Title XXXIV: On Canonical Purgation

Latin source headnote: A defamed person worthy of belief purges himself by oath; otherwise it is the contrary, and one who sins enormously is deemed unsuitable.

From the Council of Tribur.

A noble or freeborn man, if accused in a synod and he denies the crime, if he shall have been known to be trustworthy, shall purge himself with twelve freeborn men. But if previously he was caught in theft, perjury, or false testimony, he shall not be admitted to an oath; rather, purgation shall be imposed upon him as upon one who is not freeborn.

Latin source headnote: A defamed person who, after being admonished three times, does not correct himself is suspended from office until purgation.

From the Council of Agde.

If any priest, negligent of his manner of life, has permitted evil things to be suspected of him through depraved examples, and the people, bound by the bishop through an oath or ban of the Christianity, have disclosed his infamy, and certain accusers of his crime have been lacking, he shall first be admonished separately by the bishop, then before two or three witnesses; and, if he has not amended himself, [in the assembly of priests] the bishop shall admonish him by public rebuke. But if not even thus has he corrected himself, he shall be suspended from office until fitting satisfaction, lest the faithful people suffer scandal in him.

Latin source headnote: Regulars also purge themselves of an offense according to the canonical rule.

From the Council of Meaux.

If nuns are accused of serving lusts and cannot be manifestly detected, they shall be compelled canonically to purge their evil reputation in accordance with the rule of their standing.

Latin source headnote: If the offense is probable, purgation is not imposed; otherwise it is. It says this as regards the title.

From the same council.

If anyone of ecclesiastical rank has manifestly disclosed himself as an assenter to or intermediary for abductors of the betrothed women of others, he shall be repelled from his own rank; and, if he has been assailed by probable suspicions arising from this, he shall canonically purge himself.

Latin source headnote: A defamed person against whom a crime cannot be proved ought to purge himself by an oath concerning the truth, but the compurgators concerning belief.

Pope Innocent, to the Patriarch of Aquileia and the Bishop of Mantua.

We do not believe it escapes you how many times our brother A., Bishop of Trent, has been accused of simony in our presence and yours; but the accusers, bringing a writing, were unable to produce witnesses according to canonical form—namely, that he had given the church of Saint Peter to the priest P. for four measures of grain, which he had received from that church. But because neither the accusers nor the witnesses were able to proceed in that cause according to the form of the canons and the statutes of the holy Fathers, on the common counsel of our brothers we judge that he ought to purge himself of the aforesaid simony with three members of his own order and four abbots and religious priests as oath-helpers, in your presence. The tenor of the purgation shall, moreover, be of this kind: the same bishop shall first swear upon the holy Gospels of God that, for the church of Saint Peter to be given to the priest P., neither he himself, by himself or through an intermediary person, nor anyone for him with his knowledge received a price; then [however] the compurgators shall swear upon the holy Gospels of God that they believe he swore truly. [We therefore, etc. (cf. c. 17, C. II, qu. 5.)]

Latin source headnote: A bishop compels his defamed parishioner to purge himself before him, unless he has legitimately appealed from him.

Alexander III, to the Bishop of Genoa.

We preside among others with supreme dignity, although undeserving, so that we ought to declare things which are doubtful and diligently respond to the consultations of individuals insofar as the Lord has ministered to us, so that questions may be terminated under the examination of the Roman Church, which by the Lord's disposition obtains the primacy among the other churches. Whence, because your fraternity wished to consult us as to whether a bishop can compel his parishioner, when public report accuses him, to purgation, we respond to your consultation in this manner: that, if he labors under public infamy concerning any crime, when an accuser and witnesses are lacking, he is to be compelled to purgation by the bishop himself, unless perhaps he has determined to appeal concerning this to a superior judge. Indeed, if he has appealed, he shall obey the judgment of him to whose examination he has willed to transfer the cause through appeal.

Latin source headnote: Compurgators ought to be honorable and to have knowledge of the person whom they purge, and they ought not to be impeded by the judge or another; and one who fails in purgation is punished as convicted.

The same, to the Bishop-elect of Gaeta.

When P. Manconella, priest (And below: [cf. c. 10, On Accusations, V. 1.]) We will, however, that his purgators be of such honor and reputation that it is probable that they would be unwilling to swear falsely through love, hatred, or consideration of money. But so that they may appear suitable, it is necessary that they know the life and manner of living of the person whom they ought to purge. You shall take care to deprive one who fails in purgation of every ecclesiastical office and benefice, taking care by every means that, if any should wish to assist a person purging himself in his purgation, you show them no malevolence or indignation, nor impede them in any manner, or permit them, so far as lies in you, to be impeded by others.

Latin source headnote: An absolution made according to vulgar purgation does not hold, and notwithstanding it purgation can be imposed anew and an accusation is admitted.

Lucius III.

From the contents of your letters we have understood that, when you had suspended the priest H., the bearer of the present letters, from the priestly office because he was defamed concerning homicide, after the counsel of the brothers in your episcopate had been consulted, he produced letters of your predecessor of good memory, from which it appeared that he had purged his innocence by the judgment of cold water and that the bishop had absolved him by his letters; a scholar also, who at the instigation of the devil had perpetrated the homicide, affirmed, after touching the holy Gospels, that he himself was immune from the crime. But because foreign judgments are prohibited, we, judging that the purgation which he furnished was not sufficient, command your fraternity by apostolic writings that, if suitable accusers have not appeared who can convict him of the homicide, you enjoin upon him that he show his innocence through canonical purgation with seven or five members of his own order as oath-helpers, as you shall know to be expedient; and when he has furnished it, you shall relax the suspension without delay and difficulty and, announcing him to be a man of good testimony, absolve him from the infamy of homicide, no contradiction or appeal notwithstanding, supported by our authority. The one who is defamed, however, shall affirm by a furnished oath that he is immune from the crime of homicide, and the purgators ought to swear that they believe he swore truly.

Latin source headnote: It suffices that a compurgator be tolerated by the Church, be of good reputation, and not be condemned as suspected of a crime.

The same, to the Bishop of Winchester.

Established in our presence, P. the deacon of Bochan showed us by his assertion (And below:) Furthermore, this induces no small wonder in us: that you were unwilling to receive the offered purgation unless you first commended the names of the individual persons who wished to purge the said P. and first diligently inquired concerning their nations and the other circumstances, as though you were going to make ordinations—would that you discussed ordinands in this way! Indeed, in purgations to be made, since it is sufficient for those who furnish an oath for the person to be purged to swear according to their own conscience and opinion that the person to be purged is immune from the crime or that he furnished a good oath, if the purgators are tolerated by the Church, are of good reputation while ministering in their orders, and have not been condemned in judgment for a crime, they are without doubt to be admitted without any investigation.

Latin source headnote: On account of the magnitude of the crime, a defamed person can be suspended not only from office but also from benefice until he has purged himself. This is the first point. And on this account the number of compurgators is increased. This is the second point. For a cause, someone is sometimes suspended for a time after purgation has been furnished. This is the third point. And one who fails in purgation is punished as convicted. This is the fourth point.

Innocent III, to the Archbishop of Sens.

Among our solicitudes this ought to be the chief: that we catch the little foxes *which endeavor to demolish the vineyard of the Lord, having certain diverse appearances but tails joined to one another, because in vanity they agree in the same thing. For these are the taverners who mix water with wine, who serve the poison of the dragon in the golden cup of Babylon, who, according to the prophetic word, bend the bow, a bitter thing, so that they may shoot the innocent in secret; their error creeps like a cancer in such a way that, unless the cluster is injured in the flower, it will germinate fruit not only bitter but even pestiferous. The Apostle, an eminent preacher, describes these in his epistle with prophetic speech and teaches that they are to be avoided in every way; against them priests ought to sound with silver trumpets so that, with the people crying out and the ark of the covenant preceding, the walls of Jericho—which had already been condemned by perpetual anathema—may fall, in such a way that, if anyone should presume to steal from it even a golden rule, he shall be overwhelmed with stones with Achor, the son of Charmi. *[You, therefore, as a provident and discreet man, fulfill the office of a true pastor and exercise pastoral solicitude purely and fully over the flock committed to you, while you both are zealous for the law of Christ and, attacking the error of heretics, unsheathe the sword of canonical vengeance against their supporters. For vigilantly you keep watch over your flock, lest, after abandoning the fold of the true shepherd, which is one, the sheep rashly depart after the tracks of flocks which are not of it, or lest the wolf seize and scatter those whom truth has united in the same fold under one shepherd of the catholic faith. Appointed among the chief cultivators of the vineyard of the Lord of Sabaoth, you do not suffer the little foxes which we have described to demolish its appearance, but endeavor rather to catch or drive them away. Indeed, as we have learned from the letters of your fraternity, when at the prayers of our venerable brother the Bishop of Auxerre you had gone to the town which is called La Charité, with him and our venerable brothers the Bishops of Nevers and Meaux present, you caused the people of that town to be assembled together, where, after a diligent inquiry had been held concerning heretics and their doctrines, among others whom you found publicly defamed concerning heretical depravity, you learned that the Dean of Nevers was burdened by common opinion and that through him and in him no small scandal had been manifested in the minds of Catholics. Whence, on account of the vehement infamy and grave scandal, you suspended him from office and benefice, assigning him a certain day at Auxerre on which he should present himself before you to defend himself from the crime charged. And when he had come to your presence at the appointed term, with the said Bishops of Auxerre and Nevers and many persons learned in both laws present, since no certain accuser appeared against him, by virtue of your office you caused witnesses both for him and against him to be received and diligently examined and the attestations also to be published. And when afterward he did not present himself before you on the day granted to him, although you had granted him free opportunity to speak against the witnesses and their statements and to propose his arguments, after certain proofs and allegations had been proposed and he had finally renounced them, he sought a sentence. But you, withdrawing together with our venerable brothers the Bishop of Troyes and the said Bishops of Auxerre and Nevers, after the attestations had been diligently inspected and the counsel of many wise men employed, because the crime against him had not been clearly proved, did not determine that he was to be condemned for heresy. But because from the statements of the witnesses there was much presumption against him, inasmuch as it had been manifestly proved that he had not only had familiarity with heretics but had even knowingly sought it, and since he also labored under public infamy and so great a scandal had been stirred up against him that it could not be erased by canonical purgation, you were unwilling either to absolve him or to receive the purgation which he had offered at the beginning and was then also offering, but determined that he was to be sent to the Apostolic See with your letters, understanding that from the fullness of power granted to us we can dispense short of canonical punishment and increase the rigor of severity beyond it. Moreover, when he had afterward been established in our presence, we granted him a common audience in our consistory, where he endeavored to excuse himself in many ways, alleging especially that, since he offered purgation when no legitimate accuser appeared, witnesses against him ought not to have been admitted in any way.] Therefore, although an ecclesiastical constitution teaches that such persons are to be suspended only from office until canonical purgation, nevertheless, because you suspended him also from benefice on account of the enormity of the crime, we are unwilling to disapprove it; nor do we disapprove even this: that, although no legitimate accuser appeared against him, nevertheless by virtue of your office, with public report making the accusation, you wished to inquire more fully into the truth. Attending, however, to the widespread infamy, grave scandal, and vehement suspicion arising from the statements of the witnesses, which appeared to make against the same dean, since purgation would have to be imposed upon him on account of any one of them, and preserving justice while softening rigor, on the counsel of our brothers, the archbishops [and] bishops existing at the Apostolic See, we have determined that a purgation of the fourteenth hand of his order is to be imposed upon him. Therefore, remitting him to you with apostolic letters so that he may be purged where he is known to be defamed, we command your fraternity by apostolic writings that, having summoned with you the said Bishop of Nevers and our venerable brother the Bishop of Paris, you receive the purgation imposed upon him by us, yet in such a way that those who proceed to prove his purgation are Catholics in faith and approved in life, who have known his manner of life and life not so much in modern time as in the past; but, when the purgation has been received, do not postpone restoring his benefice to him, lest he be compelled to beg, to the reproach of the clergy. As a punishment, however, for that familiarity which he is known knowingly to have had with heretics, we will that he remain suspended from office until the scandal is quieted, yet in such a way that he publicly abjure familiarity with heretics. You shall moreover strictly command him that in the aforesaid and other surrounding towns he profess and preach the catholic faith, and confound and detest heretical depravity, henceforth adorning his life with good works in such a way that the infamy may be converted into good reputation and every scandal and suspicion may be erased from the minds of Catholics. But if perhaps he should fail in the purgation, you shall strike him with the sword of ecclesiastical discipline and shall not omit to thrust him, deposed from office and benefice, into a strict monastery to perform penance. [Given at the Lateran, on the Nones of May, 1199.]

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

The same, to the Abbot of Saint-Denis and the Priest of Saint Martin.

When the beloved (And below:) We will and command you, however, to attend to this: that such persons as are neighboring and honorable be admitted to this kind of purgation. [But if not all, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the ninth day before the Kalends of April, 1202.]

Latin source headnote: If infamy does not take its origin from probable conjectures, purgation is not to be imposed of necessity; nevertheless, it can be imposed at the insistence of the person to be purged.

The same.

When in his youth (And below: [cf. c. 15, On Presumptions, II. 23.]) But because a father chastises the son whom he loves, for greater caution we enjoined upon the Bishop of Pécs through our letters that, by ceasing from his familiarity, he should conduct himself before God and men in such a way that sinister suspicion concerning him could not be held. But the enemy man, surreptitiously obtaining a rescript of those letters, wickedly published it before the aforesaid king and magnates of the kingdom so that the same bishop should thereby be defamed more greatly, since he appeared to be unbelievable and suspect to us. Whence we, attending to so great a wickedness of his rivals, although we were pressed many times against him, nevertheless could never be moved against him, knowing that a multitude easily follows the statement of one person. But when the same bishop had been postulated to the metropolitan see of Esztergom, certain persons who opposed that postulation, so that they might more easily impede his promotion, endeavored to rekindle the coals of that accusation. Whence a certain proctor of his, established in our presence, on the counsel of certain of his friends who indeed had a good zeal concerning this, but not according to knowledge, began before us in the presence of our brothers insistently to petition that we cause canonical purgation to be imposed upon the same bishop so that he might demonstrate his innocence. We, however, regarding a petition of this kind as insufficiently provident, indeed, as exceedingly improvident, often wished to recall the proctor himself from it, both because the often-mentioned bishop did not appear among good and serious men to be defamed concerning that crime, since his fellow bishops, questioned concerning this by apostolic command, took care to furnish us laudable testimony concerning him, and because such defamation appeared to have proceeded from enemies and rivals, as was expressed above. Whence, since his previous life appeared commendable and a deed of this kind appeared incredible, we did not believe that any purgation was henceforth to be imposed upon him. Moreover, because the proctor insisted, we were compelled, not by necessity of law but by the importunity of the petitioner, to command that purgation be imposed upon him by you with two [bishops and three] abbots, although we had protested to the same proctor that such a petition was then being made insufficiently providently for another also reason: namely, because the suffragans of the church of Esztergom would scarcely at that time purge that man, since they contradicted him in the matter of the postulation, and the suffragans of the church of Kalocsa would then by no means purge him, because a controversy concerning the metropolitan see of Esztergom was being disputed between him and the Archbishop of Kalocsa. Whence, since there are no other pontiffs in Hungary, it deservedly appeared that he could not purge himself in that article through the bishops of his kingdom. [Therefore, etc. Given at Ferentino, on the Nones of July, in the ninth year, 1206.]

Latin source headnote: A compurgator swears concerning belief.

The same, to the Archbishop of Tyre.

Concerning witnesses (And below: [cf. c. 29, On Witnesses, II. 20.]) But those who are introduced to purge the infamy of someone are bound to affirm by oath this alone: that they believe that the person who is purged speaks the truth by oath. [Given at the Lateran, on the fourth day before the Nones of January, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: A person defamed concerning a defect of birth ought not to be promoted unless he first purges himself.

The same, to the Bishop of Florence.

Coming to our presence, the beloved son T., deacon, your parishioner, showed us by a humble intimation that, when it was said by his rivals that he was the son of a priest, you neither wished to promote him to the order of the presbyterate nor permitted him to be promoted by another, although neither this nor anything else had been proved against him. Therefore, we command your fraternity by apostolic writings that, if the deacon himself was publicly besprinkled with a mark of this kind and it cannot be legitimately established to you concerning it, after purgation has been received from him, provided that no other canonical impediment obstructs, you do not defer on this account to promote him to the office of priest, because, although it is not a mark of offense, it is nevertheless a mark of defect impeding promotion to sacred orders. [Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the eighth day before the Ides of February, in the ninth year, 1207.]

Latin source headnote: Purgation is not to be imposed concerning a notorious crime; and, while a case concerning crimes is pending before a delegate of the Pope, a purgation received concerning them by the ordinary is not valid.

The same, to the Abbot of Eugen. and the Scholastic of Modena.

When, for the beloved sons H. the priest and G., proctor of the cleric O., who had been constituted in our presence, we granted our beloved son T., our subdeacon and chaplain, as auditor, the same proctor proposed before him that, when the said priest had been publicly defamed concerning the crime of incest, the Bishop of Constance of good memory, the ordinary judge, imposed purgation upon him; and, when he had been unable to purge himself, he was by sentence deprived by him in a full synod of his churches, which he nevertheless held for some time, occupied by violence. And when afterwards the same priest publicly kept in his house after bringing her there the wife of one of his blood relatives, at the petition of H., the parish priest of Heniso, and of certain other clerics of the diocese of Constance, we say that we sent our letters to judges in this form: namely, that, if the said priest could not purge himself before them concerning the crime of adultery and incest, they should chastise him with the due penalty. They, proceeding in the business according to the tenor of our mandate, when it was established to them that the same priest, because he had failed in the purgation, had been condemned in synod by the aforesaid bishop, deprived him by sentence, as contumacious, of the aforesaid churches, especially since the crime of incest and adultery, as notorious, was manifestly evident to them; and they granted to the beloved son, the Abbot of Saint Gall, to whom the donation of those churches pertained, free power to confer those churches upon other persons, and he afterwards assigned them to the above-mentioned cleric O. [But the same priest, coming to the Apostolic See and falsely asserting that he had been despoiled with the order of law disregarded, carried back our letters to the abbot of the house of Saint Peter and his fellow judges, who were altogether suspect to the other party. After a copy of those letters had been denied to the same O., and after they had refused to admit his proof concerning the falsity of the letters, they, with the order of law disregarded and after an appeal had lawfully been interposed to us, delivered a sentence of restitution for the same priest, which O. proposed that he would prove at the proper place and time through lawful witnesses.] The said priest, however, among other things, responded on the opposing side that [although he had been defamed concerning the foregoing crimes by hostile enemies, and purgation had on that account been imposed upon him by the chapter of Constance, nevertheless no one wished to receive it, although he had been prepared to furnish it within the term fixed for him; adding that] the proceeding of the aforesaid judges deserved to be retracted because, when joinder of issue had not occurred, and after an appeal had been interposed to us, they had presumed to proceed against him. [Moreover, the said priest proposed by way of complaint that, when he had been despoiled of the aforesaid churches by violence by the aforesaid O. and his accomplices, and, after letters of restitution had been obtained first to the above-mentioned abbot of the house of Saint Peter and his fellow judges, and secondly to the bishop-elect of Constance, he had deserved to obtain the benefit of restitution through both, the same O. did not fear to despoil him repeatedly. Hence, when on this account he and his accomplices, bound by a sentence of excommunication, persisted in their contumacy, we gave orders to the aforesaid bishop-elect and his fellow judges that, supported by our authority, they should more strictly prohibit divine offices from being said in places in which the same excommunicated persons were present, and, with appeal ceasing, should suspend them from divine things until they competently satisfied the often-mentioned priest for the damages and injuries inflicted, or presented themselves before us to answer for so great a contempt. But they, fleeing to the refuge of an appeal, although under interdict, celebrate divine rites contrary to the prohibition of those judges, and they did not take care to send a representative to our presence.] He added that, to abolish every infamy, he had taken care to furnish the purgation imposed by the bishop-elect of Constance; yet the often-mentioned rivals do not cease to defame him. Hence he humbly supplicated us that, absolved from their claims, we should cause him to enjoy peaceful possession of the aforesaid churches, [lawfully punishing those who, excommunicated and under interdict, presumed to celebrate divine offices. To these things the proctor added that the said purgation was received by the bishop-elect while the other party was absent and wholly ignorant, which he also asserted that he would prove.]

Therefore, these and the other things that were proposed before the aforesaid chaplain having been more fully understood, although those letters said to have been obtained to the aforesaid judges, or a transcript of them, had not been shown before us, nevertheless, because from the tenor of their report, which the said proctor exhibited, it was clearly established to us—as if the letters themselves had been shown—that those judges had proceeded with the order of law disregarded, by apostolic authority we retract both their proceeding and the grant of the churches made by the aforesaid abbot at their mandate, especially since the sequence of the report itself contains contradictory and opposing things. For it is said that the crime of the same priest had been public and notorious to such a degree that no place at all remained for denial, seeing that the people of the entire neighborhood were witnesses to it; and yet it is stated there beforehand that they fixed for the same priest a peremptory term in which, if he could, he might canonically purge himself concerning the infamy of the aforesaid crimes; for, assuredly, if the crime was notorious, purgation was certainly not to be imposed upon him, but a sentence of condemnation was to be promulgated against him. [We have also thought that the sentence of restitution delivered for the same priest by different judges ought to be approved, commanding you by the authority of the present letters that you introduce the same priest into corporal possession of the aforesaid churches, with the obstacle of any contradiction and appeal removed, and defend him after he has been introduced; constraining objectors, if there are any, by ecclesiastical censure with appeal postponed, and causing competent satisfaction to be made to the same priest both concerning the fruits received in the meantime from the aforesaid churches and concerning the damages and injuries inflicted. Full restitution having been made, if a lawful opponent appears who can and wishes lawfully to prove that the same priest, because he failed in a purgation lawfully imposed upon him, was condemned by the aforesaid bishop and despoiled of the often-mentioned churches, you shall impose perpetual silence upon him concerning those churches, causing them to be canonically provided with suitable persons by those to whom it pertains.] But if no lawful accuser appears, and you find him defamed among good and grave men concerning the aforesaid crimes, or either one of them, you shall impose canonical purgation upon him, notwithstanding that he is said to have purged himself before the aforesaid bishop-elect; for, while the judicial proceeding was pending before delegated judges, the ordinary ought not to have imposed purgation upon the defamed man. [In which purgation, etc. Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the fourth day before the Ides of January, in the tenth year, 1208.]

Latin source headnote: It is not sufficient for a prelate defamed concerning crimes, when he purges himself, to swear that he is free from those crimes; rather, he ought to swear that he did not commit those crimes after his promotion.

The same.

We received the letters by which you took care to intimate to us that, after the apostolic mandate concerning the imposition of purgation upon our venerable brother, the Archbishop of Besançon, had been received, you cited him as was proper; and he appeared before you on the appointed day, offering an oath of purgation in this form, namely, that he was free from those crimes concerning which he was bound to purge himself. [And when you said that this was not the canonical form, and there had been some dispute concerning this, he at last raised the voice of appeal to us, to which you deferred on the advice of prudent men.] But he, coming to our presence, humbly supplicated that at least concerning the purgation of incontinence we deign to temper rigor, because he ought not to assert that from his birth he had never suffered a lapse of the flesh. Furthermore, since it is not believed that an oath of this kind was required of him, we perhaps presume rather that for another reason he wished to swear according to the prescribed form, namely, that he was free from those crimes concerning which he had been defamed, as though, since they had been remitted through penance, he was now free from them. But to swear this would be an act of no small temerity, since blessed Job says: “Even if I shall have been innocent, my soul itself is ignorant of this,” [and Solomon: “Who can say: My heart is clean and I am pure from sin?” Hence the Psalmist said: “Who understands offenses? Cleanse me from my hidden ones, O Lord,” while the Apostle bears witness: “I am conscious of nothing in myself, yet I am not thereby justified.”] Therefore we reject the prescribed form of purgation, according to which the same archbishop offered to purge himself, as undiscerning, rash, and inept, enjoining upon him that, if he wishes and is able to purge himself according to the following form, he shall do so according to the sound understanding that we have thought ought to be expressed to him: namely, that he swear that he did not at all commit, after he was promoted to archiepiscopal dignity, those graver crimes—that is, simony, the sale of justice, and incontinence—concerning which he stands defamed; and let the compurgators swear in this manner, that they believe that he has sworn the truth. When this has been done, you shall dismiss him in peace. Otherwise, etc. [Given at the Lateran, on the fourth day before the Nones of January, in the sixteenth year of our pontificate, 1214.]