Title XXXI: On the Offenses of Prelates and Subjects

Latin source headnote: It admonishes prelates to abstain from burdens upon subjects, enumerates some of them, and imposes a doubled penalty upon those acting contrary to this.

Alexander III.

It has come to our hearing, wherefore, if it is true, we wonder greatly and are moved against you by law, that each year you impose a tallage upon the priests established in your jurisdiction as if upon servants and hirelings; unless they pay money according to your will, you interdict them from divine office, and you treat them cheaply and dishonorably to such a degree that you have rendered them contemptible to laymen. But since you ought to cherish priests as sons and brothers with benign and fraternal charity, we command that you in no way presume to exercise tallages of this kind and undue exactions against them, nor henceforth burden them unreasonably or treat them dishonorably, or attempt without the judgment of their chapter to suspend them or subject their churches to interdict; nor are you to permit them to hold two mother churches, of which you shall see that one suffices [for them]; nor are you to presume to excommunicate anyone without judicial order. You are to know for certain that, if reports of this kind concerning you should again come to our ears, with the Lord as author we shall punish you for so great offenses in such a manner that, from fear of your punishment, others will abstain from like things.

Latin source headnote: A bishop cannot without cause free a church subject to another from that person's subjection and service.

The same, to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

In addition, because the aforesaid bishop, as we have learned, has established several churches, and especially the church of Nortun., as free and immune from the custom and service of the archdeacons, through which he diminished and reduced their revenues, nevertheless, by this present communication we command you that, if the matter so occurred, you correct and amend the bishop's action concerning this with appeal removed, and so provide that the customs that the priests in the churches of their archdeaconries owe to the aforesaid archdeacons be fully preserved, and that they exhibit to them the due reverence and honor.

Latin source headnote: One who has subjection or the collation of a benefice cannot retain it for his own use or confer it upon himself.

The same, to the Bishop of Exeter.

It has come to our ears that certain archdeacons do not fear by their own authority to intrude themselves into churches in their archdeaconries that are vacant, and thus are not ashamed to detain those churches. Therefore, considering the offense of so great a presumption to be absurd and contrary to every principle of reason, and being unwilling to leave it uncorrected, by apostolic writings and by way of precept We command your fraternity that you compel through ecclesiastical censure those, if there are any archdeacons in your episcopate, who occupy churches in this manner or detain them after occupation, to relinquish them with every pretext and appeal ceasing; and, ordaining the same churches with suitable and upright persons, take care to punish the aforesaid archdeacons with due correction for so great a presumption.

Latin source headnote: Persons incontinent against nature, if clerics, are deposed and thrust into a monastery; if laymen, they are excommunicated.

The same, in the Lateran Council.

Clerics established in sacred orders who maintain women in their houses under the mark of incontinence are either to cast them off and live continently, or to be made strangers to ecclesiastical office and benefice. But whoever shall have been detected laboring under that incontinence which is against nature, on account of which the wrath of God comes upon the sons of unbelief and consumed five cities with fire, if they are clerics, let them be cast down from the clergy or thrust into monasteries to do penance; if laymen, let them be subjected to excommunication and made wholly strangers to the assembly of the faithful.

Latin source headnote: A subject is not bound to obey a superior who demands or commands something contrary to the tenor of his privilege.

The same.

Indeed, if bishops demand anything from abbots beyond due obedience, contrary to the freedom of the order granted by our predecessors and by us, let the same abbots be free by apostolic authority to deny what is sought, lest on this occasion this order, which thus far existed free, be bound by the snare of perpetual servitude.

Latin source headnote: A vicar of a church who usurps for himself the parsonship of that church contrary to an oath furnished ought not to be admitted to the exercise of his office.

The same, to the Bishop of Norwich.

We have also decided to establish concerning vicars who are obligated to the parsons by faith and oath that, if, the religion of faith and oath having been contemned, by falsely assuming the parsonship for themselves they rise up against the parsons, and concerning this shall have been confessed or convicted in court, henceforth they are in no way to be admitted in that episcopate to the exercise of their office.

Latin source headnote: An excommunication rendered against a subject because he does not obey contrary to a privilege granted to him by the superior is not valid.

Clement III.

When, in order to restrain the malice of certain persons, it was established with much deliberation in the Lateran Council that archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, archpriests, and also deans not exceed a fixed number of mounts and persons in visitations of churches, because, as we have heard, certain persons among the aforesaid do not observe this at all in your churches, we have decided attentively to provide healthfully for your advantage concerning this. Therefore, by apostolic authority we grant to your discretion that, if prelates of churches should perhaps presume, when visiting churches, to exceed the number of mounts and persons established in the Lateran Council and demand procuration for them, you are to be free by apostolic authority to deny it; and, if on account of this they shall have promulgated any sentence against your churches or your clerics, by apostolic authority we decree it to be invalid. [Let no one therefore, etc. Given at Rome at Saint Peter's.]

Latin source headnote: An inferior prelate below a bishop cannot unite his own church or one subject to him to another without the bishop's consent, even with the metropolitan's authority intervening. It says this, and it is a highly citable case.

Celestine III, to Bishop Faustinus.

Just as it is known to pertain to the Supreme Pontiff to unite episcopates and subject them to another's power, so the union of churches of his diocese and their subjection belongs to the bishop. Therefore, since, as became known to us, the prior of Granda subjected or united his monastery, which is in your diocese and ought to be ordered with your consent, to the monastery of Accato without seeking your assent at all, by apostolic writings we command and grant to your fraternity that what he did concerning this without consulting you, you may by our authority invalidate as shall be just, notwithstanding the assent or confirmation that the metropolitan is alleged to have interposed, since in the diocese of his suffragan, without the latter's assent, he ought not to attempt anything of this kind contrary to canonical constitutions. We also decree that it is to be annulled, as has been said, establishing, etc.

Latin source headnote: A cleric who publicly glories in his crime ought to be suspended.

Innocent III, to the Archpriest of Saint Andrew of Pall.

No one of sound mind is ignorant how grave a crime it is for clerics, when they have done evil, to glory and exult in the worst things. Indeed, we have learned, which we report not without grief, that, when R. Deserien. gave P., his daughter, as wife to a certain man named I., the deacon P., of the church of Saint Peter and son of the priest A., was not ashamed publicly to confess that he had carnally known the aforesaid woman. From this it happened that the aforesaid husband sent her back to her own people, to whom she had been joined matrimonially. Therefore, by apostolic writings we command you that, if the aforesaid matters shall have been established to you, with every contradiction and appeal ceasing, you do not postpone suspending the aforesaid cleric from office and benefice, compelling the husband to receive his wife and exhibit to her the marital duty, as is just. [Given on the fourth day before the Ides of May, in the first year of our pontificate, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: A cleric who directly or indirectly furnishes authority or counsel for homicide is rendered irregular.

The same, to the Bishop of Hippo and the Abbot of Tileto, Visitors of Lombardy.

We have learned from your letters that, when you had gone to the church of Albenga together with our venerable brother the Archbishop of Pisa, then Bishop of Vercelli, to discharge the office of visitation, the Bishop of Albenga, among the other things that had been alleged against him, confessed this to you with his own mouth: that, when a certain man in a certain town belonging to his jurisdiction was accused of theft, and that man denied it altogether, offering to purge himself by the judgment of glowing iron and to be punished by hanging if he failed in it, the said bishop asked the judge what seemed good to him concerning this. And when the judge had answered that it should be done as the thief himself had said, the glowing iron was brought into the presence of the bishop himself. When that thief had taken it, he was burned; whence the judge, terrified, consulted the aforesaid bishop as to what seemed good to him concerning this. He answered that, if that thief escaped thus, it would be an evil; although by letters that the same bishop has now directed to us he affirms that he used these words: “You hear how great the outcry of the people is; they all say [that] it is an evil if he thus escapes unpunished.” And so the bishop and the judge entered the town itself with a multitude, in whose presence the aforesaid thief was hanged by the authority of the bishop himself; on account of which you sent him to the Apostolic See with your letters. But the same man, when established in our presence, never alleged anything at all concerning these matters before us, nor did we see your letters, although he asserts that he presented them to us. Indeed, immediately when the said archbishop, who fully disclosed to us the course of this affair, came to the Apostolic See, the same bishop withdrew from our presence and, though sought, could not be found. But we deliberated diligently with our brothers concerning these matters, and, because the same bishop is known to have offended gravely not only in the judgment of the glowing iron but also in the hanging of the thief, since he furnished to these not only authority but also his bodily presence, we judge him unworthy of the ministry of the altar. Therefore, since the pontifical office cannot be fulfilled without the ministry of the altar, by apostolic writings we command your discretion that you admonish him to resign the episcopate; otherwise, removing him by apostolic authority from the church of Albenga, the obstacle of appeal being removed, cause provision to be made for it by a canonical election of a suitable person, [restraining gainsayers, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the Ides of December, in the eleventh year of our pontificate, 1208.]

Latin source headnote: A conferral of a benefice secretly made to an unworthy person ought to be quashed, and one who makes a second conferral before the first conferral is quashed ought for that occasion to be deprived of the power of conferring.

The same, to the Archbishop and the Abbots of the Greater Monastery and of Saint Julian at Tours.

When a dispute arose between the beloved sons B. and P., canons of Poitiers, concerning the subcantorship of the church of Poitiers, each of them firmly asserting that he had canonically obtained the subcantorship itself through the cantor of Poitiers, to whom its donation belonged, [the aforesaid Bocard, coming on account of this to the Apostolic See, affirmed before our beloved son Guala, Cardinal Deacon of Saint Mary in Porticu, whom we assigned as auditor to him and the proctor of the aforesaid Peter, that the subcantorship itself had been canonically conferred upon him. He added that, even if the cantor had otherwise conferred it canonically upon the aforesaid Peter, the donation itself nevertheless ought not to have taken effect because of the unworthiness of the person, since that Peter was a public gambler and manifest usurer. But although, after many altercations, the aforesaid Bocard introduced certain witnesses to prove not only this but also his principal claim, nevertheless, because both he and the opposing party intended to produce several witnesses concerning the principal matter and the incidental matters, we committed the case itself to our beloved sons, the dean and cantor of Saint Radegund at Poitiers and the dean of Thouars, to be concluded by a canonical termination, transmitting to them the aforesaid attestations enclosed under our seal. When the parties were afterward established before them and the said Bocard sought the admission of his witnesses, it was answered on the other side that he was not to be heard at all, since through our delegated judges, the beloved sons the archpriest, the master of the schools, and Master P. Parvus, canon of Bourges, he had been bound by a sentence of excommunication because he refused at their command to admit the cleric Hugh as a canon of Faye. And when afterward that Bocard presented letters of the same judges concerning his absolution, the opposing party began to accuse them of falsity, because their final clause differed from the remainder of the writing both in the color of the ink and in the form of the letters, alleging that the same B., as one accused of the crime of falsity, was to be repelled altogether from his claim. Then, after manifold and diverse contentions, the judges themselves, with the will of the parties, received witnesses concerning both the principal and the incidental matters. But when the same B. afterward appealed to our hearing, the judges themselves remitted the parties to our presence with the attestations and the acts of the trial authenticated by their own seals. The parties, therefore, recently established on this account at the Apostolic See, litigated for some time before our beloved son Cynthius, Cardinal Priest of the title of Saint Lawrence in Lucina, whom we assigned to them as auditor.] We, therefore, having diligently inspected the attestations of both parties, found it evidently proved that the same P. was a public gambler and manifest usurer, since he had publicly lent eleven denarii for twelve at gaming. Whence, although the same Peter, to cloak the excess of so great a presumption, alleged that he had done this according to the custom of the clerics of Gaul, by which almost all clerics so frequently lend and gamble, we nevertheless, who by the debt of our office propose to root out pests of this sort and altogether condemn pleasure-giving games, by occasion of which one arrives at material for dissolution under a certain appearance of courtliness, regard the aforesaid excuse as frivolous, since it is cloaked by a depraved custom, which ought rather to be called corruption. For the offense is more punishable in those by whom authority to offend is usurped for framing excuses in sins. Therefore, because what is known to have been done concerning the aforesaid subcantorship for the same P. was done contrary to legitimate sanctions, according to which the gates of dignity ought not to lie open to base and unworthy persons, we have determined that it must be invalidated on account of his unworthiness and baseness. Furthermore, it was manifestly proved by witnesses against the aforesaid B. that the final clause had not been inserted in the letters of the same judges with the knowledge of the aforesaid judges of Bourges, as is expressed clearly in their depositions; Robert the deacon also, introduced as a witness to prove this, deposed the same thing and added that, when he was to seal those letters, [he] inspected them diligently and did not then find the same clause appended. Whence the other party alleged that, because the aforesaid B. had knowingly used letters thus falsified, he ought deservedly to be repelled altogether as a forger. But we, considering that, even if it were established most evidently that the said clause had been appended to those letters without the knowledge of the aforesaid judges, nevertheless, because proof was not made to us that the said B. appended that clause, or procured that it be placed by another, or even that he knowingly used letters thus falsified, determined that the same man was to be absolved from an accusation of falsity of this kind; especially since, after this was objected against him, he altogether ceased to use them. [In addition, through the witnesses produced by Bocard concerning the principal matter it was shown sufficiently enough that on the fifth weekday—or, to speak more expressly, on the Thursday after the feast of Saint Michael, two years previously—the aforesaid subcantorship had been granted to him. But by his own confession it appeared that the same feast in that year had been celebrated on a Thursday, and thus it was proved by consequence that the said donation was made to B. on the eighth day after the feast itself. Moreover, through six witnesses—namely the cantor, Oliver, W. Gerru, R. Agnellus, I. Marinus, and P. of Marcai—whom the aforesaid P. introduced to prove that the donation made to him had preceded, it was manifestly proved that the often-mentioned subcantorship had been conferred upon him at an earlier time, since Oliver, W., and I. say manifestly that the donation was made to Peter on the second or third day after the said feast, the cantor that it was on the third or fourth day, and P. that it was in the week after the same feast. But by the witnesses whom Bocard introduced to disprove the said witnesses, Oliver and William were discredited as manifest fornicators. The cantor also is convicted by many witnesses of being perjured, because, although he said under oath that he had never given the aforesaid subcantorship to Bocard, it was proved on the other side by many witnesses that the cantor invested the same man in their presence. Moreover, R. Agnellus is known to have deposed nothing concerning the principal matter, although the party of Peter, saying that he had spoken ambiguously, attempted to show that the same witness had said concerning the principal matter that same thing which Riverius and William had said. But the two remaining witnesses, namely I. Marinus and P. of Marcai, remained, and they could not reasonably be discredited. For although the party of Bocard said that faith was not to be placed in the testimony of that P., because he had been a proctor in Peter’s case—which it endeavored to establish from the fact that the witnesses of the same Bocard had said that the same I. had carried Peter’s letters, sought witnesses, and done certain things of this kind—nevertheless, because it was not established to us that he had been the proctor of the same P., we judged that faith was to be placed in his testimony. We also regarded as frivolous what the same party of Bocard alleged, namely that, because Peter of Marcai said that the donation was made to the often-mentioned Peter in the week after the aforesaid feast, it is implied that that donation to Peter had by no means preceded the donation of B., which had been made on the eighth day after the same feast. For since a week, or seven-day period, is by no means extended beyond the seventh day, it is apparent that the donation made within the week, or even the seven-day period, was certainly made at an earlier time than that which was made afterward on the eighth day.] Therefore, since by the depositions at least of two witnesses, who were in no way discredited, it has been evidently established to us that the grant made to P. preceded, although it deserved to be disapproved because of the unworthiness of the same P., we decree the grant afterward made to B. invalid and void. But because the cantor, to whom the donation of the subcantorship itself is alleged to belong—to say nothing of his perjury, conducted himself so inconstantly in this affair that, as was premised, he attempted to make a second donation before the first had been disapproved, and it is fitting that a person be punished in that in which he is seen to have offended, we have determined that the inconstancy of his variation is to be punished in this: that he is to have no faculty of granting the subcantorship itself on this occasion. By the authority of the present letters, commanding and granting you to assign the same, supported by our authority, the obstacle of appeal being removed, to a suitable person, [restraining gainsayers, etc.]

Latin source headnote: To take cognizance of a matrimonial cause, and likewise to impose public penances and grant indulgences, pertains to the episcopal dignity; whence an inferior prelate ought not to intermeddle in these matters unless it belongs to him by special right.

The same, in the General Council.

From the complaints of bishops coming to us from diverse parts of the world, we have learned of the grave and great excesses of certain abbots, who, not content with their own bounds, extend their hands to those things that belong to the episcopal dignity, by taking cognizance of matrimonial causes, imposing public penances, also granting letters of indulgences, and presuming similar things, whence it sometimes happens that episcopal authority becomes cheap in the eyes of many. Wishing, therefore, in these matters to provide both for the dignity of bishops and the salvation of abbots, by the present decree we firmly prohibit any abbot from presuming to extend himself to such things, if he wishes to avoid his own peril, unless perhaps any one of them is able to defend himself concerning matters of this kind by a special grant or another legitimate cause.

Latin source headnote: A priest cannot be compelled to reveal a sinner or a sin confessed in penance.

Honorius III, to P., Cardinal Priest of the title of Saint Pudentiana, Our Vicar.

The beloved son John, priest of Saint Thomas in Parione, complained in an exposition before us that the rectors of the confraternity of the City, striving to constrain him to reveal the thieves and that which had been revealed to him as a priest concerning a certain theft, or to make satisfaction from it to the person who suffered the loss, pronounced a sentence of interdict against him unless he accomplished one of the aforesaid things within eight days. Therefore, because it would be pernicious for the aforesaid priest to reveal things entrusted to him in such a manner, and again unjust for him to be compelled to pay for that which he did not seize, by apostolic writings we command your discretion that, summoning the aforesaid rectors before you, you enjoin upon them that they cease entirely from burdening the aforesaid priest concerning this.

Latin source headnote: Private persons regularly cannot constitute a college and possess the signs of a college unless it is otherwise granted to them.

The same, to Provost R. and Archdeacon I. of Soissons.

Our beloved daughter in Christ, the Abbess of Iotrensis, took care to intimate to us that, although the priests and clerics of the church of Iotrensis in the diocese of Meaux have not been accustomed to have their own seal, nor are they one body such that it might be called a chapter, they nevertheless contend, against the will of the abbess herself, who is their head and patroness, that they are to have a seal to her prejudice and burden; for which reason she petitioned us that this be prohibited to them. But because the aforesaid matters were not established to us, we command your discretion that, after the truth concerning these things has been more diligently investigated, if it shall have been established to you that it is so, you expressly prohibit the said priests and clerics by our authority from presuming either to fabricate a seal anew or to use it if perhaps it has newly been fabricated, restraining them, if they presume to come against our prohibition, from a presumption of this kind through ecclesiastical censures, appeal being set aside.

Latin source headnote: One who, contrary to his oath, denies that a prelate is his lord, or complains against him before a secular judge, or attacks him, ought to be deposed.

The same, to the Archdeacon of Saint Aubert, the Abbot of Annona, and the Provost of Cambrai.

We received a grave complaint, not devoid of grief, and surrounded with the stings of insults to the whole clergy: that, when our venerable brother the Bishop of Amiens had conferred a certain vacant benefice, which is called the altar of Villesco, upon a certain suitable person—as he believed it to belong to him—while the Archdeacon of Amiens was absent, the same archdeacon, accompanied by a band consisting of his brother Manasser and certain others, approached the aforesaid bishop and, alleging that he had been wronged by him concerning this, insisted before him that the person instituted by the bishop should be removed altogether from the benefice itself without cognizance of the cause. (And below:) We command your discretion that, if it shall have been established to you that the often-mentioned archdeacon, once and a second time, contrary to the fidelity of the homage rendered and the reverence owed, denied that his bishop was his lord, or lodged an action against him concerning spiritual matters in the secular forum, or furnished either cause or counsel both to the attackers of the bishop and his associates and to his brother or his accomplices, you cut him off perpetually from the church of Amiens as a rotten member, lest by his corruption he contaminate others, and remove him altogether, causing his benefices to be assigned to suitable persons by those to whom their donation belongs; otherwise, because public report labors against him and manifest presumptions appear, impose upon him canonical purgation concerning the aforesaid matters with ten persons of the same dignity, order, and province as oath-helpers. But if perhaps he shall fail in such a purgation within a time to be fixed by you, deprive him of office and benefice, every impediment of contradiction and appeal being removed, nevertheless causing the benefices which the same archdeacon holds to be assigned to suitable persons, as was expressed above.

Latin source headnote: It sets forth fifteen burdens inflicted upon religious, from which it commands prelates to abstain.

Gregory IX, to all Prelates of Churches.

Exceedingly unjust (And below:) Since religious men, wholesomely denying themselves, have chosen to serve poor Christ in poverty according to His pleasure, as having nothing and possessing all things, there are not lacking many, both prelates of churches and others, who, seduced by blind cupidity and regarding whatever the piety of the faithful bestows upon the aforesaid persons as taken away from their own greed, disturb their peace in manifold ways. For, against the rule approved by the Apostolic See and the institutions of their order, they wish, against their will, to hear their confessions, to impose penances upon them, and to furnish them the Eucharist; nor do they wish the body of Christ to be reserved in their oratories. They compel their dead brothers to be buried at their churches and their funeral rites to be celebrated there; and if any one of the dying brothers chooses burial elsewhere than in their churches, they compel the funeral first to be carried to their churches, so that the offering may fall to their uses. Nor, allowing them to possess a bell or a blessed cemetery, do they permit them to celebrate divine things except at certain times. They also wish to fix according to their own will in their houses a certain number of brothers, priests, clerics, and laymen, as well as of candles, lamps, and ornaments, and they demand from them the residue of the candles when new ones are set out. Nor do they permit their new priests to celebrate their first Masses anywhere other than in their churches, nevertheless compelling them to receive and reserve for those prelates' use the offerings in the daily Masses that they celebrate in their own places and at their own altars. They also contend to extort from them under the name of an offering whatever is given to them by the pious devotion of the faithful within the precinct of their houses while they celebrate the solemnities of Mass; and they wrongly claim for their own right what is bestowed upon them unconditionally, both in ornaments of the altar and in ecclesiastical books. Therefore, we command that each and all of you desist from the aforesaid burdens, more strictly restraining your subjects from things of this kind. [The twelfth day before the Kalends of September, 1231.]

Latin source headnote: It sets forth twelve burdens upon the Preachers and Minors, from which it commands prelates to abstain.

The same, to all Prelates of Churches.

Exceedingly depraved (And below:) Since certain religious men—namely, the Friars Preachers and Minors, whose order and rule the Apostolic See is known to have approved—serve poor Christ in the most straitened poverty, many prelates and others compel them to attend their synods and to be subject to their constitutions. Not content with these things, they threaten that they will hold chapters and scrutinies in the places of the brothers for the purpose of correcting them, demanding fidelity confirmed by an oath from their ministers and custodians. Likewise commanding them for a slight cause to come with them processionally both outside and within cities, they fulminate a sentence of excommunication against their benefactors; and, threatening the same thing against the brothers, they endeavor to remove them from the places in which they serve the Lord unless they obey them in all the things said above. In addition, prohibiting the brothers from daring to go, when devoutly invited by the people, to more honorable cities and towns where they may dwell religiously and honorably, they presume to promulgate a sentence of excommunication both against the brothers who go and against those who receive them. They also contend to extort from them tithes from the fruits of gardens, as well as revenues from the dwellings of the brothers as from houses of Jews, asserting that, if the brothers did not dwell there, certain proceeds would be paid by other inhabitants. And in order that they may subject them entirely to their dominion, they wish to set ministers and custodians over them at the choice of their own will. Therefore, we command that each and all of you desist from the aforesaid burdens, more strictly restraining your subjects from things of this kind.

Latin source headnote: One who does not observe an interdict is suspended from office and benefice and from all jurisdiction. It says this according to the true understanding.

The same, to the Archbishop of Braga.

So great is the key of Peter (And below:) It cannot fail to come to mind, to the confusion of P., formerly Bishop of Coimbra, how greatly he offended against us and the Roman Church, despised the keys of Peter, and injured ecclesiastical power, since he not only rashly violated the sentence of interdict which he had observed from the beginning, but even induced others—indeed, compelled them—not to observe it. And those whom he could by no means induce by admonitions or bend by threats and terrors to violate the sentence of interdict, after atrocious injuries, loss of goods, and despoiling of kinsmen, he stripped of dignities, prebends, and benefices and compelled miserably to go into exile, conferring those things upon his supporters in this matter not without rash presumption. All these things the same bishop publicly acknowledged in our presence and that of our brothers. Although the aforesaid bishop resigned voluntarily into our hands, nevertheless, unwilling that those who did not fear to violate a sentence of interdict of this kind by their own rashness, and to receive the dignities, prebends, and benefices of others who had been despoiled of them without fault and without reasonable cause, should escape the severity of canonical vengeance, lest the perversity of the deed pass into an example for presumptuous persons, by the authority of almighty God we decree invalid and void every institution, destitution, and conferral of prebends, benefices, and dignities presumed by the same bishop, and the sentences of excommunication or interdict pronounced by him against anyone on this occasion after the violation of that interdict. But because where the offense is greater, there it is to be avenged more severely, we command that, after removing altogether from the benefices themselves, prebends, and dignities, and also from any other benefices and churches that they hold, all whom the aforesaid bishop intruded into the aforesaid benefices, prebends, and dignities, you suspend by apostolic authority from office and benefice both those same presumptuous persons and all others who damnably violated the aforesaid interdict. You shall also compel those who are established to have extended rash hands against the persons and property of the aforesaid canons, prelates, and clerics to come to our presence to receive a sentence according to their deserts, invoking for this, if necessary, the assistance of the secular arm.