Title XXVII: On an Excommunicated, Deposed, or Interdicted Cleric Who Ministers

Latin source headnote: A deposed cleric who celebrates is excommunicated.

From the Canon of the Apostles.

If any bishop, priest, or deacon, justly deposed for certain crimes, shall have dared to handle again the ministry formerly committed to him, let him be cut off entirely from the Church.

Latin source headnote: A degraded or suspended cleric who celebrates and does not desist after admonition is excommunicated; and if he does not desist even thus, at the Church's request he is condemned to exile through the secular power.

From the Council of Antioch.

If any priest or other cleric shall have been degraded by his bishop or suspended from office for certain crimes, and through contempt and pride he presumes to perform anything from the ministry forbidden to him, and afterward, having been corrected by his bishop, persists in the presumption begun, let him be excommunicated in every way and expelled from the church. And whoever shall communicate with him is likewise to know himself excommunicated. The same is to be observed concerning excommunicated clerics, laymen, or women. But if anyone shall have contemned all these things and the bishop shall have been unable to amend him, at the Church's request let him be condemned to exile by the king's judgment.

Latin source headnote: An interdicted and excommunicated cleric who celebrates and does not desist after admonition is deposed.

Alexander III, to the Bishop of London.

But if any clerics shall have been interdicted or excommunicated by their own bishops, or even at the command of the Roman Pontiff by other bishops, [and] shall have celebrated divine offices before absolution, unless after admonition they return without delay, let them incur the sentence of perpetual deposition for the venture of so great a rashness.

Latin source headnote: Excommunicated or interdicted clerics who celebrate ought to be deposed, unless the penalty is mitigated on account of their multitude.

The same, to the Archbishop of Toledo.

The bearers of the present letters, coming with your letters to our presence, informed us more fully of their offense, namely, that both they and many others, after they were interdicted or excommunicated, presumed to celebrate divine offices. But because they said that a great multitude sinned with them in this, and it could not become known to us which of them transgressed more or less, we decided that the business itself should be committed to the judgment of your discretion. By apostolic writings and by way of precept we command your fraternity that, after more diligent inquiry into the truth of the matter, if it shall be established that only forty or fewer transgressed in these matters, you depose all of them perpetually from the priestly office. But if you shall know that a great multitude sinned in this, you are to condemn by perpetual deposition those who shall have been established to be more the cause of the offense, suspend for a time from office the others who did not transgress so greatly, and impose penance upon all according to the discretion given to you by God.

Latin source headnote: If one who has knowledge of an excommunication through report alone celebrates, by rigor he ought to be deposed, although a merciful dispensation can be granted to him. It says this, and it is a notable case.

Innocent III, to the Chapter of Würzburg.

The Lord granted to blessed Peter [in whose dignity of the apostolate we, although insufficient, have succeeded, the privilege of a singular prerogative for the Roman Church: that it exist as the head and mother of all the faithful, so that a member which has not persisted in its unity is foreign to that body concerning which the Apostle says, “we are all one body in Christ”; nor does one who has not had it as mother and teacher belong to that fold concerning which it is read in the Gospel, “there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” We also, who by God's ordering have been called to its governance, although in life we are unequal and in merits unlike our first predecessors, who laid down their lives for the Church, nevertheless by the same privilege exercise equal power with him, since we read that it was said by the Lord: “Whatever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” Although, moreover, the Apostolic See, considering human imperfection and the gravity of the burden enjoined upon it, has summoned many to a share of the solicitude committed to it, it nevertheless retained for itself the fullness of power, reserving many things to its power alone which, apart from its special authority, by law neither ought nor can be dispensed by any persons with impunity, such as the resignations and translations of bishops and certain other matters which, since they are known, there is no need for us to explain in letters.]

Our venerable brother [Conrad], formerly Bishop of Hildesheim, chancellor of the imperial court, not considering that there are many things which, apart from the special authority of the Apostolic See, by law neither could nor ought to be attempted by any persons with impunity, such as the resignations and translations of bishops and other matters known to you, having not only failed to obtain permission but not even sought it, left the church of Hildesheim and occupied the church of Würzburg, [and thus in the letters that he sent us he presumed to call himself Bishop of Würzburg]. Wherefore we, wishing to punish his presumption with due correction, gave commands to our venerable brother the Archbishop of Magdeburg and certain others established in Germany that, since the fact itself could not fail to be notorious in those parts, unless the said bishop ceased from the administration of the church of Würzburg within twenty days after receipt of the letters that we directed to him concerning this, they were publicly to announce him as excommunicated and cause his excommunication to be renewed with bells rung and candles lit on feast days and Sundays. The same Archbishop of Magdeburg took care to fulfill this.

[Although in manifest matters the judicial order did not need to be required, and he appeared to have confessed concerning himself, since in letters directed to us he presumed to call himself Bishop of Würzburg, nevertheless, in order to overcome every malice, we again commanded him, without first giving a salutation, that, with every pretext ceasing, if he wished to find favor with us, he was to fulfill the apostolic mandate. When he nevertheless persisted in his contumacy and, after another had been elected and confirmed in the church of Hildesheim by our mandate, presumed to call himself Bishop of Hildesheim, lest the Apostolic See appear to dissemble, we announced him excommunicated amid the solemnities of masses and commanded that he be avoided by all. But at length, recognizing his own rashness, first before the aforesaid archbishop and many princes of Germany, and second before our venerable brother C., Archbishop of Mainz and Bishop of Sabina, and many princes, he affirmed by oath that he would obey apostolic commands. Thereafter, neither avoiding the dangers of the roads nor intolerant of the inconveniences of the season, he came to the Apostolic See and, voluntarily confessing his offense in great contrition of heart and great humility of body, sought the benefit of absolution. But we, following the example of him who does not wish the death of the sinner but rather that he be converted and live, because he swore by every compact and tenor that he would in good faith receive and observe all our commands, whatever we should tell him by way of imposing things upon him concerning those matters for which he had been excommunicated by us, through our messenger, or through letters, afterward caused the benefit of absolution to be furnished to him.]

But the bishop himself, afterward appearing in our presence, although he acknowledged and confessed his offense and sought not judgment but mercy, [*introduced certain things in his own excuse, yet in such a manner that he neither departed from the form of humility nor relied upon the reasons introduced to such an extent that he did not always condemn what he had done, and, while excusing himself, voluntarily accused himself. He appeared, moreover, to have transgressed more particularly in three things.

First, namely, in that, apart from our special authority, he presumed to pass from the church of Hildesheim to the church of Würzburg, something he could not do by law, and after another had been elected and confirmed in the church of Hildesheim by our mandate, he named himself Bishop of Hildesheim.

Second, namely, in that, after the said Archbishop of Magdeburg had promulgated against him by our mandate a sentence of excommunication, he presumed to celebrate divine offices in a solemn court; and after he knew himself excommunicated by us, he repeatedly caused celebration to be held for himself and frequently thrust himself into communion.

Third, that, although he pretended to cease from the administration of the church of Würzburg, he nevertheless never withdrew fully from it, since, when questioned by us, he confessed that he still detained the temporalities.

But the same bishop wished to excuse himself concerning the first point in this manner: that he had passed to the church of Würzburg by special apostolic authority, since Celestine, Pope of good memory, our predecessor, had decided to grant him permission to pass to another church. But, considering more diligently the words of that indulgence and their force, he had from it no cause for passing before the postulatio had been examined by the one by whom it was to be made, lest perhaps anything be done through pressure, anything be transacted through simoniacal depravity, or anything contrary to canonical sanctions be capable of being attempted. This is sufficiently clear from the tenor of the indulgence, in which it is added near the end: “provided that it does not oppose canonical statutes.” Furthermore, although it appeared to have been granted to him that, when invited, he might assume a greater dignity, it was nevertheless not granted to him that he should transfer himself to a church of equal dignity, since it is a greater indulgence for a bishop that he pass to an equal church; much more, we have never found this dispensed. But it is established that the churches of Hildesheim and Würzburg, insofar as dignity pertains, are equal, since each is a suffragan of the church of Mainz; for although Würzburg is richer in temporalities, Hildesheim is nevertheless reported to be nobler in spiritualities.*]

Nevertheless, among other things in his excuse, he proposed that, since the said Archbishop of Magdeburg was not his ordinary judge, he had not believed that, without prior admonition, he could proceed against him by delegated authority or promulgate any sentence against him. Wherefore, since neither before the fact had he received letters of admonition nor after the fact any letters from him, he did not believe that he sinned if he celebrated divine offices however solemnly, especially since the sentence pronounced against him was known to him only through report. But he asserts that, after he knew himself excommunicated by us, he caused divine offices to be celebrated for him and frequently thrust himself into the communion of the faithful not in contempt of the Apostolic See or even of so great a sacrament, but in hope of pardon, namely lest he become more hardened or his mind behave more stubbornly if he were never present at divine offices; although on solemn days he never thrust himself into the celebration of divine offices, but with a few persons, secretly in a corner of some church on non-festal days, he sometimes caused divine offices to be celebrated for him.

Although in this he does not appear to have been entirely culpable, nevertheless, because in doubts the safer way is to be chosen, even if he doubted the sentence rendered against him, he ought rather to have abstained than to handle ecclesiastical sacraments. But that, in hope of pardon, after he knew himself excommunicated by us, he caused divine offices to be celebrated for him and thrust himself into the communion of the faithful, we believe to work against him rather than for him, since he ought not to have transgressed in reliance upon penance; and for an excommunicated person not to avoid others is much more dangerous than not to be avoided. Indeed, since not avoiding lies within his own power, an excommunicated person cannot fail to sin; but since not being avoided depends upon others, he can be not avoided without sin of his own.

[He asserted that he had held the fortifications and towns of the church of Würzburg for its utility, lest, if perhaps they came into foreign hands, there would afterward be no one to free them. But since spiritual things are worthier than temporal things, obedience better than victims, and listening better than offering the fat of rams, the same bishop ought not, for the temporal advantage of the church of Würzburg, to have incurred the mark of disobedience and resisted apostolic commands. Considering, therefore, that the Lord does not wish the death of the sinner, lest we appear unmindful of the benignity of the Apostolic See, we decided that mercy should be shown to the same bishop in certain things. But because the same merciful Lord—if the one is held without the other—and because there are also certain faults in which, according to canonical sanctions, it is culpable to relax punishment, we therefore tempered mercy through discipline and discipline through mercy, so that we might punish the offenses committed by the same bishop in such a way that we would not compel him to despair of pardon. Therefore, when he had been placed publicly in the consistory in our presence and that of our brothers, following the canonical sanctions in which it is provided that those who transfer themselves to a greater people ought both to be driven from the other's chair and to lack their own, so that they preside neither over those whom they despise through pride nor over those whom they covet through avarice, we caused him by sentence to be despoiled both of the episcopate of Würzburg and that of Hildesheim.]

Showing mercy to him, we decided not to inflict upon him the penalty that the canon inflicts upon those who, after excommunication, presumed to celebrate divine offices, or who thrust themselves into the celebration of divine offices. [We therefore commanded, etc. Given at the Lateran on the fifth day before the Ides of April, in the second year, 1200.]

Latin source headnote: An excommunicated cleric who celebrates is deposed from his benefice.

The same, to the Archbishop of Besançon.

To your fraternity. (And below: [cf. c. 7, On One Who Has Known His Wife, IV. 13.]) But priests and other clerics of your diocese who, having been canonically bound by you with the bonds of anathema for their offenses, presumed or presume to celebrate divine offices, you will reasonably be able to despoil of all ecclesiastical benefices. [The prior, etc. Given at Ferentino on the twelfth day before the Kalends of June, in the sixth year, 1203.]

Latin source headnote: A collation of a benefice made to an excommunicated person is not valid, and one knowingly conferring upon such persons is suspended from the collation of benefices. — (You Asked, etc.:) One who celebrates in an interdicted place, if a secular cleric, is deprived of benefices; if a monk, he is thrust into a stricter monastery. It says this.

The same, to the Dean and Prior of Cologne.

You asked to be instructed through the Apostolic See. (And below:) Consequently, you also asked whether clerics who, while they were bound by the bond of excommunication, obtained ecclesiastical benefices can lawfully retain them after they have obtained the benefit of absolution, petitioning nevertheless [that it be explained through the Apostolic See] by what penalty abbots and abbesses and other prelates of churches who knowingly conferred ecclesiastical benefices upon clerics subject to excommunication ought to be corrected. To these matters We respond to your consultation that, since communication ought not to be held with excommunicated persons, ecclesiastical benefices cannot be conferred upon clerics bound by the bond of excommunication, nor can they lawfully retain them unless perhaps a merciful dispensation shall have been granted to them, since they did not obtain them canonically. But those who knowingly conferred those benefices upon such persons ought to be suspended from the collation of benefices until they deserve to obtain pardon concerning this, so that they may be punished in that in which they presumed to transgress. You asked further how clerics and monks or nuns of conventual churches ought to be punished who, after a sentence of interdict had been rendered, presumed thus far, and even now do not fear, to celebrate divine offices in places subjected to interdict, although on account of this they are bound by the bond of excommunication. To this we respond briefly that clerics who presumed such things are to be despoiled of ecclesiastical benefices, but monks or nuns are to be thrust into stricter monasteries to complete penance. [Furthermore, etc. Given at the Lateran on the Ides of May, in the tenth year, 1207.]

Latin source headnote: A collation of a benefice made to one who was previously excommunicated is valid if he was absolved at the time of the collation.

The same, to the Dean and Subdeacon of Poitiers and Master P., a Canon of Périgueux.

The beloved son Master P. [Boiol], a cleric of our venerable brother the Bishop of Tusculum, formerly proposed before us that, when the beloved son G., cardinal deacon of Saint Mary in Portico, was exercising in those parts the office of legation of the Apostolic See, certain persons among the canons of Limoges humbly entreated him to set in order their church, which was defrauded of the due service of clerics, presenting special entreaties on behalf of themselves and that same master, our scribe. But he, entering the city of Limoges, admonished the canons with entreaties interposed to receive them as associates and brothers, especially since five or four prebends had been vacant since the last ordering of that church. When they did not take care to respond after delays for deliberation had been sought and granted, the aforesaid cardinal invested those same clerics with a prebend of Limoges. (And below:) But if he should prove that the man was excommunicated at that time, they were not to postpone revoking what had been done concerning him. They, executing the apostolic command, after receiving witnesses from each party and understanding the confessions and allegations, sent that case, sufficiently instructed, to our examination. But when the said master and the penitentiary of Limoges appeared in our presence and we caused the acts of the trial to be inspected diligently, through the penitentiary's witnesses we understood proof to have been made that the Bishop of Limoges, several years before the same master was invested, had bound with the bond of excommunication both the clerics and townspeople of the castle of Limoges and the same P. by name, whom they said was their counselor and supporter. But through the witnesses of Master P. it was proved that, although the said bishop had pronounced a sentence of excommunication against the townspeople and their supporters, clerical as well as lay, of Limoges, he nevertheless absolved them three years before the said master was invested, certain priests having been retained in excommunication until a fixed time because they had presumed to celebrate contrary to a sentence of interdict, and that afterward the same bishop communicated with the said master in church and at table. But because, according to the tenor of our mandate, the said penitentiary did not prove, as he had offered, that the often-mentioned Master P. was excommunicated by the aforesaid bishop at the time of his investiture, while, on the contrary, proof was made of absolution and communication by the said bishop, we decided, on the counsel of our brothers, that what was done by the said legate concerning the aforesaid Master P. should be approved by definitive sentence. [Therefore, etc. Given at the Lateran on the sixth day before the Kalends of February, in the thirteenth year, 1210.]

Latin source headnote: A suspended or excommunicated person who celebrates in ignorance needs no dispensation with respect to irregularity; otherwise it is otherwise.

Gregory IX, to I. and I., Canons of Prague.

Of the Apostolic See. (And below:) But because in ignorance you celebrated divine offices during the suspension, probable ignorance renders you excused. But if perhaps the ignorance was gross and supine or erroneous, on account of which you need the favor of dispensation, we grant it to you from apostolic benignity. [Given on the tenth day before the Kalends of May, 1227.]

Latin source headnote: One who celebrates while under minor excommunication is not irregular, but sins, and can elect and exercise those things that belong to jurisdiction, although he cannot be elected; and if he confers sacraments, although he sins, nevertheless the conferral is valid and has its effect.

The same.

If one celebrates while bound by minor excommunication, although he sins gravely, he nevertheless incurs no mark of irregularity, nor is he prohibited from electing or from exercising those things that belong to him by reason of jurisdiction. Nevertheless, if such a person shall knowingly have been elected, his election is to be annulled for the reason that he is elected to receive those things from whose reception he was deprived by the holy Fathers. He sins, moreover, by conferring ecclesiastical sacraments; but those conferred by him do not lack the effect of their power, since he does not appear removed from the conferral but from participation in the sacraments, which consists in reception alone, provided that he has not, in contempt of ecclesiastical discipline, namely contrary to the prohibition of his superior, pertinaciously thrust himself into communion with excommunicated persons, in which case he is to be struck with anathema.