter likewise for three years from the exercise of orders; but the ordained person is perpetually suspended from the order, and dispensation with them is granted only through the Apostolic See.

The same.

If anyone shall have ordained or presented to an order another from whom he received a promise or oath that the latter would not trouble him concerning his provision, let them know that the ordainer is suspended from the conferral of orders, the presenter from the exercise of orders for three years, and the ordained person from the order thus received until they shall have merited to obtain dispensation concerning this through the Apostolic See.

Latin source headnote: It contains two rulings, the second at “and to resignations.” And because of the brevity and variety of the readings, it is not otherwise summarized.

The same.

Our mandate having been received that you dispense according to the constitution of the general council with monks who obtained a place in monasteries through simony by something being given (And below:) Briefly responding to your consultation, we say that the apostolic mandate extends also to abbots, and to resignations of spiritual and temporal things which are acquired in such a manner by no compact, but with an intention of mind anteceding on both sides; in which case it suffices for those at fault to make satisfaction to their Creator through penance alone, for they are not bound by reason of simony of this kind.