Title XII: On Voluntary or Accidental Homicide

Latin source headnote: An incorrigible killer must be deposed and delivered to the secular court, so that he may die.

In Exodus.

If anyone shall deliberately kill his neighbor and by ambush, you shall tear him away from my altar, so that he may die.

Latin source headnote: It lays down a penance for one who kills a robber when he could have freed himself otherwise; but if he could not free himself otherwise, he is not bound to do penance, except by way of precaution.

From the Roman Penitential.

You killed a thief or robber when he could have been apprehended without killing, and nevertheless you killed him. Because he was created in the image of God, and was baptized in his name and redeemed by his blood, for forty days you shall not enter the church, and, clothed in a woolen garment, you shall abstain for the aforesaid days from foods and drinks that are forbidden, and from the marriage-bed, the sword, and from riding. On the third and fifth weekdays and on the Sabbath, use some kind of pulses or vegetables, and fruit, and little fish with moderate beer, and do so temperately. But if without contemplation of hatred, in freeing yourself and your possessions, you killed members of the devil of this kind, I speak according to indulgence: on account of the image of God, if you wish to fast to some extent, it is good for you, and give alms abundantly. If a priest has done the same things, he is not to be deposed; nevertheless, for as long as he lives, he is to do penance.

Latin source headnote: A thief by day is not killed without fault, but a thief by night is.

Augustine, on Exodus.

“If [however] a thief shall be found breaking in, and shall have been struck and died, homicide is not to be imputed to the one who struck him. But if the sun should rise upon him, he shall be guilty [and shall die by death].” Therefore it is understood [then] that homicide does not pertain to him if a nocturnal thief is killed; but if he was a thief by day, that it does pertain to homicide. For this is what he says: “if the sun should rise upon him, etc.,” because he could discern that the man had come to steal, not to kill, and therefore he ought not to be killed. This is also found in the ancient secular laws, than which this law is nevertheless more ancient: namely, that a nocturnal thief may be killed with impunity in any manner, but a thief by day only if he has defended himself [with] a weapon. For then he is more than a thief.

Latin source headnote: What is unlawful does not fall under a general promise or permission, even one made under oath.

Jerome.

With an oath Herod promised to give the dancing girl whatever she should ask from him. If he should say that he had acted on account of his oath, would he have done it or not if she had asked for the destruction of his father or mother? What, therefore, he would have repudiated in his own kin he ought to have scorned [also] in the case of a prophet.

Latin source headnote: One who makes or gives sorceries or poisons causing sterility is a killer.

From the Council of Worms.

If anyone, for the sake of satisfying lust or in contemplation of hatred, shall make something for a man or woman, or give something to drink, so that the person cannot beget or conceive, or so that offspring cannot be born, let him be held as a killer.

Latin source headnote: In imposing penance, a judge must attend to the circumstances by which the offense is increased or diminished. It says this as far as § But Those. — § 1. One who accompanies a killer with the intention of killing, although he does not lay hands upon the victim, is held to almost the same punishment as the killer if death nevertheless followed from his action. It says this as far as § Those Also. Abbas Siculus. — § 2. One who accompanies a killer only with the intention of preventing him from being hindered is held to a somewhat lesser punishment. It says this as far as § But Those Who. — § 3. One who incites another to homicide is punished more mildly than the killer; it is otherwise, however, if he incited him to a specific homicide. For, when that homicide follows, he is held as a killer. It says this as far as § These Too. — § 4. Those who guard the baggage of the killers, knowing that they are assassins, are not immune from the punishment for homicide. It says this as far as § Those, Moreover. Abbas. — § 5. One who seizes the goods of the person killed is not on this account held for homicide; and it is not sufficient for the one who seized them that he distribute them to the poor when he can restore them to those whose property they are established to have been. It says this as far as § To Those, Furthermore. Abbas. — § 6. Those who participate with the killers in excommunication are punished differently according to the manner of participation. It says this as far as § The Clerics. Abbas. — § 7. In this §, as far as the end, the penance of clerics who furnished assistance, counsel, or favor to the aforesaid death is laid down. It says this. Abbas Siculus.

Alexander III, to the Bishop of Exeter.

Just as it is fitting and consonant with every principle of reason that grave and difficult questions be referred to the examination of the Apostolic See, so also it falls upon us by the ministry of the solicitude we have undertaken to resolve those same questions, as the Lord shall grant us, and to respond to each person seeking counsel from us, so that through the providence of the Roman Church, which by the Lord's ordering holds primacy everywhere on earth, questions may be resolved and ambiguity in these matters removed from the hearts of each. Although, moreover, we do not doubt that concerning the questions which your discretion directed to us to be resolved you are provident and circumspect, we are nevertheless constrained by the ministry of servitude to respond to you concerning them according to our discretion and providence. Indeed, since you are a man learned and wise and discreet and very much practiced in these matters, you know more fully that, in the offenses of individuals, not only the quantity and quality of the offense, but also the age, knowledge, and sex and condition of the offender must be attended to, and that penance must be imposed upon each person not only according to the aforesaid matters but also according to the place and time in which the offense is committed, since, as you yourself are not ignorant, the same offense is to be punished more in one person than in another.

§ 1. But those who confess that, with the intention of killing, striking, or capturing that holy and venerable man, formerly Archbishop of Canterbury, they came without laying hands upon him, if his death had followed from that capture, would have to be punished by an equal or nearly equal penance.

§ 2. And those also who came not in order to strike but to render assistance to the assailants if perhaps they should be hindered by the violence of others ought to be chastised with a somewhat lesser punishment, because, since it is written, “He who could have freed a man from death and did not free him killed him,” it is established that [they] are not immune from the guilt of homicide who came to render assistance to the killers against others; nor is he free from the scruple of a secret association who, [although he can,] ceases to oppose a manifest crime.

§ 3. But those who assert that they inflamed the king's mind to hatred, from which perhaps the homicide followed, are to be punished [sufficiently] harshly and severely, but not so severely, unless perhaps by their suggestions they provoked the king himself to that homicide.

§ 4. These too are not free from fault, nor ought they to be immune from punishment, who, although they were ignorant of that wicked plot, nevertheless furnished service to those whom they knew to be assassins, or in guarding their baggage.

§ 5. Those, moreover, who are said to have seized the spoils of that holy man and his companions after his death, if they committed nothing else in so great a crime, we judge to be immune from the punishment for his death; but they are bound to restore in full the things they seized to those to whom they belonged, if they have the means from which they can return them. And a moderate penance is nevertheless to be imposed upon them for this, because, although they admit that they distributed to the poor certain of the things that they seized, they nevertheless ought not to have distributed to the poor the property of others when they could have restored it to those to whom it belonged.

§ 6. Furthermore, upon those who know themselves to be guilty solely by participation with excommunicated persons, a penance is to be imposed according to this: after consideration of the length of time for which they persisted in that wickedness, and after inquiry also whether they knowingly or unknowingly communicated with them through fear or affection.

§ 7. But we judge that the clerics who are established to have been present under arms at so great a crime, and also those clerics who gave the counsel that [that same] holy man should be captured, are to be deposed perpetually not only from the ministry of the altar, but also in such a manner that at no time whatsoever are [they] to read lessons in churches or sing responsories separately in the choir; rather, in psalms before God they are to strive to obtain pardon for what was committed. Furthermore, those clerics themselves are to be confined in the strict cloister of monks or canons regular, if this can be done, and indeed in such a manner that for as long as seven or five years they ought to be barred from entry into churches. [Concerning that matter, however, etc.]

Latin source headnote: Accidental homicide is imputed to one who was engaged in a lawful act if he did not exercise the diligence that he ought to have exercised.

The same.

But a priest [another priest] who struck a certain boy on the head and wounded him for the purpose of discipline, when the boy died after a few days, as you assert, you ought both to remove perpetually from every ministry of the altar and to depose from the priestly office, if the boy died from that very blow, or contracted another illness from it by which he is known to have died.

Latin source headnote: Accidental homicide is imputed to one who was engaged in an unlawful act, or even in a lawful act, according to another interpretation, if he did not exercise all the diligence that he ought to have exercised.

The same, to the Archbishop of Cosenza.

It was contained in your letters that, when the deacon bearing the present letters and certain other clerics were returning from the church's vineyards after the work was finished, for the sake of lightening their labor they imitated a certain game of travelers, throwing their staffs a long distance. For they endeavored to throw straight ahead and to strike one another's staff. The condition of this game, as they assert, is customarily that the one who struck another's staff, as if the victor, would use the other man, whose staff was struck, as a horse; but the aforesaid clerics, not using the license to ride, were content with the throwing alone, so that, while they ran more briskly to their staffs, they would not feel the labor of the journey. But a certain layman, as the aforesaid deacon asserts, after he had struck that deacon's staff, incautiously leapt upon him to ride him, and thus received from the sickle with which that deacon was girded a mortal wound, from which he died after eight days. We therefore command that you not permit that deacon, without the permission of the Roman Pontiff, to ascend to a higher grade or ever to minister in the office of the diaconate, but that you allow him by dispensation to minister in the office of the subdiaconate.

Latin source headnote: Accidental homicide is not imputed to one who was not at fault.

The same, to the Bishop of Exeter.

P., the cleric bearing the present letters, proposed to us by word of mouth that, when one day he happened to be playing with a certain cleric, it occurred that the latter threw him to the ground, and his knife, which he had at his side, entered the other man, who died wounded by the accidental event. We therefore command that, when the truth of the matter has been ascertained, if the matter so occurred and no other just cause impedes, you freely permit the aforesaid P. to be promoted to sacred orders.

Latin source headnote: One from whose unlawful conduct homicide follows is rendered irregular.

The same, to the Abbot of Saint Benedict of Vebia.

We received your letters, through which we learned that, while the bearer of the present letters remained with another brother in the custody of a certain house, certain robbers entering upon them at night presumed shamefully to afflict their persons and strip them of their own garments. Rising up against them after recovering their strength, these brothers bound them and wished to detain them until notice could be brought to the chapter. But when this man, intending to carry the matter to your hearing, had left them bound in the custody of his brother, and the thieves were striving to free themselves, the brother killed them lest he himself be killed by them. But because it was more expedient to leave even the cloak after the tunic and to sustain the loss of possessions than to become so violently inflamed against others for the preservation of cheap and transitory things, let this man humbly abstain from the ministry of the altar, and let each strive to expiate his sin, by such means as he can, according to your judgment. For it is established that the men were killed through the action of both brothers, contrary to regular gentleness and ecclesiastical discipline.

Latin source headnote: One who gives cause for a homicide is irregular.

The same, to the Bishop of Lucca.

For the rest, you should know that the deacon whom you assert to be learned and endowed with uprightness, who appears to have given cause for a homicide, as we perceive from the tenor of your letters, does not appear fit to be promoted to the priesthood.

Latin source headnote: Accidental homicide is imputed to one who was engaged in a lawful act if he did not exercise the diligence that he ought to have exercised.

Clement III.

It came to the hearing of our apostolate [from your part] that, when a certain priest, wishing to correct a member of his household, attempted to beat him with the belt with which he was accustomed to be girded, it occurred that the knife, slipping from the sheath that adhered to the belt, wounded him slightly in the back. But afterward, when the wounded man had lived for some time and had already recovered from the wound, he was struck, as is said, by another, more serious illness, and with a sound mind and due devotion entered upon the way of all flesh. But because it is held doubtful whether he died by reason of the wound, and that priest having been suspended from every office and benefice, you consulted the Apostolic See as to what was to be done by you concerning this matter. Now, therefore, we have decided to respond to your discretion that, since in doubtful matters we ought to choose the safer path, it is fitting for you to enjoin upon the aforesaid priest that henceforth he not minister in sacred orders. Nevertheless, after a suitable penance has been imposed [upon him], you will be able to grant him permission to be content to minister in minor orders. But if it shall lawfully be established to you that the man died of another illness, with your permission he will be able to minister in divine offices as he was accustomed. [Given at the Lateran.]

Latin source headnote: Accidental homicide is not imputed to one who was engaged in a lawful act and was not at fault.

Innocent III, to the Bishop of Langres.

The beloved son A., a chaplain, appearing in our presence, proposed to us in his confession that, when he was burdened by a certain bodily illness to such an extent that the desire both for food and for sleep appeared to have been taken from him, in order that he might arouse his appetite for eating to some degree, he mounted a horse that he was keeping. Since it did not obey the reins well, but frolicked with its leaps contrary to the rider's will, he, in order to restrain its impetuosity, both pulled forcefully on the bridle and spurred the horse. And when the bridle broke, the horse, left as if to its own will, ran rapidly, and a certain woman, approaching him from the side and carrying a little child, met him. The horse rushed upon her, its rider being thrown far away, and crushed the aforesaid child; and the chaplain himself scarcely escaped the danger of death from the sudden accident, but, at last recovering, did not thereafter presume to celebrate divine offices. Therefore, because the aforesaid matters have not been established to us, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity to inquire more diligently into the truth concerning them, and, if it is so, since the same chaplain perpetrated no homicide either by will or by act, nor was he engaged in an unlawful matter, you are not to prevent him from being able to celebrate divine offices. [Given at the Lateran on the eighth day before the Ides of November, 1200.]

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

The same, to the Bishop of Metz.

We learned from the letters of your fraternity that, when H., the priest bearing the present letters, wished to unload hay from a cart, he threw to the ground a pole resting upon it, when he saw no one around the cart, and, while he was engaged in unloading the hay, a certain man, approaching near him, found a certain boy half alive beside the cart, in whom nothing of an injury could be found except a little bruising on the forehead. We, moreover, asked the same priest whether, before he threw the pole, he had carefully looked around to see whether anyone was near the cart. He asserted that he had looked around diligently, but denied that he had seen anyone. Therefore, sending him back to you, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity that, if the matter so occurred, unless a grave scandal has arisen against that priest, or he labors under so great an ill repute that in the absence of an accuser it is necessary to impose canonical purgation upon him, you freely permit him to exercise the priestly office. [Given at the Lateran on the eighth day before the Kalends of December, in the third year, 1200.]

Latin source headnote: It is likewise summarized as in the chapter Beloved Son above in this same title.

The same, to the Archbishop of Besançon.

We learned from the letters of your fraternity that a certain monk, a boy of your diocese, while assisting in taking down a bell from a bell tower, because a certain piece of timber by accident fell when he moved it, crushed and killed a certain boy in the church beneath the bell tower. Wherefore you humbly asked us what should be done by you concerning this, petitioning that a merciful dispensation be granted to him. Therefore, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity that, if the monk himself was doing a necessary and useful thing, and in a place through which he did not believe that anyone would pass, or be present there, or even customarily come there, when he is known to have moved the timber, he can suitably, especially in a monastery, be promoted to higher orders. [Given at Rome at Saint Peter's on the Nones of April, in the ninth year, 1206.]

Latin source headnote: It is summarized as in the chapter Beloved Son above in this same title.

The same, to the Bishop of Padua.

You informed us through your letters that, when the cleric F. was riding with the archpriest of Saint Fidantius, the horse on which he sat threw both itself and him into the water. Thereupon the cleric struck it heavily with his spurs. But the horse, to use the words of your letters, since it was hard in the mouth, broke into a run contrary to its rider's will, and, poorly obeying the reins, unexpectedly trampled to death a certain woman whom it met. And when we had caused inquiry to be made of the same cleric whether he had previously known the horse's vice, he asserted that he had not known it. Therefore, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity that you inquire more diligently into the truth concerning these matters and, if it is so, by way of greater precaution you impose a suitable penance upon that cleric, upon completion of which you are not to prevent him both from ministering in the orders he has received and from being able to be promoted to higher ones.

Latin source headnote: A person is not deemed a killer when, despite his prohibition and without his giving cause, a homicide is committed by his blood relatives.

The same.

Peter, a deacon and monk of Saint John of Puna, showed us by his statement that, when he was formerly established in the secular habit and held a certain benefice in the church of Rigelo, the abbot of that church deprived him of the same benefice. His relatives and friends repeatedly entreated the abbot to restore the aforesaid benefice to him; and when the abbot was unwilling to acquiesce in their entreaties, being very angry and agitated, they assembled one night in the deacon's house, and after supper they said that they wished to take vengeance upon the abbot. Although they were expressly forbidden by that deacon to kill the abbot or do anything to him whereby he might incur danger to his order and loss to his soul, nevertheless they rushed upon him, and, after inflicting blows, departed, leaving him half alive; he died after several days. But from that time until today the aforesaid deacon, having become sorrowful on account of what had occurred, ceased from administration, and, before two years had elapsed, put on the monastic habit. Wherefore he petitioned us humbly to be instructed whether he could minister in the office of deacon and, if this were permitted to him, whether he could be promoted to a higher order. Although, if the truth supports the foregoing, the aforesaid deacon does not appear culpable for the abbot's death, nevertheless, because it belongs to good minds to acknowledge fault where there is no fault, we ascribe it not to him as a sin, but reckon it as merit, that by his own will he suspended himself from the administration of his office or put on the regular habit. Therefore, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity that, if you know the foregoing to be supported by the truth, by apostolic authority you grant the often-mentioned deacon free faculty not only to minister in the office of the diaconate but also to ascend to the order of priesthood, if no other canonical impediment stands in the way, especially if he has not been stained by ill repute concerning this; since there ought not to be imputed to him what, contrary to his express prohibition and without his giving cause or occasion, was sacrilegiously attempted by his blood relatives, [divine scripture testifying that the soul that shall sin shall itself die, etc. Given at Rieti on the fourth day before the Nones of August, in the first year of our pontificate, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: One who struck another lethally is deemed irregular, although the man was killed by others; the same applies if it is not apparent whether he struck lethally, if the man also died after being struck by others and it is not apparent from whose wound he died. It is the same if he struck nonlethally but had the intention of killing, and the man died from the wounds of others. It says this notably. Abbas.

The same, to the Abbot of the Holy Trinity of Meldemberg.

You informed us through your letters that, when a certain evildoer, having entered the church of Bleiseium, with the fear of God set aside, carried the eucharist together with altar ornaments and ecclesiastical books outside [that] church, the beloved son L., the priest bearing the present letters, a canon regular of [your] church, whom you had instituted chaplain in the aforesaid church of Bleiseium, took up a mattock and struck the aforesaid son of wickedness. But both you and he are wholly ignorant whether a blow of this kind was unto death. When the parishioners of the church saw the man carrying away the ornaments of the church, they took up swords and clubs and immediately killed him in that same place. But the aforesaid Laurence, taking forethought for his salvation, after a year had passed revealed to you the sequence of the matter under the title of confession, on whose behalf you humbly petitioned us that we deign to act mercifully with him. Although it is contained in the canon that, if four or five men or more shall have fought against one man, and he, having been wounded by them, shall have died, whoever among them inflicted even a wound is judged a killer according to the statutes of the canons; nevertheless, in another canon it is said concerning a priest who struck a deacon riding on horseback, and the latter, falling from the horse with a broken neck, died: that if he was not struck unto death, penance is to be imposed upon the priest who acted incautiously, in such a manner that, having been suspended for some time from the solemnities of masses, he may afterward return to the priestly office; but if the deacon truly died from any blow of the priest, the latter is by no reason to be permitted to minister here in the manner of a priest, even if he had no intention of killing.

We believe that in the aforesaid case a distinction must be made whether it can be established that the aforesaid priest did not inflict a lethal blow from which, that is, if the wounds of the others had not followed, the man struck would by no means have died, and whether the striker had no intention of killing, and the others did not proceed against the man through his exertion, counsel, or command. And indeed, if the matter so occurred—which perhaps could be shown from this, if a certain blow inflicted by him should appear to have been so slight and so light, in a part of the body in which one is not customarily killed by being lightly struck, that in the judgment of skilled physicians such a blow would be asserted not to have been lethal—since concerning the remaining matters the priest himself is to be believed, who is accused or denounced by no one, but of his own accord, being solicitous for his salvation, seeks saving counsel, after a penance imposed by way of precaution he will be able to minister in the priestly office, especially with the favor of religious life being added, since he is a canon regular and can celebrate the priestly office without any scandal. But if it cannot be discerned from whose blow the man struck died, in this doubt the priest must be treated as a killer, although perhaps he is not a killer, and he ought to abstain from the priestly office, since in this case it is safer to cease than rashly to celebrate, for the reason that in the one course no danger, but in the other great danger, is feared. Whether, moreover, a similar judgment is to be made concerning those of whom one, but it is entirely unknown which, perpetrated a homicide, if perhaps they should be presented to receive sacred orders—whether all are equally to be repelled, since it cannot be discerned who ought to be judged culpable—the diligent investigator should consider, although this case is very different from that one.

But if, as is reported, this priest, having first been struck by that sacrilegious man, immediately struck him back on the head with a mattock, although all laws and every legal system permit force to be repelled by force, nevertheless, because this ought to be done with the moderation of blameless defense, not for taking vengeance but for repelling injury, the same priest does not appear to be wholly excused from the penalty for homicide: both by reason of the instrument with which he struck, which, since it is heavy, is not accustomed to inflict a light wound, and by reason of the part in which that man was struck, in which one is customarily mortally injured by a slight blow; especially since it is asserted according to the common proverb that he who strikes first strikes by touching, while he who strikes second strikes in pain. Wherefore, after everything has been weighed, it is believed expedient for him humbly to abstain from exercising the priestly office. [Given at Viterbo on the Kalends of July, in the twelfth year of our pontificate, 1209.]

Latin source headnote: A religious who practices surgery, if death follows from it, is irregular, even if he is skilled and diligent and did this from a motive of piety; but after satisfaction a merciful dispensation can be granted to him. It says this as far as § Lastly. — § 1. One who gave to a secular judge identifying objects belonging to a thief by whom he had been wounded is not irregular, although the thief is afterward killed. Abbas Siculus.

The same.

Your fraternity led us to be consulted. (And below: [cf. c. 7, On Consanguinity and Affinity, IV. 14.]) Third, you asked that it be explained through the Apostolic See what ought to be judged concerning a certain monk who, believing that he was curing a certain woman of a swelling of the throat, as a surgeon opened that swelling with a knife. When that swelling had subsided somewhat, the monk himself instructed the woman that she should in no way expose herself to the wind, lest perhaps the wind, entering the opening of the throat, should cause her death. But the woman, having scorned his command, while gathering crops incautiously exposed herself to the wind, and thus much blood flowed out through the opening of the throat, and the woman in this way ended her last day; she nevertheless confessed that, because she exposed herself to the wind, [she herself] had given herself the cause of death. The question, namely, is whether, since the aforesaid monk is a priest, it is lawful for him to exercise the priestly office. We therefore respond thus to your fraternity: although the monk himself transgressed greatly by usurping another's office, which was by no means fitting for him, nevertheless, if he acted from a motive of piety and not of greed, was skilled in the practice of surgery, and took care to exercise all the diligence that he ought, he is not to be so condemned because of what happened through the woman's fault contrary to his advice that, after fitting satisfaction, he cannot be dealt with mercifully so that he may be able to celebrate divine offices; otherwise, according to rigor, the exercise of the priestly order is to be forbidden to him.

§ 1. Lastly, it was proposed from your part [before us] that a certain scholar, fearing that robbers might be in his lodging, arose from his bed, having taken up a small sword in order to seek a light, and, when he came unwittingly to the door, found a thief there who, beginning to wrestle with the scholar, not only threw the scholar himself to the ground but also wounded him almost unto death. But the scholar, having been provoked by him and immediately repelling force with force, wrested the sword from the robber and struck him back while observing the moderation of law; the robber, terrified, hastened his flight as quickly as he could. Therefore, when morning dawned, the scholars sought that robber, and, finding him wounded, delivered him to the podestà of Vicenza, before whom he steadfastly denied that he had committed the foregoing acts at all. Thereupon the aforesaid podestà sent his messengers to that scholar so that he might disclose whether he knew anything concerning the aforesaid thief, or might deliver identifying objects. The scholar delivered to the aforesaid messengers the knife that he had taken from the robber himself, and the shoes left by the latter in his house, which the robber had taken off for himself so that the noise of his feet would not be heard, involving himself no further in that matter. The podestà, therefore, after receiving such identifying objects, delivered the robber himself to his officers to be punished; they amputated his genitals and put out his eyes. The robber, moreover, went to a certain monastery, and there for three days, moved by anger and pain, took neither drink nor food, and thus was taken from their midst. Wherefore you seek to be instructed by our pronouncement whether the aforesaid scholar may be promoted to sacred orders. We therefore respond thus to your inquiry: if the aforesaid scholar is supported by worthy merits, he is in no way to be barred from receiving sacred orders on account of the foregoing event. [Given at the Lateran on the Ides of February, in the fourteenth year of our pontificate, 1212.]

Latin source headnote: One who gives cause for an abortion is a killer if what had been conceived was a living rational creature; otherwise it is otherwise.

The same, to the Prior and Brothers of the Carthusians.

As we learned from the tenor of your letters, when a certain priest of your order, who had formerly been a black monk, seized by the belt, as if in play, a certain pregnant woman with whom he had contracted a dishonorable association, and who asserted that she had conceived by him, the woman afterward asserted that through this she had been so injured that on this account she miscarried. On account of this the same priest, having made use of the counsel of upright men, decided that he should separate himself from the ministry of the altar. Wherefore you humbly petitioned us that we deign to act mercifully with him. We, however, respond to your devotion by this present communication that, if what was conceived had not yet been given life, he will be able to minister; otherwise, he ought to abstain from the office of the altar. [Given at the Lateran on the fourth day before the Nones of October, in the fourteenth year of our pontificate, 1211.]

Latin source headnote: It is not imputed to a cleric seeking justice civilly against a layman if the judge exacts vengeance of blood upon the layman.

The same, to Bishop S.

You petitioned. (And below: [cf. c. 14, On a Competent Forum, II. 2.]) You asked further whether it is lawful for you to implore the royal power against certain persons who, in contempt of a sentence of excommunication, withhold the tithes due to churches, since they can scarcely be constrained to pay them without the shedding of blood. To this we respond briefly that, if, when you simply lodge a complaint of this kind, the king—to whom the sword has been committed for the praise of the good, but the punishment of the evil—exercises upon those same rebels the power delivered to him, it will be imputed to their hardness or malice. [Concerning cemeteries, etc.; cf. c. 7, On the Consecration of a Church, III. 40. Given at the Lateran on the third day before the Kalends of May, in the sixteenth year of our pontificate, 1213.]

Latin source headnote: Accidental homicide is not imputed to one who did not kill and was not at fault, even if by way of precaution he sought pardon.

Honorius III, to the Bishop of York.

The humble confession presented to us by the cleric I. disclosed that, when he was of boyish age, playing with certain companions of his own age and pursuing one of them, he threw a stone after him, not indeed with the intention of injuring him, but of striking fear into him. Although the boy was neither struck nor touched by the thrown stone, nevertheless, falling upon another stone and injuring his head, he died after the space of forty days, partly through the inexperience of the physician and partly through the neglect of his father, who exposed him in summertime to work and sweat in the fields. But because the said cleric, so that the grief of the dead boy's father might be mitigated, being an ignorant boy induced by friends, sought pardon from him concerning this, you repel him on this occasion from receiving sacred orders, although the same father of the deceased, laboring at the point of death, confessed to you and your archdeacon, and also to the priest to whom he disclosed his conscience, and confirmed by an oath, that the cleric had committed nothing in the death of his son, as had become fully established to him. Wherefore the same cleric petitioned us as suppliantly as humbly that, since he did not have an injured conscience concerning that death, we deign to act mercifully with him. Therefore, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity that, after diligent inquiry has been made into the truth concerning these matters, if it shall be established that it is so, you do not on this account repel him from receiving sacred orders.

Latin source headnote: Accidental homicide is not imputed to one who was engaged in a lawful act and was not at fault.

The same, to the Bishop and Chapter of Vannes.

The priest John showed us by his humble communication that, when on a certain day he rang the bells so that, when the signal had been given, the faithful people might assemble for divine offices, a falling bell struck a certain boy standing before it. Although, having been wounded in the head, he received the care of physicians for a month, after a month nevertheless he died, since the wound was mortal. Wherefore he humbly petitioned us that, acting mercifully with him, we permit him freely to exercise the priestly office. We, therefore, considering that nothing could be imputed to the said priest, who was engaged in a lawful act, if he did not foresee every accidental event, command your discretion that, if it shall be established to you that the matter is so, you permit the said priest, if no other canonical impediment stands in the way, to exercise the priestly office with the obstacle of any appeal removed.

Latin source headnote: A cleric who fights even against enemies of the Catholic faith, if he struck anyone and his conscience reproaches him concerning a killing, ought to abstain from the ministry of the altar.

The same, to Pelagius the Priest.

Your petition presented to us contained that, when the enemies of the Lord's cross and blasphemers of the Christian name gravely attacked a certain fortress in which you dwelt, and its inhabitants, clerics as well as laymen, went out against them and fought one another, very many were killed on both sides. Wherefore, because you struck some men, you fear that you incurred irregularity, and you humbly petitioned us that we deign to write to you what you ought to do. Therefore, we command your discretion that, if concerning the killing of anyone in that conflict your conscience reproaches you, you reverently abstain from the ministry of the altar, since it is more prudent in a doubt of this kind to abstain than rashly to celebrate.

Latin source headnote: It says the same as the chapter John above in this same title, and places a difference only in the facts.

Gregory IX.

A certain man, as you assert, having been summoned by a priest to assist in the construction of a church, fell together with a ceiling panel that the same priest was attempting to loosen, and on this occasion was taken from human affairs. (And below:) Considering, therefore, that the priest himself was engaged in a lawful act, and also took care to exercise the diligence that he ought, those standing around to whom danger threatened having been warned so timely and in so loud a voice that they could both understand and flee, we respond thus to your inquiry: on account of this cause, or because he perhaps did not foresee all accidental events that cannot be foreseen, he ought not to be impeded with respect to office or benefice.