Title XXXIX: On the Sentence of Excommunication

Latin source headnote: A prepubescent person who struck a cleric can be absolved by the bishop; and one who strikes a cleric in jest or for the sake of discipline, even if he is of full age, is not excommunicated. But one who does so from hatred is, and is absolved by the Pope.

Alexander III, to the Archbishop of Sens.

But concerning that matter about which you sought counsel from us—whether scholars, if they strike one another at full or lesser age, or clerics or religious men in a cloister, according to that canon by which it was enacted that those who lay violent hands upon clerics are to be sent to the Apostolic See to be absolved, ought to come to the same see for their absolution; to your inquiry in this manner we respond: if clerics below the years of puberty strike one another, or one strikes another, they are not to be sent to the Apostolic See, because their age excuses them. Nor even if clerics are of full age and it happens that they strike one another not from hatred, envy, or indignation, but from playful levity; nor is a master to be sent if he strikes a clerical scholar with a view to discipline or correction, because in their cases a violent laying on of hands cannot be imputed. But if the same scholars or secular clerics strike one another from hatred, they ought to come to the Apostolic See for their absolution.

Latin source headnote: The abbot absolves monks who strike one another. The same applies to regular canons; and, if the abbot's discretion is deficient, recourse is had to the bishop.

The same, to the same.

But monks and regular canons, in whatever manner they strike one another in the cloister, are not to be sent to the Apostolic See, but are to be subjected to discipline according to the providence and discretion of their abbot; and if the abbot's discretion does not suffice for their correction, the providence of the diocesan bishop is to be applied.

Latin source headnote: A doorkeeper who has struck a cleric, but not gravely, can be absolved by the bishop. This is the first point. An official who deliberately lays a hand upon a cleric is absolved by the Pope. This is the second. One who, repelling force with force, strikes a cleric is not excommunicated. This is the third. One who strikes a cleric found shamefully with a close female relative is not excommunicated; it is otherwise with a remote relative, and a close relative is defined as in the letter.

The same, to the same.

But if someone serving as doorkeeper of some authority, acting maliciously under the pretext of his office, injures a cleric, he can be absolved by his bishop, unless perhaps he gravely wounded the same cleric. But an official cannot merit the benefit of absolution for laying hands upon a cleric without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff, because no layman is given such great authority over a cleric, unless perhaps, when keeping back a rushing crowd, he injures a cleric not deliberately but by accidental mischance. But if anyone repels or injures with force a cleric who brings force upon him, he ought not on this account to be sent to the Apostolic See, provided that he immediately repels force with force, since all laws and all rights permit force to be repelled with force. Nor is one to be compelled to come to the Apostolic See who has laid violent hands upon a cleric found shamefully with his wife, mother, [or] sister, or his own daughter. But if he catches [him] in fornication or adultery that he commits with one who is not related to him by so close a line of consanguinity, or [otherwise] lays violent hands upon him, he will not be immune from that sentence of excommunication.

Latin source headnote: One who strikes a cleric while probably ignorant that he is a cleric is not excommunicated; nevertheless, he ought to prove his ignorance by oath, and, if he refuses to furnish this, he ought to be held as excommunicated.

The same.

But if anyone lays violent hands upon a cleric who wears his hair long, being ignorant that he was a cleric, he ought not on this account to be presented before the apostolic presence, nor even to be marked by excommunication, provided that he was ignorant that the man was a cleric; or, if this is doubtful, provided only that he personally furnishes an oath that he had been ignorant that the man was a cleric. But if he is unwilling to furnish the oath, because it is established that he laid violent hands upon a cleric, it is fitting to abstain from him as from an excommunicated person until he is absolved at the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff.

Latin source headnote: One who strikes a cleric or religious is excommunicated and is absolved by no one other than the Pope, except at the point of death.

The same.

It is not doubtful or uncertain to you, as we believe, that those who lay violent hands upon clerics or canons, or converts of any religious order, incur a sentence of excommunication by the constitution of the council, and cannot obtain the benefit of absolution except at the point of death without the Roman Pontiff.

Latin source headnote: Women who have fallen under the canon Si quis suadente are absolved by the bishop. The same applies to persons who are not their own masters, or are delicate, concerning whom it is doubtful that they could conveniently approach the curia. And this is what it says down to § Illi. — § 1. One who commands a cleric to be struck is excommunicated, just like the one striking him. This is what it says.

The same.

Women or also other persons who are not their own masters can be absolved by the diocesan bishop if they have laid violent hands upon a cleric. But concerning those who possess great power and are so delicate that they cannot endure the labor of coming to the Apostolic See, if they have laid violent hands upon clerics, we respond that the status of the person and the truth of the affair are first to be intimated to the Roman Pontiff, and according to his counsel such persons are to be corrected for the crime committed. § 1. But those who, not by themselves, but by their authority or mandate, cause others violently to lay hands upon clerics are to be sent to the Apostolic See with every excuse ceasing, since he truly commits the deed by whose authority or mandate the offense is proved to be committed.

Latin source headnote: One excommunicated for laying hands upon a cleric, although the matter is hidden, is absolved by the Pope alone.

The same.

Moreover, if any lay violent hands upon their brothers and, led by penance, not convicted but privately, as you assert, seek pardon from you, you ought more earnestly to admonish and induce them to make suitable satisfaction to those whom they injured and to present themselves before the apostolic presence, since they cannot be absolved by you or by any other without a special mandate of the Roman Pontiff.

Latin source headnote: Even privileged persons are bound to avoid an excommunicated person, and are excommunicated for laying hands upon a cleric.

The same.

No Templar monks, however, can protect themselves by a privilege of the Apostolic See so that they need not avoid excommunicated persons and be avoided as excommunicated for a violent laying of hands upon clerics.

Latin source headnote: One who strikes a monk or religious convert ought to be publicly announced as excommunicated and avoided until he has been absolved by the Pope.

The same, to the Bishops and other Prelates established throughout Gaul.

But if any of your parishioners lay violent hands upon monks or converts of the aforesaid order, you shall, with the remedy of appeal removed and according to the tenor of the general decree, publicly announce them as excommunicated, and you shall cause them to be more strictly avoided as excommunicated until they make suitable satisfaction to those injured and present themselves before the apostolic presence with your letters.

Latin source headnote: The form of the precept that ought to be given under the binding force of an oath to one who is absolved after being excommunicated for a violent laying of hands upon a cleric is set down.

The same, to the Archbishop of Genoa.

From the tenor of your letters it became known to us that the canon B. of Saint Mary of the Vineyards laid violent hands upon a certain subdeacon. (And below:) Therefore we command your fraternity that, after receiving an oath from the canon that he ought to obey your mandate, you absolve him in our stead from the sentence by which he is bound, and under the binding force of the oath command him that henceforth he not lay violent hands upon a cleric, monk, Hospitaller, or convert of any religious order, unless in defending himself, or unless he does so by mandate of their prelates, or unless he has a ministry of prelacy or teaching over him, or is known to be his associate in the same church.

Latin source headnote: A bishop absolves one excommunicated for striking a cleric if he cannot approach the Pope without danger; nevertheless, he ought to command him to approach the Pope when the impediment ceases.

The same, to the Bishop of Le Mans.

Henceforth you should know that, if anyone is bound by the bond of excommunication for a violent laying of hands upon a cleric, and if, having mortal enemies or other just excuses by which he is reasonably excused from the journey, he cannot present himself before the apostolic presence without danger, it is lawful for the diocesan bishop, after receiving an oath according to the custom of the Church, to impart to him the grace of absolution. But it is to be enjoined upon him under obligation of the oath that, as soon as he has an opportunity, he approach the Roman Pontiff to receive the apostolic mandate.

Latin source headnote: When the Pope delegates the absolution of an excommunicated person, he commands that security for obeying the mandates of the Church be received.

Urban III, to the Archbishop of Sens.

To these things however, when [sometimes] a controversy is conducted before delegated judges between [some] of your parishioners, or between them and others, frequently, as you assert, it is enjoined upon you by those judges by apostolic authority that you strike with ecclesiastical constraint one of the parties, perhaps contemning obedience to the judgment, or for another reasonable cause. But those who are commanded to lie under excommunication obtain letters from the Apostolic See to other judges, by whom it is nevertheless commanded to you by apostolic authority that you hold as absolved those who had been excommunicated at the mandate of the former judges. Concerning this your discretion doubts what you should do amid diversity of this kind. To which we briefly respond that, if the letters obtained to the second judges were not obtained with the truth suppressed, you ought to hold them absolved at their mandate, especially since the Roman Church is by no means accustomed to delegate to others absolution from the sentence of delegated judges unless it is expressly contained in the letters of commission that sufficient security is to be furnished by those who ought to be absolved, that they ought to obey the judgment of the Church.

Latin source headnote: One excommunicated under the canon “If anyone, at the devil's persuasion,” whether rich or poor, is to be absolved by the Pope or his legate; it is otherwise for a woman, or a sick or mutilated person, who can be absolved by the bishop.

Clement III.

It is known (And below:) Your fraternity, diligently attending to this, certainly sought to be informed concerning those who with some rashness lay violent hands upon clerics, and who do not possess the means to be able to labor to the Apostolic See—namely, how salutary provision can be made for them. Concerning this we have thought that your consultation should be answered in this manner: women whom the frailty of sex impedes, the old and infirm, or those impeded by loss of other members, although they do not come to the Apostolic See, can receive the remedy of salvation from the bishops and by their office be restored to the communion of the faithful, satisfaction having been made according to their means to those upon whom it is established that injuries were inflicted by them. But all others, whether poor or rich, must be presented to the Apostolic See or its legate in order to obtain the benefit of absolution. But if, during an infirmity of this kind, the benefit of absolution is granted through fear of death, after an oath has been furnished it shall be enjoined upon them that, after they have been restored to health, they approach the Roman Church or its legate to receive the apostolic mandate concerning such matters.

Latin source headnote: Before denunciation, one excommunicated for a violent laying of hands upon clerics is to be avoided, unless the fact is unknown. This is the first point. One who kills a cleric who, having contemned the clerical habit, involved himself in enormities, is not excommunicated. This is the second.

The same.

Since not by man (And below:) It was therefore asked of us on your behalf whether you are bound to abstain from communion with one who, for a rash laying of hands, fell under the sentence before he is publicly announced as excommunicated; and whether the killers of clerics or of those priests who, having cast aside the ministry of the order received, do not fear to pollute themselves with homicides in public wars or even apart from wars—since in feasting, drunkenness, pillaging, and other enormities they rage equally with laymen, or worse—fall under the canon of a sentence already imposed. Therefore, concerning the second consultation we respond in this manner: you ought to abstain from communion with one who, for a sacrilegious laying of hands upon a cleric, fell under the edict of excommunication, even if he has not been denounced, still unless perhaps this was known to you alone. In that case you will avoid him only privately for as long as he is tolerated by the Church, so that, at least suffused with the blush of shame, he may be compelled in this manner to make satisfaction for the hidden excess. But concerning the article of the second question, we respond that the lay killers of clerics or priests who, as has been said, having contemned the clerical habit, shamelessly involve themselves in tyranny and enormity, are by no means restrained by the canon of a sentence already imposed, in hatred of clerical excess and for the terror and correction of similar persons; nevertheless, let a fitting penance somewhat harsher than if they had committed such things against altogether lay persons be enjoined upon them. Moreover, because no one is to be despaired of while he is established in a mortal body, since that which is deferred is sometimes afterwards completed with more mature counsel. Finally, concerning what you consulted us—whether by common law it is lawful for you and your suffragans to absolve those who are struck by a sentence of excommunication for a rash laying of hands—we answer this more manifestly: that, with the exception of certain persons contained in the decretals of Alexander III being observed, this is lawful for no one unless he enjoys a special privilege of the Apostolic See. Nevertheless, wishing to provide by paternal dispensation for those who dwell in such remote parts of your province, by the present letters we grant to your fraternity that, if bodily impotence, poverty, or some unavoidable and manifest necessity impedes those who are thus excommunicated by the law itself, provided that they make satisfaction to those whom they offended and do some penance for their own correction and the terror of others, you, supported by apostolic authority, may absolve them from the sentence of excommunication, provided that enormous bodily injury or death did not ensue from such a striking. Assuredly, in all these matters, if anyone diligently examines the statutes of the holy fathers, he will find that we have answered nothing new, but have, as though by a certain hand of solicitude, renewed what is ancient.

Latin source headnote: One is not to communicate with an excommunicated person before absolution, although he has sworn to obey the mandates of the Church or has made a settlement with the person offended. This is the first point. One defamed concerning excommunication is not to be communicated with unless he purges himself or is absolved as a precaution. This is the second point.

The same.

Since you desire to be more fully instructed by a rescript of the Apostolic See concerning what your fraternity ought to observe in these matters that contain doubt, we, who, although unworthy, are compelled by the office of administration undertaken to respond to the consultations of individuals, [wish by the present rescript to resolve the knots of your questions, and we commend your prudence in this: that, although you have skill in canon law and enjoy the counsel of prudent men, nevertheless, for greater evidence and to set a form before others, you seek the counsel of your mother, the sacrosanct Roman Church, in which you show that you have the spirit of counsel and fortitude, as a discreet and prudent man.] The tenor of the first question was of this kind: whether others are to communicate with an excommunicated person who swore to obey the mandate of the Church and to whom, before absolution, the bishop restored communion, and whether the bishop ought to do this. To this question indeed we respond in this manner: since the oath of security that those who are excommunicated now furnish was introduced according to the Church's custom as a precaution rather than from the rigor of the canons, and is not reckoned of such force that, unless the benefit of absolution follows, one who is excommunicated ought to be restored to the communion of others—especially since he has not obtained absolution from that oath, and it is established that he was excommunicated, and it is true that he has not been absolved—neither the bishop nor others ought to communicate with him unless, after the oath has been furnished, he has been absolved according to the form of the Church; because according to the canons of the Apostles and the statutes of Pope Fabian, one who knowingly communicates with an excommunicated person is to be deprived of communion; indeed, according to the statutes of Isidore, he contracts the penalty of excommunication with him. Following the statutes of the canons, and especially those of Alexander III of pious memory, our predecessor, we have thought that this conclusion should be imposed upon the second question: if there is public report that someone struck a cleric, neither the bishop nor anyone else ought to communicate with him unless, at the judgment of the bishop, he has purged himself concerning this, or, for greater caution, obtains the benefit of absolution. In the third place your discretion asked whether, if a cleric struck by someone deposited a complaint before his bishop and was prepared to produce witnesses, and through the mediation of the bishop made a settlement with the one who struck him, and the latter was reconciled to him, he ought thereby to be admitted to the communion of others. Concerning this we respond briefly to you that, although the one who laid violent hands appears to have made satisfaction in this manner to the one whom he injured, nevertheless he is recognized not thereby to have made satisfaction to the Church, which he offended; and unless the form of the Church introduced for the absolution of such persons, as was said above, is observed, one is not to communicate with him. Moreover, we resolve all the perplexities of the final question: that one who keeps a cleric captive, even if he has not laid violent hands upon him, is placed in the same category of crime, is to be avoided, and is not to be restored to fraternal communion unless he has been absolved according to the form of the Church, as was said above.

Latin source headnote: A priest who casts a regular out of a church when she disturbs divine offices is not excommunicated.

The same.

Coming to the Apostolic See, I., the bearer of the present letters, showed us by his assertion set forth that, while he was celebrating the morning offices, a certain nun, entering the same church and playing with another cleric, created an impediment whereby he could not render divine worship to God; hence the aforesaid priest, moved so that he could attend more freely to the celebration of divine things, laid hands upon her in order to put her outside the church and, when she would not leave, by dragging her compelled her to remain outside the church. But on this account you avoided him as excommunicated and caused him to be avoided by others. Therefore, we command you by apostolic writings that, if the matter is so, you do not henceforth avoid him, since we by no means see him as excommunicated on this account.

Latin source headnote: Those excommunicated for a light laying of hands upon a cleric can be absolved by the bishop. This is what it says according to the common reading, and the text is singular.

The same.

It came to us (And below: [cf. c. 5, On Compelling Witnesses, II. 21.]) But those who, impeded by sickness, cannot labor to the Apostolic See for the benefit of absolution, you can absolve after receiving from them the customary oath, in such manner that, when restored to their former health, they present themselves before the apostolic presence. But concerning this we believe that you can freely dispense sufficiently with the female sex, children, and the old. [Moreover, after the clerics of the city have been summoned, you can cleanse churches that have been polluted by an effusion of blood or semen with a procession and the sprinkling of holy water, as is written in the ordinal.] We have thought that absolution of those also who inflicted upon clerics an injury not enormous but moderate and light should be committed to the judgment of your fraternity.

Latin source headnote: A cleric who knowingly and voluntarily participates with one excommunicated in divine offices is excommunicated by the greater excommunication and is to be absolved only by the Pope. This is what it says according to Panormitanus.

The same.

He signified to us (And below:) But we do not doubt that those clerics [who] knowingly and voluntarily participated with persons excommunicated by us, and received them in the offices, are enveloped with them by the same sentence of excommunication; and we also wish them to be sent back to us, with the information of your letters, to obtain the benefit of absolution.

Latin source headnote: One excommunicated for laying hands upon a cleric, or an incendiary after publication, is absolved by the Pope alone.

The same.

Your fraternity was led to consult us whether only those are to be sent to the Apostolic See who, falling under the canon of a sentence already imposed, turned violent hands against clerics, and whether they cannot be freed from the same sentence except by the Roman Pontiff. Hence we respond to your fraternity in this manner: not only those who lay rash hands upon clerics, but also incendiaries, once they have been publicly denounced by a sentence of the Church, are to be sent to the Apostolic See for the benefit of absolution, and are to be absolved only by the Roman Pontiff. But those who presume to receive ecclesiastical benefices from the hands of laymen are not accustomed to labor to the Apostolic See for such an excess. [Concerning the priest, etc.; cf. c. 4, On Sick Clerics, III. 6.]

Latin source headnote: Legates de latere can absolve those excommunicated for laying hands upon clerics.

The same.

Recourse is to be had to the eminence of the Apostolic See whenever an article of doubt emerges, so that a person may receive and observe with a more ready conscience what shall have been answered to him by the Apostolic See concerning a doubtful matter, insofar as the sentence of its truth is known to be strengthened by the more certain prerogative of that dignity, which in blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, received the breadth of prelacy before all others. But, as it was intimated to our ears on your behalf, it is doubtful to you whether those who incurred excommunication for laying hands upon clerics or other religious persons obtain the benefit of absolution when they are absolved by cardinal legates who are sent from the side of the Roman Pontiff for a time, although those legates do not show an express mandate for themselves concerning this. Concerning this we wish it to be observed by you and your suffragans that you hold, without any scruple of hesitation, as absolved those whom it is established obtained the benefit of absolution from such men. [Given at the Lateran.]

Latin source headnote: A general excommunication binds only the subjects of the one pronouncing it.

The same.

It was asked of us on your behalf whether, if someone pronounces thus, “Whoever commits theft, let him be excommunicated,” this general clause is referred to the subjects of the one imposing the excommunication, or is extended generally to all who are not within his jurisdiction. To this we say certainly that only his subjects are bound by this sentence, unless perhaps the greater and broader authority of the delegating person has conferred more upon him.

Latin source headnote: Those who despoil churches by breaking into them are excommunicated and, after denunciation, are absolved only by the Pope.

The same.

The beloved sons, the canons of Reggio, complained to us that I. de Malafrena and his followers violently broke into the church of Viliaco and certain other churches of the bishopric of Reggio, and did not at all hesitate to despoil them, and in no way hesitated to plunder certain men of the Church of Reggio. Therefore, since these things are grave and ought not to be passed over with closed eyes, we command that, if the matter is so, you publicly announce the aforesaid sacrilegious persons as excommunicated, with candles publicly lighted and appeal ceasing, and cause them to be more strictly avoided as excommunicated until they make suitable satisfaction to those who suffered injury, repair the damages caused by them, and present themselves before the apostolic presence with your letters containing the truth of the matter.

Latin source headnote: One who strikes or even kills a cleric who, having laid aside the clerical habit, involves himself in savage enormities, is not bound to go to the Apostolic See for absolution. Thus it can be summarized generally.

The same.

We have understood from your letters that a certain priest of your diocese, because he presumed falsely to call himself the king's son and, after taking up arms, caused sedition [in the province] and war, was ordered by the beloved son, Count B., to be beaten through the villages; and afterwards, having been handed over to the gallows at his mandate, he expired. Therefore, since you intimated that both the count himself and the other participants in this deed wished to make satisfaction concerning this, by the present page we have thought that your fraternity should be answered that, if the aforesaid priest committed excess in such manner and, bearing arms, was killed not while repelling but while inflicting injury, it does not seem to us that his killers ought on this account to be compelled to approach the Apostolic See to obtain absolution; but you, who know well the merits of the persons, shall enjoin fitting penance upon them. [But, etc.; cf. Compilation II, c. 4, On Vows, III. 21.]

Latin source headnote: An ecclesiastical judge who causes a cleric to be struck by a layman, even for the sake of discipline, is excommunicated; and both he and the one striking are bound to go to the Pope for absolution.

The same.

We received the consultation of all of you, by which you asked us whether that layman falls under the edict of excommunication who, at the order of an abbot in whose service he abides, presumes to lay rash hands upon a cleric, or monk, or convert, especially where there is no cause for which he ought to be beaten. But it seems to us that, unless the abbot does this for the cause of regular discipline in his own person, or, if necessity presses, orders it to be done through a cleric or monk, both the one who commands such persons to be beaten and those who beat them, even if a cause existed, by no means escape the sentence of excommunication until they come to the Apostolic See.

Latin source headnote: A cleric walking about as a layman who does not come to his senses after a third admonition loses clerical privilege.

The same.

In our hearing a consultation of this kind was proposed on your behalf: whether clerics who, having abandoned the clerical habit, are in no way ashamed to bear military arms ought, if bodily injury is inflicted upon them or they redeem themselves from captivity, to enjoy that immunity of clerics by which one who rashly lays hands upon a cleric is marked as excommunicated by the law itself. To these things we respond briefly to you that, since one who commits against the Church implores the aid of the Church in vain, and the law of secular princes furnishes a sufficiently effective argument for this response—in which it is manifestly provided that a matron whose chastity has been assailed cannot bring an action for injuries if she was found in the clothing of a prostitute—clerics of this kind, if they have been admonished a third time by their prelates and have refused to lay down military arms, ought not to have any assistance from the privilege of clerics.

Latin source headnote: One excommunicated for laying hands upon a cleric, if impeded from going to the curia, can be absolved by an inferior; but, when the impediment ceases, he is bound to visit the curia to receive the apostolic mandate.

The same.

Because you seek the responses of the Apostolic See even concerning those things about which you do not doubt and have very fully recognized what ought to be observed concerning those very things, we commend your fraternity in the Lord all the more insofar as, in those things that are expressed in the institutions of the sacred canons, you desire and intend to proceed by our authority. Indeed, your fraternity asked us whether [one] who confesses that he has fallen under the canon of a sentence already imposed, and cannot be induced to come to the Apostolic See to be absolved, can or ought to merit the benefit of absolution from the bishop or even from a simple priest; and whether priests who are bigamists or husbands of widows may celebrate the solemnities of Masses after their wives have entered the way of all flesh. But although what ought to be observed concerning these things is defined in the sacred canons, nevertheless we have thought that at present your fraternity should be answered that one who asserts that he has fallen under the canon of a sentence already imposed can obtain the benefit of absolution only through the Apostolic See or its legate, unless perhaps he is established at the point of death, or is so burdened by poverty, infirmity, or old age that he cannot undertake the labor of coming to the Roman Church, or is held back from this by another canonical impediment. But from these persons it is customary to exact in the form of an oath that, when their strength has been recovered and opportunity granted, they ought to visit the Roman Church in person. [Concerning the priests, etc.; cf. c. 3, On Bigamists Not to Be Ordained, I. 21.]

Latin source headnote: One bound by several excommunications, although arising from the same act, who obtains absolution with one cause or one excommunication expressed, is not held as absolved with regard to another.

Innocent III, to the Archbishop, Dean, and Precentor of Lyon.

When, for the case that was being conducted between the beloved sons G. and F., archdeacons of the Church of Chalon, we granted to them as auditor the beloved son G., cardinal deacon of Saint Adrian, the proctor of G. the archdeacon alleged among other things that, when F. the archdeacon had rashly laid violent hands upon the succentor of the Church of Chalon, who was exercising the office of the diaconate, in the common dormitory, and had dragged him through the cloister while beating him, you, brother archbishop, caused him publicly to be announced as excommunicated for the violent laying of hands and the violation of the immunity of the church. (And below:) We therefore, committing the case itself to your examination, command your discretion by apostolic writings that, if it is established to you that the said F. the archdeacon was excommunicated for a twofold cause and expressed only one in the letters that he obtained from the Apostolic See concerning his absolution, after admonition has been given you compel him as an excommunicated person to make satisfaction to his church for the other cause through ecclesiastical censure, with appeal removed. [But the aforesaid, etc. The expenses, etc. (cf. c. 6, On Proctors, I. 38.)]

Latin source headnote: With an excommunicated person who dies in excommunication, however contrite he may have died, there is to be no communion before absolution, nor is prayer to be made for him, although he is absolved with respect to God. But if the preceding contrition is established to the Church, he will be absolved even after death by the one by whom he would have been absolved while alive; and his heirs are compelled by the Church to make satisfaction for him.

The same, to the Abbot of Saint Andrew.

It has often been asked of us whether, if an excommunicated person in whom there were manifest indications of penance, and through whom it did not stand that he was not reconciled to ecclesiastical unity, died without receiving the benefit of absolution, he is to be held as absolved by the Church, and whether alms are to be received for such a person and prayer made by the faithful. But so that we may express more openly through the supposition of an example what we intend: a certain priest and regular canon, as you intimated to us through your letters, labored under public infamy because he approached a certain married woman; the woman's husband and his blood relatives rashly laid violent hands upon him, on account of which they were denounced by the bishop as lying under the sentence of excommunication. But afterwards they approached the same bishop and, after furnishing in his hands a bodily oath that they would obey the judgment of the Church, received in mandate from him that on this account they should present themselves before the apostolic presence. And when one of them prepared himself for the journey of coming, he was slain by certain of his rivals and buried outside the cemetery of the church. And although the friends and blood relatives of the slain man were gravely moved against the killers, nevertheless they would remit to them every rancor and offense provided that the body of the slain man were handed over for ecclesiastical burial. Therefore, perhaps it would seem to some in this case that, since not an article of necessity but contempt of religion excludes the sacrament, and the divine judgment of the Church [can and] ought to imitate divine judgment, since manifest signs of penance preceded in the aforesaid slain man and he is believed on this account to have been absolved before God, he is also to be held as absolved by the Church. But on the contrary, since one is bound with respect to God before the Church triumphant by guilt alone, but with respect to man before the Church militant by sentence alone, when the bond of guilt is remitted, he is absolved before God, but he is not absolved before men unless and until the bond of the sentence is relaxed; otherwise the absolution of the Church would appear in no way necessary if, by contrition of heart alone apart from the priestly office, the rigor of ecclesiastical discipline were relaxed.

We therefore respond briefly to your consultation by the common counsel of our brothers that the judgment of God always rests upon truth, which neither deceives nor is deceived; but the judgment of the Church sometimes follows opinion, which often happens both to deceive and to be deceived. On this account it sometimes happens that one who is bound before God is loosed before the Church, and one who is free before God is bound by an ecclesiastical sentence. Therefore, the bond by which a sinner is bound before God is dissolved in the remission of guilt; but that by which he is bound before the Church is relaxed when the sentence is remitted. The evangelical account manifests this in the raising of Lazarus, whom the Lord first raised and afterwards commanded the Apostles to loose after he was raised. Hence, however much a person has taken care to humble himself after furnishing an oath that he would obey the mandate of the Church, and however many signs of penance have preceded, if nevertheless, prevented by death, he was unable to obtain the benefit of absolution, although he is believed to have been absolved before God, nevertheless he is not yet to be held as absolved before the Church. Yet he can and ought to be aided by the benefit of the Church, [namely] that, if the penance of the living man was established by evident signs, the benefit of absolution should also be bestowed upon him after death. Nor is it an obstacle that the power of binding and loosing men upon earth is read as having been attributed to the Church, as though it could not loose and bind those buried under the earth, and that it is written, “Let there be no communion with the dead man with whom there was no communion while he was alive,” since, although there was no communion with him, nevertheless there ought to have been communion with one whom not contempt of religion but an article of necessity impeded; and in certain cases designated by the canons the Church is read to have bound and loosed the dead. But so that in one and the same affair we may both preserve rigor and display gentleness, we decree that absolution of that dead man who, while living, would have been absolved by the Apostolic See is to be sought from the Apostolic See; but, for the foregoing cause, we grant that other persons may be absolved by those by whom they would have been absolved while they lived. But let the form of absolution be observed, so that it be done with a penitential psalm and both the Lord's Prayer and another customary prayer. His heirs also, if after admonition they are unwilling, are to be compelled by ecclesiastical constraint to make satisfaction for him. [Given at the Lateran, on the second day before the Nones of May, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: One who keeps a cleric in custody or chains without injury is excommunicated. This is the first point. One who knowingly communicates with an excommunicated person in the crime is excommunicated and, unless difficulty impedes, ought to be absolved by the one who excommunicated him, with an oath. But one who communicates outside the crime can be reconciled by a simple priest without an oath. This is what it says to the end.

The same, to the Bishop of Wrocław.

Recently your discretion asked us what is to be done concerning those laymen who violently, yet without injury, keep clerics in public or private custody, or even thrust them into chains, whether they fall under the canon of a sentence already imposed so that by the act itself they are bound by the bond of excommunication, like those who rashly lay violent hands upon clerics; and whether those who knowingly communicate with persons excommunicated by name can be absolved from excommunication through confession by a simple priest, or absolution ought to be sought by them from the bishop or archbishop; and whether, after penance has been done, you may dispense with those who, although they are not bigamists by law, are nevertheless called bigamists in fact because, while established in sacred orders, they have joined second women to themselves in cohabitation in the manner of marriage. We therefore respond to your inquiry in this manner and in order: concerning the first article of the consultation, we do not believe that laymen escape the penalty of excommunication, although bodily injury did not ensue from their act, short of which violence is very often wickedly perpetrated against clerics. But concerning the second question, we believe that a distinction is to be made: whether one who communicates with a person excommunicated by name knowingly communicates in the crime with the criminal, furnishing him counsel, aid, or favor; or otherwise in prayer or a kiss, or praying with him, or even eating with him. In the first article, since such a person [both] communicates in the crime and participates with the criminal, and thereby by reason of the condemned crime is seen to offend against the one who condemned it, absolution will then rightly be sought from him or his superior, since according to canonical sanctions an equal penalty constrains the one acting and the one consenting. But in the second case he will be able to obtain the benefit of absolution from his bishop or his own priest. For although even then one communicating with an excommunicated person is bound not by a sentence of a judge but of the law, nevertheless, because the maker of the canon did not specially reserve his absolution to himself, he is seen by that very fact to have granted to others the faculty of relaxing it. But the one who communicates with an excommunicated person according to the first manner ought to be absolved with an oath; while the one who, according to the second manner, participates with him can be reconciled without sworn security. But if, for some just cause, it is difficult for the person to be absolved to approach the one who excommunicated him, we grant by indulgence that, after security has been furnished according to the form of the Church that he will obey the mandate of the one who excommunicated him, he may be absolved by his bishop or his own priest. [The third, etc.; cf. c. 4, On Bigamists Not to Be Ordained, I. 21. Given at the Lateran, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of June, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: The oath of an excommunicated person to obey the mandates of the Church does not have the force of absolution. This is the first point. No one is bound to communicate with an excommunicated person except the excepted persons; otherwise one communicating with an excommunicated person incurs the lesser excommunication and is to be excommunicated with the greater, unless the latter was excommunicated together with his participants, in which case the one communicating would then be excommunicated with the greater excommunication.

The same, to the Archbishop of Esztergom.

Because you seek to be made certain in doubtful matters by our rescript, so that according to it you may moderate the judgment of your discretion, we commend your fraternity with worthy praises in the Lord. Indeed, your fraternity consulted us [whether an altar upon which an excommunicated person presumed to celebrate divine rites ought to be reconsecrated, and] whether there is to be communication with an excommunicated person who furnished sworn security that he would obey the mandate of the Church but has not yet obtained the benefit of absolution; and whether any persons can, and which persons are even bound to, communicate with an excommunicated person. It also asked what penalty was to be imposed upon those who communicate with excommunicated persons unwillingly or involuntarily, and what is to be done concerning priests who steer ships into battle and fight, and those who incite others but do not fight. But to these things we respond to your fraternity in this manner: one is not to communicate with an excommunicated person, although he has confirmed by oath that he will obey the mandate of the Church, until he has been absolved by the Church; otherwise absolution would not be necessary after the oath. But whether, if not contempt of religion but an article of necessity excluded the benefit of absolution, it is lawful to communicate with such a person, at least at death, because you did not at all inquire through your letters, we have not thought that it should be answered at present. But no one knowingly is at all bound to communicate with a person excommunicated by name, except certain persons who are specially excused through that chapter of Pope Gregory, “Since many.” But those who presumptuously participate with persons excommunicated by name, apart from the persons noted by the said canon, are to be bound by the bond of excommunication unless, after perhaps being admonished, they desist from participating with them. But it is otherwise if they knowingly communicate with one who has been bound by sentence with the bond of excommunication together with his participants; for then they too incur the sentence of excommunication. [But because, etc. (cf. c. 5, On Penalties, V. 37.) Given at the city of Castella, on the sixth day before the Ides of October, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: Those who were previously bound to an excommunicated person by familiar service are bound to communicate with him; others are not bound by necessity, although sometimes they can do so when urgent necessity exists.

The same, to the Doctors of Decrees at Bologna.

Among other things that our venerable brother, the Archbishop of Esztergom, formerly caused to be proposed to our apostolate, humbly consulting, he also inquired, if we remember rightly, whether anyone can communicate with an excommunicated person and who are even bound to do so; to whom we recall that we responded concerning that article that no one at all is bound knowingly to communicate with a person excommunicated by name, except certain persons who are specially excused through that chapter of Pope Gregory, “Since many.” But from this our response, as we have received, a great occasion for disputation arose for certain persons, some conceding that the persons named in the aforesaid chapter are bound to communicate with an excommunicated person, especially those who were previously bound by obligation to communion with them, while others assert that they can lawfully communicate with excommunicated persons if they wish, but are nevertheless not bound to this by necessity. Therefore, so that interpretation may proceed from the source from which the law issued, we have thought that ambiguity of this kind should be resolved in this manner: since certain persons noted previously in the aforesaid chapter were, before the pronouncement of the sentence, bound to adhere in familiar service to those against whom the sentence of excommunication was subsequently delivered, and are not afterwards bound to the contrary, since that same obligation still endures, by the operation of the benefit of the canon they are not released from their former obligation but are bound to familiar service, and consequently are also bound to communion, without which they cannot furnish that service. But we do not believe this should be referred to all the persons of the chapter, so that they are subject to an obligation of this kind, since travelers, pilgrims, and merchants ought to abstain from communion with such persons unless an article of necessity threatens, as is manifestly gathered at the end; but only to those who are bound to such persons, constrained by a closer obligation. Nevertheless, they ought not to communicate with them in those things for which they are marked by excommunication, as in crimes, but ought altogether to abstain from them. Hence we prudently responded in the foregoing consultation that not all persons, but certain ones who are specially excused through that chapter of Pope Gregory, are bound to communion of this kind in the aforesaid manner. But whether those persons also, because of the authority for punishing the crime more severely, should sometimes be prohibited by a sentence of excommunication from communion with such persons—because this was not asked, it was not answered.

Latin source headnote: If one excommunicated for laying hands knowingly receives orders, if he is a secular cleric, he is to be deposed; if a regular, he is suspended from execution of the order. With one who, in ignorance of the law or fact, receives orders while thus excommunicated, if he is a secular cleric, the Pope alone dispenses; if a regular, the abbot dispenses, provided that the ignorance is probable and the act is not grave.

The same.

Since the absolution of those who incur the stain of excommunication for a violent laying of hands upon clerics is reserved only to the Apostolic See, except in certain cases excepted by our predecessor, some persons, neglecting the ecclesiastical sentence, do not fear to receive ecclesiastical orders while placed under excommunication. But the apostolic oracle is rather often implored as to what ought to be done concerning them. Concerning these we believe that a distinction is to be made, as is found in the things set forth below: such persons either know that they are ensnared by the bond of excommunication; or do not remember the act for which they fell under the canon of a sentence already imposed; or, knowing the act but ignorant of the law, do not know that they are bound by it. If the first are secular clerics, we decree that they are to be perpetually deposed from the orders received. In the remaining cases, both archbishops and bishops should know that they do not have the faculty of dispensing without a special mandate of the Apostolic See; the absolution of such persons is also forbidden to them, since greater things are understood to be prohibited to those to whom lesser things are forbidden. Nevertheless, persons of this kind can be brought to the ears of the Roman Pontiff, so that a response may issue from him according to rigor or equity, as his discretion shall see ought to be done.

But if persons of this kind are cloistered, although it was enacted by Pope Alexander, our predecessor of good memory, that monks and regular canons, in whatever manner they strike one another in the cloister, are not to be sent to the Apostolic See, but are to be subjected to discipline according to the discretion and providence of their abbot, and, if the abbot's discretion does not suffice for their correction, the providence of the diocesan bishop is to be applied; and elsewhere it is said that an abbot cannot and ought not, without the permission of the Roman Pontiff, to absolve those fleeing from the world who have received the religious habit in a monastery and afterwards confess, among other things, that they committed such an offense by which they incurred a sentence of excommunication by the act itself, although he can punish the presumption of the offenders with due penalty—we, nevertheless, favoring religious life and wishing to display greater grace toward them so that material for wandering may be removed, grant to their prelates that they can also impart the benefit of absolution to such persons, unless their excess was so difficult and enormous, as if it proceeded to mutilation of a member or effusion of blood, or a violent hand was laid upon a bishop or abbot, since such and similar excesses cannot be passed over without scandal. But if any cloistered person lays violent hands upon a religious person of another cloister, let him be absolved by his own abbot and by the abbot of the one who suffered the injury. But if he strikes a secular cleric, he can merit the grace of absolution only through the Apostolic See, so that scandal may be avoided. But if also it happens that these are promoted to orders, then, according to the foregoing distinction, those who knowingly caused themselves to be ordained in contempt of ecclesiastical discipline we decree to remain suspended from execution of the order and office received. But concerning the others, who do not have memory of the act or knowledge of the law, after the utility of the monasteries has been weighed and regular penance imposed and completed, their abbots will be able to dispense, unless the act was grave and notable, or the one who did it was adult and discreet, so that strongly and forcibly a presumption is made against forgetfulness or ignorance. But we command the abbots to observe this form diligently, lest one who abuses the power permitted to him deserve to lose the privilege.

Latin source headnote: A nun who strikes another nun, a convert, or a secular cleric falls under excommunication and can be absolved by the bishop of the place.

The same, to the Bishop of Pistoia.

Concerning nuns, your fraternity asked us by whom the benefit of absolution is to be bestowed upon them if they rashly lay violent hands upon one another, their male or female converts, or even clerics serving in their monasteries. Therefore, concerning this we respond to your consultation that, by our authority, they are to be absolved by the bishop in whose diocese their monasteries are situated. [Given at the Lateran, on the third day before the Kalends of March, 1202.]

Latin source headnote: Even a contract that cannot be carried out without communion is not dissolved or impeded by an excommunication supervening upon one who is bound to furnish something to a person not excommunicated.

The same, to all the Crusaders.

If truly you repent of the offense and fully propose to make satisfaction for the sin, we believe—indeed, we know—that God is already placated toward you. Therefore, if the Venetians are induced to make satisfaction and merit obtaining the benefit of absolution, you will safely be able to sail with them and fight the battle of the Lord. But if perhaps the Venetians wish neither to make satisfaction nor to be absolved, seeing that they are said not to grieve but altogether to rejoice concerning the offense, we permit you to cross by ship with them as far as the land of the Saracens or the Jerusalem province, according to what was agreed between you and them or shall honorably be agreed, communicating with them as little as you can, yet with grief and bitterness of heart and under hope of pardon. For, since they have already received from you the greater amount of the freight and cannot be induced or even constrained to restore it, if it were done otherwise, you would seem to carry away loss from penance, but they a reward from contumacy, since they remain bound to you to discharge this debt, and that which is owed can be exacted and received from excommunicated persons. But it is provided in law that, if anyone passes through the land of heretics or of any excommunicated persons, he can buy and receive necessary things from them. Moreover, if the father of a household is bound by a sentence of excommunication, the household is excused from participation with him. Therefore, although the Doge of the Venetians, the lord of the ships, persists in excommunication as the father of a household, nevertheless you, as his household while you are in his ships, will not be reached by his excommunication, and you will be excusable before God if, while existing in the ships of excommunicated persons, with grief of heart under hope of penance, you communicate with [the excommunicated persons] themselves in those matters in which you cannot avoid their communion. [But, etc.]

Latin source headnote: A prelate can and ought to imprison an incorrigible cleric subject to him, and laymen, without fear of excommunication, can with the permission of prelates seize clerics and lead them to judgment.

The same, to the Bishop of London.

That you may take thought for your reputation and salvation, and may so restrain the audacity of the wicked that you protect the innocence of the good from them, you humbly consult us concerning those things that touch the pastoral office, so that, made secure by our response, you may more commendably discharge the duty of the solicitude enjoined upon you. Indeed, you consulted us whether clerics who offend gravely, and who cannot safely be assigned to monasteries to do penance—because, since they do not repent of the things committed, if an opportunity of fleeing were seized they would flee the prison of the cloister and would involve themselves more criminally in their former crimes—can be consigned by you or their other prelates to close custody; and whether laymen, if they detect clerics in great crimes, incur the canon of the sentence pronounced, since they can neither apprehend them nor drag them before judges unless they lay violent hands upon them. To the first, therefore, We respond that, since prelates ought to correct the offenses of their subjects, and it concerns the public welfare that crimes not remain unpunished and that through the audacity of impunity those who had been wicked not become more wicked, they not only can but also ought to detain under close custody superior clerics, after they have been canonically condemned of a crime, who, since they are incorrigible and cannot be guarded in monasteries, would easily lapse into like or worse things. Laymen, however, can without incurring a sentence of excommunication seize clerics and drag them to judgment, if need be, even violently, provided nevertheless that they do this by mandate of the prelates to whose jurisdiction those clerics are subject and to whom it belongs to correct criminals, since not they themselves but those by whose authority they do it are seen to do this; provided nevertheless that their violence extends no further than the defense or rather the resistance of the clerics requires. [Given at Anagni, the fourth day before the Ides of December, 1203.]

Latin source headnote: He is excommunicated who lays violent hands upon a cleric, even one willing, even if he does this in satisfaction for a preceding injury. This is what it says, and it is a notable case.

The same, to the Archbishop of Braga.

It sometimes happens in your parts, and it is held by the custom of the region, as your fraternity intimated to us, that clerics, if they offend someone and wish to make satisfaction to the person offended, according to the custom of the country, which laymen already observe among themselves, voluntarily submit their bodies to thirty or forty or to more or fewer blows of rods, which they frequently receive not under compulsion but willingly, not only from the hands of other clerics but also of laymen. Whence you humbly consulted us whether beaters of this kind incur the canon of the sentence pronounced. We, however, respond to your fraternity concerning this in this manner: that a laying-on of hands of this kind, although not violent, nevertheless appears injurious, since that canon was promulgated not so much in favor of the ordained cleric as in favor of the clerical order. And therefore we both will and command that you prohibit this from being attempted henceforth throughout the province of Braga. But if, after a prohibition of this kind, any cleric voluntarily subjects himself [to such a penalty, or a layman inflicts such a penalty upon him,] both are to be excommunicated, provision being made that the cleric make competent satisfaction to the person who suffered the injury without injury to the clerical order, so that peace may reasonably be restored between them. [Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, the seventh day before the Kalends of March, in the ninth year of our pontificate, 1206.]

Latin source headnote: A slave excommunicated for laying hands upon a cleric is bound to go to the Apostolic See for absolution. But if from this the master, who was not at fault, would suffer grave loss, or the slave does this in fraud of him, he can be absolved by the bishop, if the injury was not enormous.

The same, to the Archbishop of Lyon.

It has been reported to us that, when some slaves of your province, on account of a violent laying-on of hands upon a cleric, incur the canon of the sentence pronounced, their masters alleging that they are unwilling to be without their slaves, they take no care to come to the Apostolic See to be absolved, evading ecclesiastical discipline by an occasion of this kind. Therefore, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity that you compel them to come to the Apostolic See to be absolved, since more deference must be shown to God than to man; unless they have done this in fraud, so that they might withdraw themselves from the service of their masters, or the masters themselves through this incur grave loss without fault of their own. For then in either case you will be able to absolve them by indulgence of our provision, since they are very far removed from the Apostolic See; but in recompense for the labor that they would endure on the journey, another satisfaction is to be enjoined upon them, provided the offense is not so grave and enormous that, for avoiding scandal and removing an example of this kind, slaves of this kind ought to come to the servant of the servants of God to be absolved. [Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on the Ides of January, in the eighth year, 1206.]

Latin source headnote: One excommunicated on account of participation with an excommunicated person, although he afterward attacks him, is not on this ground alone to be held absolved.

The same, to the Archbishop of Esztergom.

It has been established by the sacred canons (And below: [cf. c. 12, On Burials, III. 28.]) But although he who had voluntarily communicated with those excommunicated persons who, with all their supporters and participants, are bound by a sentence of excommunication, afterward returning to his heart, has at the mandate of the church attacked the excommunicated persons whom he had previously favored, nevertheless, until he has received the grace of absolution, he is not to be held absolved; nor, if he dies in a war of this kind, are absolutions or offerings to be received for him, or prayers offered to the Lord, unless his repentance while living has been established through evident signs, and the benefit of absolution is imparted even to the deceased according to the tenor of a certain constitution of ours.

Latin source headnote: A person once excommunicated must always be avoided as excommunicated, unless he lawfully proves that he has been absolved.

The same, to the Bishop of Assisi.

As you intimated to us by your letters, when you subject certain clerics or laymen of your diocese to excommunication, their faults requiring it, they afterward return to you, no satisfaction having been made, without testimonial letters, and say that they have received the benefit of absolution. You humbly asked to be instructed by us whether they ought to be believed in this matter, since, as you say, on account of a cause of this kind your sentences are held in contempt by your subjects. Therefore, unwilling to indulge the malice of men, We respond to your fraternity in this manner: unless those excommunicated by you bring back to you concerning their absolution our letters or those of him to whom we have committed our office in this matter, or it is otherwise lawfully established for you that they have been absolved, you, placing no faith in their absolution, are to hold them as excommunicated just as before and cause them to be avoided. [Given at the Lateran, the second day before the Ides of August, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: If one excommunicated by a bishop appeals to the metropolitan, he can be absolved by him; nevertheless the metropolitan, wishing to defer to his suffragan, can remit him to him, when he was excommunicated on account of a manifest offense. And before absolution he who wishes to prove that he was unjustly excommunicated is not heard; it is otherwise if he wishes to prove that the sentence is null.

The same, to the Archbishop of Sens.

By your letters you intimated to us that, when our venerable brother the Bishop of Auxerre had promulgated a sentence of excommunication against the beloved son the Archpriest of Auxerre, the archpriest presented himself before you and offered sufficient security that he would stand by the mandate of the church, humbly seeking that you bestow upon him the benefit of absolution. But you, wishing to defer to the bishop mentioned, admonished him repeatedly that he absolve the archpriest. But because he did not obey the admonitions, you took care to absolve the excommunicated man, whom the bishop does not hold absolved, inasmuch as he alleges that his absolution did not pertain to you. Whence you ask what is to be done henceforth in similar cases. For it appears to some that, since a question is not carried to the metropolitan through an appeal, and an excommunicated person does not have a voice for appealing, inasmuch as he is separated from the church, whether he has appealed or not, the metropolitan ought not to bestow upon him the benefit of absolution. But from the words of a certain epistle, which scholars say is decretal, and allege to have issued from Pope Alexander of good memory, our predecessor, it is held that, if a sentence of excommunication was promulgated against someone before an appeal, the metropolitan, having received from him before joinder of issue an oath according to the custom of the church, ought to absolve him, unless he wishes to defer to the diocesan bishop and remit him to him to be absolved. There it is also consequently inferred that excommunicated persons are neither to be heard before they have been absolved nor to be remitted to those from whom they had appealed. But in the Council of Sardica it is found that he who has been cast off by the bishop is to address the neighboring bishops, and his case is to be heard and more diligently examined; but the bishop who justly or unjustly cast him off is patiently to accept that the matter be discussed, so that either his sentence may be approved by several or may even be amended. Nevertheless, before all things have been diligently and faithfully examined, no one before cognizance of the case is to presume to associate in communion him who had been deprived of communion. We therefore believe a distinction must be made whether someone alleges that he was marked by excommunication after a lawful appeal had been interposed, or that an intolerable error was manifestly expressed in the form of the excommunication; in these cases he ought to be admitted to proof of them even if he does not seek absolution, but until they have been established he ought to be avoided in other matters, although the Apostolic See has been accustomed to absolve even such persons as a precaution. But in other cases, unless he implores the grace of absolution, he ought not to be heard, lest he appear to despise the ecclesiastical sentence and through this be bound more greatly by his contempt. But if he has humbly sought the benefit of absolution, the metropolitan ought to absolve him, unless he has decided that deference is to be shown to his suffragan; but if the suffragan is unwilling to bestow upon him the benefit of absolution according to the form of the church, the metropolitan is nevertheless to absolve him, having received security that he ought to obey his mandate, and thereafter is to hear the case and, with justice mediating, decree what is canonical. But if perhaps the bishop had excommunicated his subject on account of a manifest offense, the metropolitan ought not to absolve him unless the suffragan, having been requested, maliciously denied him the benefit of absolution. [Given at the Lateran, the thirteenth day before the Kalends of March, in the fifth year of our pontificate, 1203.]

Latin source headnote: If the Pope greets an excommunicated person in his letters, he does not absolve him on this account.

The same.

If it should perhaps sometimes happen that our letters are directed with a formula of greeting to those who by apostolic authority are subject to excommunication, the sentence of excommunication is not to be believed relaxed on this account, since it happens that letters of this kind are obtained through ignorance or negligence, excessive occupation, or even through surreption, as is said recently to have happened among the people of Piacenza. Since they are bound by the bond of excommunication on account of the iniquity that they committed against God and his church, they boast that they are as though absolved through letters of this kind, which we are said to have sent to them on behalf of the Templars, although we are not mindful of such letters; for even if they were exhibited to them when already excommunicated, perhaps they had nevertheless been obtained earlier. Therefore, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity that you avoid them more strictly as excommunicated until they recover from their error, observing a like judgment in similar cases if ever a like thing should happen. [Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, the ninth day before the Kalends of March, 1203.]

Latin source headnote: One excommunicated by several prelates for several causes is not to be restored to communion although he wishes to make satisfaction concerning one cause; and, if absolution is obtained while the other causes are suppressed, the absolution is not valid.

The same, to C., Cardinal Priest of Saint Lawrence in Lucina, Legate of the Apostolic See.

Of the office (And below: [cf. c. 38, On Election, I. 6.]) Lastly you asked whether he who for several offenses has been bound by the bond of excommunication by several prelates having jurisdiction over him, and wishes to make satisfaction to one of the prelates concerning only one offense, is to be absolved by him concerning that for which he wishes to make satisfaction to him, and, although he has not made satisfaction concerning another, can be announced to the other as absolved. But because concerning this there are different opinions of different scholars, we, wishing at present to prejudice no one, Respond to you concerning this article only that an absolution surreptitiously obtained does not profit one who suppresses the truth, and one who understands the truth ought not to grant an absolution of this kind.

Latin source headnote: The word of God can lawfully be preached to excommunicated and interdicted persons. This is the first point. And during a general interdict baptism and anointing with chrism on the forehead, and penance for the dying, can be granted. This is the second point.

The same, to the Bishop of Ferrara.

You seek to be instructed by our response whether, when the citizens of Ferrara are bound by sentences of excommunication and interdict, it is lawful for you once a week or a month to convoke men and women at some church, to whom you might preach the word of God and induce them to correction. Concerning this we respond to your fraternity in this manner: you will be able to do this without scruple of conscience when you see it to be expedient, provided that no divine office is celebrated for them contrary to the form of the interdict. Moreover, you asked whether, since the city of Ferrara is subjected to interdict and excommunication, and therefore all ecclesiastical sacraments except the baptism of infants and the penances of the dying are interdicted there, it is lawful for you to sign baptized children upon their foreheads. Concerning this we respond to you in this manner: just as children can be baptized, so also those baptized can by you be anointed upon their foreheads with sacred chrism for confirmation.

Latin source headnote: If a spouse knows for certain an impediment to the marriage, he ought not to render the debt, but rather to suffer excommunication; but if he believes this from a probable and discerning cause, he can render the debt but not exact it; but if from a slight and rash cause, having put aside his conscience, he can render and exact it.

The same.

Responding briefly to your inquiry, we believe a distinction must be made whether one of the spouses knows for certain an impediment to the marriage on account of which he cannot exercise carnal commerce without mortal sin, although he cannot prove it before the church, or does not know an impediment of this kind for certain but believes it. In the first case, therefore, he ought rather humbly to sustain a sentence of excommunication than to commit mortal sin through carnal commerce. But in the second case indeed we distinguish whether he has a conscience of this kind from slight and rash belief or from probable and discerning belief. And indeed, at the counsel of his pastor, after the conscience of slight and rash belief has been cast out, he can lawfully not only render but exact the conjugal debt. But when conscience strikes the mind from probable and discerning belief, although not evident and manifest, he can indeed render the debt, but he ought not to demand it, lest in either respect he commit an offense either against the law of marriage or against the judgment of conscience. You, therefore, are to proceed according to the response written above concerning that article about which you wished to consult us.

Latin source headnote: Through abandonment of habit and tonsure a cleric does not lose clerical privilege before a threefold admonition.

The same.

It sometimes happens [that, while clerics distinguished by the character turn aside to base profits and involve themselves in secular business, they render the clerical name abominable to the hearts of the weak.] Indeed, as we have learned, the noble man the Count of Flanders [and the noble woman Matilda, relict of the late Philip, Count of Flanders,] intimating it, there are certain persons in your diocese who show nothing of the cleric either in the manner of their tonsure, in the form of their garments, or in the quality of their business, but display themselves as clerics to evade punishment. For when they are dragged before public tribunals concerning offenses that they commit with secular extravagance, having cut their hair so that they can circumvent vengeance, they represent themselves as clerics, alleging with their lips the privilege of the clerical forum, who by their deeds a little before had denied the clerical state, [and while through a sudden tonsure they evade the punishments that, while untonsured, they merited by perverse deeds, the audacity of offending is nourished in them through confidence of impunity; and while they offend with impunity, they are made a scandal to some and an example to others.] But because he who abuses the power permitted to him deserves to lose a privilege, and he who commits against the law vainly invokes the aid of the law, we will and command that such persons, if after being admonished by you a third time they have scorned to amend themselves, be made bereft of that immunity which is known to have been instituted for the protection of clerics and the restraint of lay violence. [You, finally, etc. Given at the Lateran, the fifth day before the Ides of January, in the fifteenth year of our pontificate, 1213.]

Latin source headnote: He who did not give prior admonition and communicated with him is repelled from denouncing an excommunicated person.

The same.

In the presence of the beloved son (And below:) Nor can the canons object to their dean that he is excommunicated, since he had neither been admonished nor assailed concerning this, nor had they on this account caused him to be avoided; rather, the bishop at table, and the canons even in divine offices, had communicated with him.

Latin source headnote: He is excommunicated who deceitfully permits a cleric to be struck, since he could prohibit it and did not prohibit it.

The same.

Of how great a presumption and rashness it is to lay violent hands upon rulers of the church, the Lord testifies in the Gospel, who declares that he is afflicted in his ministers, and elsewhere attested that he is crucified again in the prince of the Apostles. This the quality of the penalty also manifestly declares, since the sentence of excommunication strikes offenders in the act itself if they presume to perpetrate violence not only against our brothers and fellow bishops but even against clerics of lesser order. Moreover, lest the presumption of some suppose that only the authors of violence of this kind are to be punished, catholic authority condemns those doing and those consenting to be punished by an equal penalty, interpreting even those who, when they can, fail to oppose a manifest crime as favoring the offenders. [Considering this carefully hitherto, Pope C. of good memory, our predecessor, had announced the authors and supporters of the capture and detention of our venerable brother the Archbishop of Salerno to be bound by the bond of excommunication, etc.]

Latin source headnote: A prelate ought not to excommunicate a subject unless a competent admonition has preceded, and from a manifest and reasonable cause; and the penalty expressed here is imposed upon one acting to the contrary. Likewise, the subject who falsely complains that he was unjustly excommunicated is punished; and it adds what the law is if a prelate, saying that he erred, wishes to absolve the excommunicated person, and the adversary appeals lest he be absolved.

The same, in the general council.

With the sacred council approving, we prohibit anyone from presuming to promulgate a sentence of excommunication against another unless a competent admonition has preceded, with suitable persons present through whom, if need be, the admonition can be proved. But if anyone should presume to the contrary, even if the sentence of excommunication was just, let him know that entrance to the church is interdicted to him for one month, and that he is nevertheless to be punished with another penalty if it shall seem expedient. He is also to take diligent care not to proceed to the excommunication of anyone without a manifest and reasonable cause. But if perhaps he has proceeded to it in such a manner and, when humbly requested, has taken no care to revoke a proceeding of this kind without difficulty, the person aggrieved is to lodge before the superior a complaint concerning the unjust excommunication. If the superior can do so without danger in delay, he is to remit him with his mandate to that excommunicator, to be absolved within a competent term; otherwise, by himself or another, as he shall see to be expedient, having received sufficient security, he is to impart to him the office of absolution. And when it has been established against the excommunicator that the excommunication was unjust, the excommunicator is to be condemned to pay damages to the excommunicated person; nevertheless, otherwise also, if the quality of the fault shall demand it, he is to be punished at the superior's discretion, since it is no slight fault to inflict so great a penalty upon an innocent person, unless perhaps he erred from a probable cause, especially if he is of praiseworthy reputation. But if the complainant has proved nothing reasonable against the sentence of excommunication, he likewise is to be condemned, for the vexation caused by the complaint of unjust excommunication, through a penalty to pay damages, or otherwise according to the superior's discretion, unless perhaps a probable error excuses him also; and he is to be compelled, after security has been received, to make satisfaction concerning that for which he was bound by a just excommunication, or he is to be reduced to the former sentence, to be inviolably observed until worthy satisfaction. But if the judge, recognizing his own error, is prepared to revoke such a sentence, and he for whose sake it had been rendered appeals lest the judge revoke it without satisfaction, he is not to defer to the appeal in this matter unless the error is such that there ought deservedly to be doubt concerning it; and then, having received sufficient security that before him to whom the appeal has been made, or before one delegated by him, he will obey the law, he is to absolve the excommunicated person. And thus he will by no means be subject to the penalty written above, taking every care that he not, with perverse will and to another's prejudice, falsely assert an error, if he wishes to escape the vengeance of canonical severity.

Latin source headnote: He excommunicates heretics and all violators of ecclesiastical liberty.

Honorius III, to the Bishop of Bologna.

Let your fraternity know that we [recently], in the basilica of the prince of the Apostles, in the presence of our dearest son in Christ Frederick, illustrious Emperor of the Romans, ever august [and King of Sicily], during the celebration of Masses, after we placed the diadem of the empire upon his head, by the counsel of our brothers and with candles lighted, Excommunicate on behalf of almighty God, and also by the authority of the [blessed] Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, all heretics of either sex, by whatever name they are designated, and their supporters, receivers, and defenders, and also those who henceforth cause issued statutes and customs, or rather abuses, introduced against the liberty of the church, to be observed, and do not cause them to be removed from their statute books within two months after the publication of a sentence of this kind. Likewise we excommunicate the makers and writers of those statutes, and also the magistrates, consuls, rectors, and councillors of places where statutes and customs of this kind shall henceforth have been issued or observed, as well as those who have presumed to judge according to them or to write the judgments in public form. [Given at the Lateran, the second day before the Nones of January, in the fifth year of our pontificate, 1221.]

Latin source headnote: Brothers of the Hospital of Jerusalem excommunicated for laying hands upon a cleric or fellow brother can be absolved by their prior, unless the offense was difficult and enormous.

The same, to the Master and Brothers of the Hospital of Jerusalem.

It is provided by a canonical constitution that monks and canons regular, in whatever manner they have struck one another in the cloister, are not to be sent to the Apostolic See, but are to be subjected to discipline according to the discretion and providence of their abbot. But if the discretion of the abbot does not suffice for their correction, the providence of the diocesan bishop is to be applied, unless the offense was difficult and enormous, on account of which recourse ought deservedly to be had to the Roman Church. We therefore, inclining to your supplications, have deemed that a statute of this kind is to be extended to you, establishing by the authority aforesaid that in such a case, unless greater providence is to be required, the benefit of absolution is to be bestowed upon your brothers through your prior, who, as we have heard, ought to be a priest.

Latin source headnote: One excommunicated or suspended ought not to be absolved unless an oath has first been furnished; if, however, the oath cannot be obtained without scandal, absolution will be able to be made through a promise by hand.

The same, to the Cardinal Priest of the title of Saint Praxedes, Legate of the Apostolic See.

Concerning the fact that Greek monks and hermits, bound by a sentence of suspension and excommunication on account of disobedience, are unwilling to return to the mandate of the church except through a promise by hand, we have deemed that this is to be answered to you: that if they can in no way be induced to furnish an oath according to the form of the church, on this occasion you will be able to receive them with a promise by hand, since sometimes, the qualities of places and times having been considered, something must be taken away from severity.

Latin source headnote: When the force of a sentence is doubted, someone can be absolved as a precaution after furnishing an oath.

The same, to the Deans of Bourges and Chartres and the Subdeacon of Arles.

Our venerable brother the Bishop of Le Mans and the beloved son H., canon of Tours, proctor of our venerable brother the Archbishop of Tours, having been constituted in our presence concerning a certain sentence of suspension promulgated against the aforesaid bishop by that archbishop, we, having heard and understood those things that were proposed by them concerning this before us, because the parties disagreed upon the fact in such a manner that it could not be fully established, by grace relaxed the sentence itself as a precaution, the bishop himself in the presence of the said proctor having furnished a corporal oath that he would obey the mandates that the same archbishop should make to him on account of this, if it should be established that the bishop himself had been culpable in that for which the aforesaid sentence was rendered.

Latin source headnote: Officials of places in which there are statutes against ecclesiastical liberty are excommunicated unless they cause them to be erased; and the makers of the statutes are deprived of fiefs of the church.

The same, to the Bishop of Siena.

We have received the grave complaint of our venerable brother the Archbishop of Pisa, that A., B., and certain other citizens of Pisa, deputed by the magistrate and the people to issue the statutes of the city, as though they savor perversely, have presumed to issue such things in derogation of the Apostolic See and subversion of ecclesiastical liberty: that if any cleric or layman obtains apostolic letters to an ecclesiastical judge against any layman of the district of Pisa, he is to be condemned in one thousand solidi unless he has renounced such letters; nor are the revenues of his possessions to be rendered to him, nor his fields cultivated, but rather they are to be subjected to the ban of the magistrate, which will receive no one for the government of the city unless he has sworn that he will observe this; and this and every other magistrate who shall be in office for the time being will cause his successors to swear to the things stated above. They established, moreover, that the clerics at their own expense are to cause the castle of Ripafracta to be guarded. But if they refuse, the magistrate is to be bound to proceed against them according to what the council of the city shall prescribe, all of which the person who now presides over the aforesaid city confirmed by oath that he would firmly observe. Therefore, since the whole city of Pisa, which otherwise has cast aside the fear of God for so long that it is presumed now infected with error or close to infection, and since there is no doubt that both the makers of the statutes and that magistrate have on this account incurred a sentence of excommunication in addition to the mark of infamy, we command your fraternity to take care to promulgate a sentence of excommunication against the councillors and officials of that city unless they cause the statutes themselves to be erased from their statute books, and suitable security to be given, as the matter requires, that they ought not to attempt similar things henceforth. Furthermore, since those makers of the statutes are said to hold many things from ecclesiastical goods in fief, take care nevertheless to announce them deprived of fiefs of this kind.

Latin source headnote: One speaking with an excommunicated person concerning matters tending to the salvation of the soul is not excommunicated, even if he interposes other words. - § 1. Preachers, especially those who cannot otherwise be sustained, can receive alms from excommunicated persons and persons detaining the goods of others. This is what it says. - § 2. It states certain cases in which one who strikes a cleric is not excommunicated.

Gregory IX.

Since wrongful acts are distinguished by will and purpose, he does not incur the sentence of excommunication who participates in conversation with an excommunicated person in those matters that pertain to absolution or otherwise to the salvation of the soul, although he even incidentally interposes other words so that he may profit more with him. § 1. Preachers also, who among excommunicated persons or other detainers of others' property in preachings and confessions act, as it were, the cause or care of those to whom the property itself is known to pertain, can lawfully receive alms from them, especially if they cannot otherwise have sustenance in that place. § 2. But if, by reason of an office that they hold in a church, or even if other senior clerics out of zeal of devotion, have perhaps lightly struck, for the sake of correction, boys or adolescents constituted in minor orders who disturb divine office, and those who under color of prelacy or a master's authority have struck subjects and scholars, they do not incur the sentence of excommunication. This is also to be said of those who have deemed that some persons of their household or relatives of inferior degrees are to be corrected in a similar manner so that they may be restrained from their insolences and be instructed in knowledge and good morals.

Latin source headnote: One communicating with an excommunicated person in a damnable crime falls under major excommunication.

The same, to the Bishop of Astorga.

If the public concubines of clerics are marked by the severity of ecclesiastical censure, there is no doubt that those same concubinary clerics who, after the sentence has been rendered, communicate in the same crime with the criminals are enveloped by a sentence of major excommunication. [Aqua, etc. (cf. c. 9, On the Consecration of a Church, III. 40.) Given at the Lateran, the twelfth day before the Kalends of June, in the seventh year of our pontificate, 1233.]

Latin source headnote: One under minor excommunication can absolve someone from excommunication.

The same.

Power having been conferred upon two persons that, if they fall into minor excommunication, they may absolve each other from it, the power does not expire when each is bound by a bond of excommunication of this kind.

Latin source headnote: Ministers of churches are permitted to celebrate once a week during an interdict, when those conditions stated in the text concur.

The same.

We permit ministers of churches once a week during an interdict, without bells being rung, in a subdued voice, with the doors closed, and with excommunicated and interdicted persons excluded, to celebrate the solemnities of Masses for the purpose of consecrating the body of the Lord, which is not denied to those dying in penance.

Latin source headnote: One making satisfaction to a cleric whom he beat cannot on this account be absolved by the bishop, except in the certain cases expressed here.

The same.

Although one who incurs the canon of a sentence already pronounced on account of a violent laying-on of hands makes satisfaction according to his own means to those upon whom he inflicted injuries, nevertheless he cannot in any other way obtain the benefit of absolution than through the Apostolic See or its legate, unless he is hindered from being able to approach the Roman Pontiff by the imminence of the moment of death, sickness, enmity, or poverty, by boyish or old age, by the frailty of sex or another incapacity of the body, or by any canonical impediment whatever, or unless by a benefit of law he is excused from labor of this kind. Moreover, it has been customary to enjoin certain of the aforesaid persons—namely those who labor under a temporal impediment, except boys—under the obligation of an oath that they are bound to furnish according to the form of the church, that, when the impediment ceases, they are to approach the Apostolic See, humbly to receive its mandate.

Latin source headnote: An excommunication rendered without qualification is understood as major. This is what it says, and it is a notable text and is alleged daily.

The same.

If it happens that anyone is excommunicated by his judge under this form of words, “I excommunicate that man,” or a similar one, it is to be said that he is bound not only by minor excommunication, which excludes from reception of the sacraments, but also by major excommunication, which separates from the communion of the faithful.

Latin source headnote: A benefit granted by reason of minority of age, after it has begun to have effect, is not extinguished although the minor has reached majority of age.

The same.

To boys who have incurred the canon of the sentence promulgated, whether they seek to be absolved before or after puberty, the diocesan bishop can impart the benefit of absolution, since on account of the defect of the age at which the offense was committed rigor is to be tempered with gentleness.