Question III

GRATIAN. PART I. But let it be supposed that this fault was not worthy of suspension; it is asked whether one who dared to celebrate his office contrary to the prohibition of the bishop is to be deposed. But that the sentence of a bishop, whether it was just or unjust, is to be feared, Gregory testifies, [homily XXVI on the Gospels], saying:

The sentence of a shepherd, whether it was just or unjust, is to be feared.

Likewise from the Council of Antioch, [c. 6]. If anyone has been excommunicated by his own bishop, he ought not first to be received by others, unless either he has been received by his own bishop or, after a council has been held, he encounters the bishops and answers, and, if he has satisfied the synod and it has so established, he is received under another sentence. This is also fitting to be observed concerning laymen, priests, deacons, and all who are in the clergy.

Likewise Nicholas to King Lothair, [in the letter whose beginning is “Having Heard”]. Above all, avoid communion with Waldrada, your concubine and long ago repudiated by you; for she has been excommunicated and, until she appears before us, separated from all fellowship of Christians. Therefore care must be taken lest you be struck with the equal edge of the sentence together with her and, bound and obligated through passion for one little woman, be dragged to perpetual destruction. For prelates sin more grievously among the peoples, and by this they themselves are punished more cruelly than the rest, as blessed Gregory says: “Prelates ought to know that, if they ever perpetrate perverse things, they are worthy of as many deaths as the examples of perdition which they transmit to their subjects. Hence it is necessary that they guard themselves from fault the more cautiously, the more through the depraved things which they do they do not die alone.” And below. § 1. Moreover, take care lest at some time, in accordance with the Lord's command, we bring two or three witnesses against you—or rather tell this to the holy church—and, what we do not desire, henceforth you become to all as a heathen and a publican.

Likewise from the Council of Sardica, c. 17. If a bishop, perhaps irascible—which he ought not to be—is quickly and harshly moved against a priest or deacon and wishes to drive him from the church, provision must be made lest an innocent man be condemned or lose communion. And therefore let the one who has been cast out possess the power to appeal to the neighboring bishops, and let his case be heard and treated more diligently. But let the bishop who justly or unjustly cast him out patiently accept that the matter be examined, so that his sentence may either be approved by several or amended. Nevertheless, before all things are diligently and faithfully examined, let no one presume to associate in communion, before cognizance, the one who had been deprived of communion.

Likewise from the Second Council of Carthage, [c. 8]. If any priest has been corrected by his bishop, he ought certainly to complain before the neighboring bishops, so that his case may be heard by them and through them he may be reconciled to his bishop. But if he has not done this, but, swollen with pride—which God forbid—has determined that he is to be separated from the communion of his bishop and, making a schism separately with certain persons, has offered sacrifice to God, let him be held anathema and nonetheless lose his place. But if he has a just complaint against the bishop, it is to be investigated.

Likewise from the Council of Antioch, [c. 4]. If any bishop is condemned by a synod, or if a priest or deacon is condemned by his own bishop, and they have dared to handle anything of the sacred ministry—whether the bishop according to the preceding custom, or the priest or deacon—let it in no way be permitted to him, even in another synod, to possess hope of restoration or a place of satisfaction; rather, all those communicating with him ought also to be cast from the church, especially if, after learning that a sentence had been pronounced against the aforesaid persons, they have attempted to communicate with them.

Likewise from the Council of Pope Martin, [c. 37]. If any bishop has been excommunicated in a council, or a priest or deacon by his own bishop, and after excommunication that bishop, priest, or deacon has presumed to make the oblation or to perform the morning or evening sacrifice as though in his office as before, let him not be permitted either to possess hope of reconciliation in another council or to be reconciled thereafter; rather, let all those who communicated with him also be repelled from the church, especially those who knew that he had been cast down. But if he has persisted in disturbing and stirring up the church through external power, he ought to be expelled from the whole congregation as a seditious person.

Likewise from the Council of Agde, [c. 3]. If bishops, after setting aside priestly moderation, have presumed to excommunicate innocent persons or those guilty of the slightest causes, or perhaps have refused to receive those hastening to the grace of baptism, let them be admonished by letters from the neighboring bishops of the same province; and if they refuse to obey, let communion be denied to them by the remaining bishops until the time of the synod, lest perhaps those excommunicated be overtaken by death during a long period through the sin of excommunication.

Likewise from the African Council. It pleased the whole council that one who has been excommunicated for his own neglect, whether any bishop or cleric, and during the time of his excommunication has presumed to communicate before a hearing, shall be judged to have pronounced a sentence of condemnation against himself.

Likewise Pope Nicholas. Teugald of Trier, primate of the province of Belgica, and Guntarius, Archbishop of Cologne—now before you and the holy synod, presenting, under a disclosure of the proceedings, a writing confirmed on this matter by their own hands concerning how they reconsidered and judged the case of King Lothair and his two women, namely Theberga and Gualdrada, and affirming with their own mouths before many persons present that they had done nothing more or less or otherwise, and publicly confessing with living voice that they had violated the sentence which our most holy brother Thado, Archbishop of Milan, and our other fellow bishops had sought from the apostolic see to be issued against Engiltrude, the wife of Boso, and which we, kindled by divine zeal, had canonically pronounced under the attestation of anathema—in all of which we have found that they transgressed apostolic and canonical enactments in many respects and wickedly violated the norm of equity, we judge to remain altogether alien from every office of the priesthood, defining by the judgment of the Holy Spirit and the authority of blessed Peter through us that they stand stripped of the governance of the episcopate. But to the aforesaid deposed men we grant permission to enter the church, communicate as laymen, and speak concerning their own interests; but we do not grant them the faculty of stirring up disturbances or seeking scandal. But as regards what specially pertains to episcopal ministry, let them possess no permission to handle it, as it is now established that we have decreed together with the holy synod.

Likewise Clement, [letter III to all his Fellow Bishops]. But if all priests and the remaining clerics, all rulers both of higher and lower order, and the remaining peoples do not obey you bishops, they will be not only infamous but also exiles from the kingdom of God and from the fellowship of the faithful, and strangers to the thresholds of the holy church of God.

Likewise Peter in the ordination of Clement. Whoever saddens a teacher of truth sins against Christ and exasperates God, the Father of all, on account of which he will also be deprived of life.

Likewise Ambrose in book II On Duties, [c. 24]. If anyone does not obey the bishop, desiring to raise and exalt himself, seeking also to overshadow the merits of the bishop by a simulated pursuit of learning, humility, or mercy, he strays from the truth and acts proudly, since this is the rule of truth: that one do nothing for the sake of commending oneself whereby another may be made lesser, nor, if you possess some good work, should you exercise it for the disfigurement and disparagement of another. § 1. Do not defend a wicked man, and do not judge that holy things are to be entrusted to one unworthy. § 2. Nor again accuse and attack one whose crime you have not detected.

Likewise Pope Anterus, [to the Bishops of Spain]. Far be it from us to judge anything sinister concerning those who, succeeding to the apostolic rank, confect the body of Christ with their sacred mouth, through whom we are Christians, and who, possessing the keys of the kingdom of heaven, judge before the day of judgment. Indeed, in the old law it is held that whoever did not obey the priests either was placed outside the camp and stoned by the people, or, with his neck subjected to the sword, expiated his contempt with blood. But now the disobedient man is cut off by spiritual punishment, or, cast from the church, is torn apart by the ravenous mouth of demons.

Likewise Peter in the ordination of Clement. If this Clement is an enemy to anyone because of his deeds, do not wait for him himself to tell you, etc., as above in the tract concerning those to be ordained, where the obedience of inferiors toward superiors is treated.

Likewise Bishop Fabian, [letter I]. As the apostles established, saying: “One must not communicate with excommunicated persons; and if anyone, knowingly turning aside the rules, has at least spoken or prayed together in a house with an excommunicated person, let him be deprived of communion.”

Likewise Pope Callistus, [letter II, c. 2]. Let no one receive any persons excommunicated by priests before a just examination of both parties, nor communicate with them in prayer, food, drink, or a kiss, nor say “Hail” to them, because whoever knowingly communicates with excommunicated persons in these or other prohibited things shall, in accordance with the institution of the apostles, himself lie under a like excommunication.

Likewise Isidore, [in the Rule of Monks, c. 18]. It is permitted neither to pray nor to speak with an excommunicated person—except for things which pertain to that same excommunication—nor to eat with him. For if anyone has spoken with him either openly or secretly, he shall immediately contract together with him the common penalty of excommunication.

Likewise from the Fourth Council of Carthage, [c. 73]. One who communicates with an excommunicated person, if he is a layman, shall be excommunicated; if a cleric, he shall be deposed.

Likewise from a decree of Pope Honorius. Let all bishops take care to make known the names of all excommunicated persons equally to neighboring bishops and to their own parishioners and, after placing them in a prominent place before the doors of the church, to impress them upon all who assemble, so that through diligence in both respects ecclesiastical access may everywhere be closed to excommunicated persons and the ground of excuse taken away from all. PART II. GRATIAN. But this concerns those excommunicated by name. For we undergo the penalty of excommunication in two ways: both when we incur guilt and when we are marked by a sentence. Hence Jerome in the book of Judges, [homily II]:

Hear, finally, the Apostle speaking concerning him who had sinned: “I have handed,” he says, “such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved.” You see, therefore, that even now God has handed offenders into the hands of enemies not only through His apostles, but sinners are also handed over for the destruction of the flesh through those who preside over the church and possess the power not only of loosing but also of binding, when they are separated from the body of Christ for their offenses. And, as it appears to me, men are even now handed over from the church into the power of the Devil in two ways. In this way, which we stated above: when his offense becomes manifest to the church and he is expelled from the church through the priests, so that, marked by all, he may blush, and after his conversion there may happen to him what follows: “so that the spirit may be saved on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” But in another way someone is handed over to the Devil when his sin is not manifest to men, but God, who sees in secret, beholding his mind and dispositions serving vices and passions, and that in his heart not He but either avarice, lust, boasting, or other things of this kind are loved, Himself hands such a man over to Satan. How does He hand him over to Satan? He departs from his mind, turns Himself away, withdraws from his evil thoughts and unworthy desires, and leaves the house of his heart empty. GRATIAN. Therefore, when someone has been named by a sentence, we ought not to communicate with him. But when by guilt alone he has secretly contracted the penalty of excommunication, one must not cease from communion with him. Hence in the Gospel the Lord then at last said that the sinner was to be held as a heathen and a publican when he had despised hearing the church. The Apostle too does not say, “If anyone is a brother and a fornicator,” but “if anyone is named a brother and a fornicator, etc.,” understanding the naming of a sentence. Hence also Urban to Bishop Vilimund: “Indeed, concerning Richard,” and the rest. Seek this below in the causa “A Certain Bishop Fell into Heresy.” Hence also Christ in the Gospel said that the tares are to be tolerated until the harvest. Hence also Jerome in the same book of Judges:

“Do not withdraw from the Lord even to the present day”—that is, while the world stands. Therefore let him show me how the Jebusite dwells with the sons of Judah in Jerusalem while the world stands, since not even the sons of Judah themselves dwell in Jerusalem. Therefore neither will it be possible for this to be true, that the Jebusites dwell with the Jews in Jerusalem, when not even they themselves dwell in it. But let us understand this spiritually, taking up the parable of the Gospel which says concerning the tares: “Permit both to grow, lest perhaps, wishing to uproot the tares, you uproot the wheat together with them.” And below: § 1. Hear, therefore, the scripture saying that the sons of Judah were unable to destroy the Jebusites, but they dwelt with them in Jerusalem even to the present day. Hence I beseech you who are faithful to preserve your life and conduct in such a way that in no respect either you yourselves suffer scandal or cause scandal to others; but let it be your highest pursuit and greatest caution that no polluted person enter this congregation of the saints, that no Jebusite dwell among you. For you see that scripture says that the sons of Judah were unable to cast the Jebusites from Jerusalem. But “Jebusite” is interpreted “a trampling.” Suppose, therefore, that we cannot cast out those who trample us; let us at least cast out those whom we can, whose sins are manifest. For where sin is not evident, we can cast no one from the church, lest perhaps in uprooting the tares we uproot the wheat together with them. Nevertheless, I am moved by the statement that they were unable to cast out the Jebusites, that is, those who are interpreted as “a trampling.” And therefore let us see who are those who trample in the church. Without doubt they are those concerning whom the Lord said in the Gospels: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet and, turning, rend you.” Therefore this is the Jebusite, “a trampling”: those who, though unworthy, hear the word of God, and, when they have heard it, neither withdraw as unbelievers nor remain as faithful persons, but, after receiving knowledge of the mysteries and examining the more secret things of our faith, afterward turn and attack us and rend our hearts with their contradictions, trampling the pearls of the Lord's word and staining the ornaments of faith. Therefore concerning these it is said that the sons of Judah were unable to cast the Jebusite from Jerusalem even to the present day.

The same on the Twelve Prophets. Therefore, when an ecclesiastical man who is prudent and understanding has recognized that many impieties exist in what is called the house of God—and not only many but also powerful ones, which can oppress justice—and that the madness of teachers has advanced to such an extent that they receive a price in judgment and do all things for gifts, avoid the poor at the gates, and despise hearing them, let him be silent at that time, lest he give what is holy to dogs and cast pearls before swine, who turn and trample them; and let him imitate Jeremiah, who says: “I sat alone, because I was filled with bitterness.”

Likewise John Chrysostom, on the Epistle to the Hebrews. For if you wish to go to the table of pagans, we permit it without any prohibition. § 1. “For if anyone,” he says, “is named a brother among you.” In this place understand “brother” simply as every faithful person, not only a monk. But what is it that he calls brotherhood except the washing of regeneration, which makes it possible for God to be called Father? § 2. “If anyone,” he says, “has been named a brother who is a fornicator, or avaricious, or a drunkard, do not even take food with such a person.” But when he treated of pagans, he did not speak thus, but: “If anyone of the unbelievers”—meaning pagans—“invites you, and you wish to go, eat everything which is set before you. If anyone is named a brother who is a drunkard, etc.” O how great the integrity! We not only do not flee drunkards, but even go to them, participating with them. GRATIAN. Therefore it appears evidently from the foregoing that we are not compelled to avoid the communion of those who have not been marked by a sentence. But the marking of the sentence itself is also understood in several ways. § 1. For sometimes someone is barred from the thresholds of the church and from communion in the body and blood of Christ, either with conscience as witness, according to that statement of the Apostle: “Let a man prove himself, and thus let him eat of that bread and drink from the cup, because one who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment for himself”; likewise that statement of Prosper: “More easily they will appease God for themselves, etc.” Seek this below in the causa “Impeded by Sorceries,” question 1, concerning penance; or by an ecclesiastical sentence, as penitents are, upon whom at a predetermined time the benefit of reconciliation is bestowed. And the sentence is called excommunication because it prohibits the person marked from communion in the body and blood of Christ, just as Adam also was excommunicated from eating of the tree of life, the Lord saying: “See that he not perhaps take of the tree of life.” By this sentence someone is not separated from the fellowship of the faithful. There is also another sentence which is called anathema, by which someone is separated from the fellowship of the faithful, concerning which above: “Do not communicate with excommunicated persons.” § 2. Anyone is permitted to notice this distinction from the authority of Pope John: “Engeltrude, the wife of Boso, etc.” Seek this above in the causa “A Certain Bishop Cast from His Own See.” Likewise from the authority of the same: “If anyone has violated the house of God, etc.” Seek this below in the causa “A Certain Priest Weighed Down by Illness.” Likewise from the authority of Pope Sylvester: “By the present decree we judge, etc.” Seek this above in the causa “Concerning the Infamy of a Certain Bishop.” § 3. According to this distinction, therefore, that authority of Innocent is to be understood: “If anyone, at the devil's persuasion, etc.,” as below in the causa “A Certain Priest,” so that, according to the etymology of the word, one who falls under that edict lies under anathema, that is, separation, because one who has dared to lay impious hands upon a cleric makes himself a stranger to the body and blood of Christ and to entry into the church. He also cannot be absolved by any bishop, that is, reconciled in the manner of penitents, unless he has first taken care to present himself before the apostolic presence. § 4. But that statement of Peter concerning Clement—“If this Clement is an enemy, etc.”—is to be understood of those marked by sentence, as is also that statement of Urban: “Those with whom bishops do not communicate, etc.,” as below in the same causa. Otherwise, that statement of the Second Council of Vaires would be false: “If only the bishop knows himself to be conscious of another's crime.” Likewise also this: “It was resolved that if at any time a bishop, etc.” Seek this above in the causa “Two Fornicators and Persons Marked by Infamy.”

Likewise Gregory to the Clergy and People of Salona. I ask and admonish that no one among you presume, against his own soul, to communicate with any priest who communicates with the above-written Maximus.

Likewise from the First Council of Toledo, [c. 15]. If any layman is suspended from communion, let no cleric or religious person approach his house. Similarly, if a cleric is suspended from communion, let him be avoided by clerics. If anyone is detected speaking or feasting with him, let him also be suspended from communion. But let this pertain to those clerics who belong to his bishop and to all who have been admonished concerning the person suspended from communion, whether any layman or cleric. PART III. GRATIAN. But this is specially the case concerning those who communicate with persons excommunicated by name. Hence Urban below: “Indeed, concerning Richard, etc.” Causa: “A Certain Bishop Fell into Heresy.” Likewise Pope Nicholas, “Most Excellent King Charles,” below near the end of this causa.

Likewise Urban, [to all Bishops, c. 5]. Do not communicate with those with whom bishops do not communicate, and do not receive those whom they have cast out. For the sentence of a bishop is greatly to be feared, even if he binds unjustly.

Likewise from the Eighth Synod. If any brother has spoken with an excommunicated person either openly or secretly, or has been joined to him in communion, let him immediately contract together with him the penalty of excommunication.

Likewise from the Second Council of Carthage, [c. 7]. If those who have deservedly been driven from the church for their crimes are received into communion by any bishop, priest, or cleric, let that person also be held liable for an equal crime with them, since they flee the regular judgment of their own bishop.

Likewise from the Fourth Council of Carthage, [c. 66]. A cleric who thinks the bishop's severity toward him unjust shall have recourse to the synod.

Likewise John Chrysostom, on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Let no one despise ecclesiastical bonds. For it is not man who binds, but Christ, who gave this power and made men lords of so great an honor.

Likewise Augustine, On the Words of the Apostle, sermon LXXIX. Every Christian, most beloved, who is excommunicated by priests is handed over to Satan. How? Namely, because the devil is outside the church, just as Christ is in the church, and through this one who is removed from ecclesiastical communion is, as it were, handed over to the devil. Hence those whom the Apostle then declares to have been handed over to Satan he shows to have been excommunicated by himself.

Nothing ought a Christian to fear so much as to be separated from the body of Christ. For if he is separated from the body of Christ, he is not His member. If he is not His member, he is not enlivened by His spirit. “But whoever,” says the Apostle, “does not have the spirit of Christ, he is not His.” GRATIAN. Likewise Jerome: “Whose sins you shall forgive, etc.,” that is, those whom you have barred from the church, unless they have been reconciled through satisfaction, for them also the gate of the heavenly kingdom will be closed.

Likewise from the Council of Milevis, [c. 22]. If priests, deacons, or other lower clerics complain concerning the judgments of their own bishops in cases which they have, let neighboring bishops hear them and, having been engaged by them with the consent of their own bishops, determine whatever lies between them. But if they think an appeal is to be made even from them, let them appeal only to African councils or to the primates of their provinces. But those who think an appeal is to be made to places across the sea shall be received in communion by no one within Africa.

Likewise from the Fourth Council of Carthage, [c. 28]. We judge the unjust condemnation of bishops to be void and therefore to be reconsidered by a synod.

Likewise from the Fifth Council of Carthage, [c. 12]. It was again established that, whenever clerics have been convicted or have confessed concerning some crime, whether because of those whose modesty is spared, or because of the reproach to the church or the mockery of heretics and gentiles, if perhaps they wish to appear in their own case and assert their innocence, let them do this within a year of excommunication. But if within a year they have despised clearing their case, let no voice of theirs thereafter be heard at all.

Likewise Gelasius. Whoever within the space of a year has not concluded his case civilly or publicly before those who excommunicated him shall appear to have closed the approach to a hearing against himself. But if they have died without communion with an obstinate mind, we, reserving their case to divine judgment in accordance with the sentence of blessed Leo our predecessor, ought not to communicate with them when dead when we did not communicate with them when alive.

But one who knowingly communicates with an excommunicated person and from now on even prays together in a house, and furnishes him hiding places so that he may not be brought to satisfaction, shall know himself to be deprived of communion in the body and blood of the Lord until he receives penance from the excommunicator.]

Likewise from the Council of Lleida, [c. 10]. One who, when ordered by a priest to leave the church for any fault, has despised doing so shall, for the offense of contumacy, be received to pardon more slowly. GRATIAN. But it is asked: if it happens that the bishop dies before the absolution of the condemned man, can the condemned man afterward be absolved? Concerning these things it was established thus in the Council of Épaone, [c. 28]:

If a bishop is carried off by death before the absolution of a condemned man, his successor will be permitted to absolve him when corrected or penitent. GRATIAN. The response to the foregoing authorities, by which we are commanded to obey an unjust sentence until the examination of both parties, is as follows: Gregory does not say that a sentence unjustly rendered is to be observed, but that it is to be feared. So too Urban. Therefore it is to be feared, that is, it is not to be despised from pride. But the remaining authorities speak concerning excommunicated persons who either, after being summoned to a synod, despised coming; or, not knowing how to meet the cunning devices of their adversaries, received an unjust sentence from the judge; or, by permitting a sinister opinion concerning themselves to arise through neglect of their lives, received a sentence against themselves. For these alone are permitted to be struck with a sentence of excommunication. Hence in the Council of Meaux, [c. 56]:

Let none of the bishops deprive anyone of ecclesiastical communion without a certain and manifest cause of sin. But let no one presume to place anyone under anathema without the knowledge of the archbishop or fellow bishops, except for a cause concerning which canonical authority teaches, because anathema is the condemnation of eternal death and ought to be imposed only for a mortal crime and upon those who could not otherwise be corrected.

Likewise from the Council of Clermont. Let none of the priests suspend from communion any man of right faith for small and light causes, except for those faults for which the ancient Fathers commanded those committing them to be barred from the church.

Likewise from the Council of Tribur. It is certain that someone ought to be excommunicated for these three crimes: when, canonically summoned to the synod, he despises coming; or if, after he has come there, he refuses to obey priestly commands; or if he presumes to depart from the synod before the examination of his case has been completed. PART IV. GRATIAN. The foregoing authorities, I say, speak concerning these and similar persons, not concerning those suspended unjustly. But that an unjust sentence is not to be obeyed is proved by many authorities. The first of these is that of Jerome on Matthew, [book III]:

Just as a priest does not make a leper clean, so a bishop or priest does not bind those who are innocent or loose the guilty; but, according to his office, when he has heard the varieties of sins, he knows who is to be bound and who loosed. [PALEA.

Likewise Augustine on Matthew. It is ridiculous that we say that man is clean who is bound by the bonds of his sins, solely because a bishop is said to possess power of this kind, so that those loosed by him are loosed in heaven and those bound on earth are bound in heaven. Therefore let the one who binds or looses another be blameless.]

Likewise Pope Gelasius to the Eastern Bishops concerning the condemnation of Dioscorus. Let one against whom a sentence has been brought put away his error; but the sentence is void if it is unjust, and he ought to care for it the less, inasmuch as an iniquitous sentence can burden no one before God and His church. Therefore let him not desire to be absolved from that by which he perceives himself in no way bound.

Likewise Augustine, On the Highest Good. According to the catholic faith, no one can harm the nature of God, nor can the nature of God unjustly harm anyone, nor does it permit anyone to be harmed unjustly.

“For one who harms,” as the Apostle says, “will receive that which he has harmed.”

The same, [sermon 16], On the Words of the Lord. You have begun to hold your brother as a publican: you bind him on earth, but see that you bind justly. For justice breaks unjust bonds. “Whomever you loose,” He says, “on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The same, On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, [book II, c. 29]. A rash judgment very often harms the one concerning whom judgment is rashly made in no way. But it is necessary that rashness itself harm the one who judges rashly.

The same to the Clergy of Hippo, [letter CXXXVII]. What harm is it to a man that human ignorance wishes to erase him from that tablet, if an iniquitous conscience does not erase him from the book of the living?

The same to Secundinus the Manichaean, [c. 1]. Think of Augustine whatever you please: only let my conscience not accuse me in the eyes of God.

Likewise Gregory to Constantius, Bishop of Milan, [book VI, letter 14]. In all adversities which happen in this life, as you know, the severity of almighty God alone is to be weighed, and one must always have recourse to one's own heart, so that no person's tongue may entangle where conscience does not accuse. For one whom conscience defends is free amid accusations, and one cannot be free without accusation if conscience alone, which accuses inwardly, accuses him. Far be it, therefore, from judgment concerning your Holiness that those things which we believe fabricated by the rumors of slanderous men be brought into any measure of suspicion, because we also possess the testimony of sacred utterance that, when perhaps greater evils are spoken, they ought not to be believed unless proved, but, when proved, ought swiftly to be avenged. § 1. I have therefore said these things to show that it is a mark of excessive levity if anyone endeavors to believe grave evils which cannot be proved. Hence your Holiness ought to separate your mind from the rumors and detraction of slanderous men and to think only of those things which belong to the interior life and advance the utility of subjects.

Likewise Augustine on Psalm XXXVI, [discourse 3, at the verse “Nor Will He Condemn Him”]. Even if you are condemned for a time by man, even if you recite the proconsul's sentence against Cyprian, the earthly chair is one thing, the heavenly tribunal another. From the inferior he receives a sentence; from the superior, a crown.

The same on Psalm XXXVII, [at the verse “Because I Have Hoped in You”]. Guard your innocence within, where no one oppresses your case. False testimony will prevail against you, but among men. Surely it will not prevail before God, where your case is to be pleaded? When God is judge, there will be no witness other than your conscience. Between the just judge and your conscience, fear nothing except your case.

Likewise Pope Gregory, [to the priest Palladius, book VIII, letter 45]. Amid the words of those praising or disparaging us, one must always have recourse to the mind; and if the good which is said concerning us is not found in it, this ought to generate great sorrow; and again, if the evil which men speak concerning us is not found in it, we ought to leap into great joy. For what if not all praise us and conscience demonstrates us to be free? We have Paul saying: “Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience.” Job too says: “Behold, my witness is in heaven.” Therefore, if there is for us a witness in heaven and a witness in the heart, let us permit fools outside to say what they wish. § 1. For what else do detractors do except blow into dust and stir earth into their own eyes, so that the more they blow detraction from there, the more they see nothing of the truth? Nevertheless, even they are to be summoned and calmly admonished, and satisfaction ought to be given to them by every means, knowing what the Truth says concerning the Jews: “Lest perhaps we scandalize them.” But if they are unwilling to be satisfied by the truth, you possess consolation which you may behold in the Gospel. For when it had been said to the Lord, “Do you know that, upon hearing this word, the Jews were scandalized?” He answered: “Let them alone; they are blind leaders of the blind.” The apostle Paul also admonishes, saying: “If it is possible, insofar as it is from you, having peace with all men.” Being about to say, “Let us have peace with all,” and perceiving that this is difficult, he first said, “if it is possible.” And he added what is possible when he says, “insofar as it is from you,” because if we desire to preserve charity in our mind toward those who hate us, although they do not have peace with us, we nevertheless without doubt have peace with them. GRATIAN. This is to be observed among those who are ready to suspect what they do not see, always ready to reprove, never to imitate. But among others conscience is necessary for us, reputation for them. Hence Augustine, [book On the Good of Widowhood, c. 22]:

Neither holy men nor women are to be heard when, after being reproved for some negligence through which it happens that they come under an evil suspicion from which they know their life to be far removed, they say that conscience before God suffices for them, shamelessly and also cruelly despising the estimation of men, since they kill the souls of others: either of those blaspheming the way of God, to whom, according to their suspicion, the life of the saints, which is chaste, is displeasing as though it were shameful; or also of those who imitate, with an excuse, not what they see but what they suppose. Therefore, whoever guards his life from the crimes of outrages and misdeeds benefits himself; but whoever also guards his reputation is merciful toward others. For our life is necessary for us; our reputation, for others.

Likewise Jerome on Paul's Epistle to Philemon. If anyone has said that the just man is unjust and the unjust man just, each is abominable before God. Similarly, one who calls a holy man unholy and, again, asserts that an unholy man is holy is abominable before God.

The same, [in the same place a little above]. If anyone has believed that a man who is not holy is holy and has joined him to the fellowship of God, he violates Christ, whose members we are. And below: § 1. According to the Apostle, all who believe are made the body of Christ. One who errs and slips in the body of Christ, asserting that a member of it is holy when it is not, or is not holy when it is, see to what crime he becomes liable. Isaiah says: “Woe to those who call sweet bitter, and bitter sweet, placing darkness as light and light as darkness.” I think holiness is sweet; what is contrary to holiness, bitter.

Likewise Isaiah, [c. 5]. Woe to you who call good evil and evil good, placing darkness as light and light as darkness. § 1. Therefore my people were led captive because they had no knowledge, and their nobles perished by hunger, and their multitude dried up by thirst. Therefore hell enlarged its soul and opened its mouth without any limit; and its mighty men, its people, and its lofty and glorious men descended to it; and man will be bowed down, and the man will be humbled, and the eyes of the lofty will be cast down; and the Lord will be exalted in judgment, and the holy God will be sanctified in justice.

Likewise Gregory in homily XXVI, [on the Gospels]. One who exercises the power of binding and loosing according to his own wishes and not according to the conduct of his subjects deprives himself of this power.

The same, [in the same place a little below]. Those who follow their own hatreds or favor in the cases of their subjects are unable to judge their subjects worthily.

The same, [in the same place a little below]. Then the absolution of the one presiding is true when it follows the judgment of the internal judge. This is well signified by that resurrection of the man dead for four days, which plainly demonstrates that the Lord first raised and enlivened the dead man, saying, “Lazarus, come forth,” and afterward he who had been dead, having come forth alive, was loosed by the disciples, as it is written.

The same in the Register. One who abuses the power permitted to him altogether merits losing the privilege.

The same, [Gregory to the subdeacon Anthony, book II, indiction XI, letter 9]. One in whose condemnation a canonical sentence was not pronounced ought not to sustain a canonical penalty.

GRATIAN. From these things it is given to be understood that an unjust sentence binds no one before God, nor is anyone burdened by an iniquitous sentence before His church, as is held from the chapter of Gelasius. Therefore one must not abstain from the communion of a person against whom an iniquitous sentence is known to have been pronounced, nor must he cease from his office. Why, therefore, do the chapters of the Councils of Carthage and Africa and of other councils prohibit one unjustly condemned from being received into communion before examination of the judgment? Why also was that statute of the Council of Mainz established:

A bishop, priest, or deacon unjustly cast from his rank, if he is found innocent in a second synod, cannot be what he was unless he receives the lost insignia of rank before the altar from the hands of the bishops: if he is a bishop, the orarium, staff, and ring; if a priest, the orarium and chasuble; if a deacon, the orarium and alb; if a subdeacon, the paten and chalice. Thus also let the remaining ranks in their restoration receive those things which they had received when they were ordained. PART V. GRATIAN. If, therefore, even those unjustly cast down cannot be restored by bishops unless they receive from their hands what they had lost, how is anyone permitted by his own authority to communicate with persons unjustly bound and for them to celebrate their offices without absolution having been sought, as Gelasius appears to think? To these things it must be answered that a sentence is sometimes unjust from the disposition of the one pronouncing it, but just from its order and cause; sometimes it is just from disposition and cause, but not from order; sometimes it is just from disposition and order, but not from cause. But when it has been unjust from cause, sometimes there is in him no offense at all which is worthy of condemnation; sometimes that concerning which the sentence is rendered is not in him, but he is to be marked for another matter. It is unjust from disposition when someone, with the integrity of the judicial order preserved, pronounces a sentence against an adulterer or any criminal, induced not by love of justice but by the spite of hatred, a price, or favor toward the adversaries. Hence Bede says on the Epistle of James: “For the anger of man does not work the justice of God,” because one who pronounces a sentence against someone in anger, although the latter, as regards himself, receives a just sentence, nevertheless the former, who gave sentence against him not from love of justice but from the spite of hatred, does not imitate the justice of God, upon whom disturbance does not fall.

Likewise Gregory. One who judges rightly and expects a reward of recompense perpetrates fraud against God, because by accepting money he sells the justice which he ought to impart freely. Those who judge justly for temporal gain use good things badly.

For it is not the defense of justice but love of reward that provokes such men toward the truth; if the hope of money is taken from them, they immediately withdraw from the confession of justice. The acceptance of money is a transgression of truth. Hence it is also said concerning the just man: “He who shakes his hands free from every gift will dwell on high.”

The same to Emperor Maurice. That solicitude of rulers is useful, that caution praiseworthy, in which reason does everything and fury claims nothing for itself. Power is to be restrained under reason, nor is anything to be done before the agitated mind returns to tranquility. For in a time of agitation it thinks everything it has done just.

Likewise Ambrose, On Saint Joseph, [c. 13]. Anger also often brings innocent persons under accusation, because while we are angry beyond what is just and wish to restrain the sins of others, we commit graver ones. Therefore the Apostle says: “Do not avenge yourselves, dearest ones, but give place to anger”; that is, let us avoid it, lest it seize us. Hence the Lord Jesus, sending the disciples to evangelize, sent them without gold, without silver, without money, without a staff, so that He might take away both incentives to strife and instruments of vengeance.

Likewise from book XI of the Ecclesiastical History. When a sedition arose at Thessalonica and a certain military man had been killed by the onrush of the raging people, Theodosius, inflamed by the atrocity of the sudden report, ordered that the people be invited to the circus games, that soldiers unexpectedly surround them, and that they slaughter indiscriminately with the sword whomever each encountered, giving vengeance not to the crime but to fury. When he was reproved for this by the priests of Italy, he acknowledged his offense and, confessing his fault with tears, undertook public penance in the sight of the whole church and patiently completed the time assigned to him for this without royal pomp. To all these things he also marvelously added this: he established laws for the future that sentences of princes pronounced concerning punishment be delayed by their executors until the thirtieth day, so that a place for mercy or, if the matter required it, for repentance would not perish.

Likewise Gregory. It must above all be guarded that rulers of the church and those who exercise public judgments are in no way precipitate through being led by levity or fury in dictating sentences. Rather, after the cases have first been diligently examined and the matter which was unknown has come fully to knowledge, let divine and human law then be unfolded, and let definitive sentence be pronounced according to what was established there, with acceptance of persons removed. Hence it is that Moses, after entering the tabernacle, always referred the complaints of the people to the Lord and pronounced judgments according to what the Lord commanded, clearly instructing us to pronounce a sentence of condemnation or justification not from our own heart but from divine command.

Likewise Augustine to Macedonius, [letter LIV]. A judge is not permitted to sell a just judgment, although an advocate is permitted to sell just advocacy and a jurisconsult right counsel.

Likewise Isidore, [book III On the Highest Good, c. 58]. While the poor man does not have anything to offer, he is not only despised without being heard but is also oppressed contrary to the truth. Justice is quickly violated by gold, and a guilty man fears no fault which he thinks he can redeem with money. GRATIAN. Therefore this sentence, which is rendered against someone not from love of justice but from any other cause, is to be obeyed humbly. Hence in the Council of Nicaea, [c. 5]:

Let this sentence also be preserved: that those who are excommunicated by some are not received into communion by others. Let inquiry indeed be made lest perhaps any persons have been suspended from communion because of some indignation of mind, contention, or any similar agitation of their bishop's stomach, so that then at last those who have deservedly incurred the displeasure of their bishops for their own faults may worthily be held likewise excommunicated even by the others, until it has appeared good to their own bishop to render a more humane sentence concerning them. GRATIAN. Likewise, a sentence is unjust from order when anyone is condemned for his fault without the judicial order having been preserved.

Hence Gregory writes to Constantius, Bishop of Milan, [book VIII, letter 30]:

It is sufficiently grave and unseemly that a certain sentence be given in a doubtful matter.

Likewise Augustine in the book On Penance, [c. 3]. Although certain things may be true, nevertheless they are not to be believed by a judge unless they are demonstrated by certain proofs.

Likewise Pope Damasus, [letter VI]. It is not permitted to examine the cases of those who are accused before they have been canonically summoned to the synod and come, and one present truly recognizes and understands from another present the things objected against him. This is also said through the wisdom of Solomon: “Before you investigate, do not reprove. First understand, and then rebuke. Before you hear, do not reprove.” And although the reproof of the opposing matters may be most manifest, nevertheless the order ought to be preserved by those who have been appointed to examine them.

Likewise from the Eighth Synod. Not only is the one guilty who brings forth falsehood concerning another, but also he who quickly lends an ear to accusations. PART VI. GRATIAN. Therefore, when a sentence is unjust from order, even then one must not withdraw from it, because even before the sentence was given against him, according to the character of his guilt he was held bound before God. It sometimes happens that an adulterer receives a sentence for sacrilege, the guilt of which he does not possess in his conscience. Although this sentence is unjust because the crime concerning which it was rendered is not in him, nevertheless it was justly received by him, who through the guilt of adultery had already long been excommunicated before God. And in this case that authority of Gregory is to be understood: “The sentence of a shepherd, etc.” § 1. He calls a sentence just when the crime concerning which it is rendered underlies it; unjust, when that crime does not underlie it, which nevertheless is to be feared or observed because the man was already long ago to be condemned for another matter. Hence, after Gregory had first said, “Whether the shepherd binds justly or unjustly, nevertheless the sentence of the shepherd is to be feared by the flock,” he continued and added: “Lest the one who is subject and perhaps is bound unjustly merit the very sentence of his binding from another fault. Therefore let the shepherd fear either to absolve or to bind without discretion. But let the one who is under the shepherd's hand fear to be bound, even unjustly, and not rashly reprove the judgment of his shepherd, lest, even if he was bound unjustly, from the very fault of the pride of his swollen reproof that which was not a fault become one.” § 2. Sometimes no crime underlies it, and nevertheless either through the hatred of the judge or the faction of enemies he receives against himself a sentence of condemnation opposed to him. Hence Gregory says:

Human judgment is perverted in four ways: by fear, when through dread of someone's power we fear to speak the truth; by cupidity, when we corrupt someone's mind with a reward; by hatred, when we contrive against any adversary; by love, when we strive to favor a friend or relative. GRATIAN. But how grave it is to pervert judgment by hatred, friendship, a gift, fear, or any means, Augustine testifies, saying:

Whoever is led in judging either by consanguinity, friendship, hostile hatred, or enmities perverts the judgment of Christ, who is justice, and turns its fruit into bitterness.

The same to Casulanus. Whoever conceals the truth through fear of any power provokes the wrath of God upon himself, because he fears man more than God. And a little later: § 1. Each is guilty: both the one who conceals the truth and the one who speaks a lie, because the former does not wish to benefit and the latter desires to harm.

Let none of the skilled or prudent think that there is less danger in lying with words of the tongue than in shedding blood with the hands. But it is better to suffer punishment for the truth than a benefit for flattery.

Likewise Pelagius to Archbishop Benignus. Each person must take care lest he persecute, judge, and punish anyone unjustly, lest he persecute, judge, and punish Jesus. GRATIAN. One who denies the truth for money, or speaks false testimony against someone, is also proved here to deny or sell God. Hence Bede on Mark:

Judas went to the chief priests, and they agreed to give him money. Many today abhor as monstrous and nefarious the crime of Judas because he sold his Lord and teacher and God for money, yet they do not guard against it. For when they speak false testimony against anyone for gifts, assuredly, because they deny the truth for money, they sell God for money. For He Himself said: “I am the truth.” When they defile the fellowship of brotherhood with any plague of discord, they betray God, because God is charity. Therefore those who despise the commands of charity and truth betray God, who is charity and truth, especially when they sin not from weakness or ignorance, but, in the likeness of Judas, seek an opportunity whereby, with witnesses absent, they may change truth into falsehood and virtue into accusation.

Likewise Jerome, [on the Epistle to Titus, c. I, at the end]. Certain persons think that God is denied only in this: if someone seized by the gentiles in persecution has refused to confess that he is a Christian. Behold, the Apostle asserts that God is denied by all deeds which are perverse. Christ is wisdom, justice, truth, holiness, fortitude. Wisdom is denied through foolishness, justice through iniquity, truth through falsehood, holiness through shamefulness, fortitude through weakness of mind. As often as we are conquered by vices and sins, so often do we deny God; and conversely, as often as we do something good, we confess God. Nor is it to be judged that on the day of judgment only those who denied Christ in martyrdom will be denied by the Son of God, but also all those by whose work, speech, or thought Christ is denied—one denies Him, or, having confessed Him, confesses Him. I think it is concerning this confession that He commanded the disciples, saying: “You will be witnesses to me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and even to the farthest part of the earth.”

Likewise Augustine, [tractate CXIII on John c. 18]. Not only does one deny Christ who says that He is not the Christ, but also one who, although he is, denies that he is a Christian. For the Lord did not say to Peter, “You will deny that you are my disciple.” Therefore he denied Him when he denied that he was His disciple. But what else did he deny himself to be in this manner than a Christian? The same, [tractate LXVI]. § 1. By fearing the death of your flesh, you will give death to your soul.

For as great life as it is to confess Christ, so great a death it is to deny Christ. Did the apostle Peter—as those who strive to excuse him through perverse favor say—not deny Christ because, when questioned by the maidservant, he answered that he did not know the man?

Likewise John Chrysostom, [that is, the author of the Incomplete Work on Matthew, homily 25]. “Do not fear those who kill the body,” lest perhaps through fear of death you do not freely say what you have heard, nor confidently preach to all what you have heard alone in the ear. Therefore, just as it is shown from these words, not only is he a betrayer of the truth who, transgressing the truth, openly speaks falsehood in place of truth; but one who does not freely pronounce the truth which ought to be freely pronounced, or does not freely defend the truth which it is fitting to defend freely, is also a betrayer of the truth. For just as a priest is a debtor to preach freely the truth which he has heard from God, so a layman is a debtor confidently to defend the truth which he has heard from priests and which has indeed been proved in the scriptures. But if he has not done this, he has betrayed the truth. “For with the heart one believes unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” GRATIAN. This sentence harms the judge rather than the one against whom it is rendered. Hence Augustine says:

I would plainly not say this rashly: that if any of the faithful has been anathematized unjustly, it will harm the one who does it rather than the one who suffers this injury. For the Holy Spirit dwelling in the saints, through whom each person is bound or loosed, inflicts an undeserved penalty upon no one. For through Him charity is poured into our hearts, and it does not act perversely. The peace of the church forgives sins and retains the sins of those alien from the church's peace, not according to the judgment of men but according to the judgment of God. The rock retains, the rock forgives; the dove retains, the dove forgives. [GRATIAN.] Likewise Solomon: “Just as a bird flying uncertainly and a sparrow going anywhere, so a curse pronounced in vain comes upon the one who sent it.”

Likewise Gregory in homily XXVI. It very often happens that one holds the place of a judge whose life accords very little with the place, and it often happens that he either condemns the undeserving or, himself bound, looses others; frequently in loosing and binding subjects he follows the movement of his own will and not the merits of the cases. Hence it happens that he deprives himself of the power of binding and loosing, etc. And below: § 1. It often happens that a shepherd is moved toward any neighbor by hatred or favor. But to judge subjects worthily, etc. And below: Hence it is rightly said through the Prophet: “They were putting to death souls which do not die, and making alive souls which do not live.” For one puts to death a person who is not dying when he condemns a just man, and strives to make one live who will not live when he attempts to release a guilty man from punishment. § 2. Therefore the cases are to be weighed, and then the power of binding and loosing is to be exercised. One must see what fault preceded and what penance followed the fault, so that the sentence of the shepherd may absolve those whom almighty God visits through the grace of compunction. For then the absolution is true, etc. And below: § 3. From this consideration one must recognize that through pastoral authority we ought to loose those whom we know our Author makes alive through awakening grace. And below: § 4. Therefore let the dead man come forth, that is, let the sinner confess his fault. But the disciples loose him when he comes forth, because the shepherds of the church ought to remove the penalty which he merited from one who did not blush to confess what he did. § 5. We have said these things briefly concerning the order of loosing, so that under great moderation the shepherds of the church ought either to loose or to bind.

Likewise Pope Callistus, [letter I to Bishop Benedict]. Let an unjust judgment and an unjust determination, arranged or enacted by judges through royal fear and command, or that of any bishop or powerful man, not be valid. § 1. For a religious man it ought to be too little not to exercise or increase the enmities of others by speaking evilly, unless he also endeavors to extinguish them by speaking well. § 2. A humble confession concerning evil deeds is better than proud glorying concerning good ones.

Likewise Augustine on Psalm CII, [at the verse “The Lord Who Works Mercies”]. One who is just and is unjustly cursed receives a reward. GRATIAN. Although, as was said, he is not held bound before God, he nevertheless ought to obey the sentence, lest one who was previously held absolved by the purity of his conscience be bound through pride. PART VII. § 1. Likewise, there is the case in which a sentence is rendered contrary to equity, as when subjects cannot be compelled to evil, knowing that obedience is not to be preserved toward prelates in unlawful things.

Hence Pope Eutychian says:

If any bishop or abbot commands his priest or monk to sing Masses for heretics, it is not permitted. For it is not expedient to obey them.

Likewise Augustine. It is not always evil not to obey a command; for when a lord commands those things which are contrary to God, then he is not to be obeyed.

Likewise Jerome on the Epistle to the Ephesians. If a master commands those things which are not contrary to the sacred scriptures, let the servant be subject to the master. But if he commands contrary things, let the spirit obey rather than the lord of the body. And below, [c. 3]: § 1. If what the emperor commands is good, carry out the will of the one commanding; if evil, answer: “One ought to obey God rather than men.” The same applies to servants under masters, wives under husbands, and children under fathers: that they ought to be subject to masters, husbands, and parents only in those things which are not contrary to the commands of God.

Likewise Ambrose. Although Emperor Julian was an apostate, he nevertheless had Christian soldiers under him. When he said to them, “Bring forth the battle line for the defense of the commonwealth,” he was obeyed. But when he said to them, “Bring forth arms against Christians,” then they recognized the Emperor of heaven.

Likewise Pope Fabian, [letter II to all Bishops]. One who fears almighty God in no way consents to do anything contrary to the Gospel, the apostles, the prophets, or the institutions of the holy Fathers.

Likewise Pope Nicholas to King Lothair. You so consented to the impulses of your body and, with the reins of pleasures loosened, cast yourself into the pit of misery and the mire of forbidden filth, that you who had been placed for the governance of peoples were made the ruin of many. The lawful fall of Teugald and Guntarius, formerly bishops, proves this: because they instructed you very incompetently—indeed, rather, because they strove to conceal your transgression with their arguments and to bury equity under a certain appearance of justice by means of certain embellished and elaborate inventions—they were deposed by our apostolic authority and regularly separated from all governance of the episcopate.

Likewise Augustine, [sermon VI On the Words of the Lord]. One who resists power resists the ordinance of God. But what if it commands that which you ought not to do? Here certainly despise the power. Attend to the very ranks of human laws. If a curator commands something, is it not to be done? Yet if he commands contrary to the proconsul, you certainly do not despise the power, but choose to serve the greater. Nor ought the lesser be angry on this account if the greater is preeminent. Again, if the proconsul himself commands one thing and the emperor another, or if the emperor commands one thing and God another, what do you judge? God is the greater power. Pardon me, O emperor: you threaten prison; He, hell. Here now your faith is to be taken up by you as a shield, by which you may extinguish all the fiery darts of the enemy.

The same to the Donatists, [letter CLXVI]. If emperors were in error—which God forbid—they would enact laws for their error against the truth, through which the just would both be proved and crowned by not doing what they commanded, because God prohibits it. Thus Nebuchadnezzar commanded that a golden statue be adored, and those who refused to do it pleased God, who prohibits such things. But when emperors hold the truth, they command for it against error. Whoever despises this acquires judgment for himself. For he pays penalties among men and will not possess a forehead before God, because he refused to do what Truth itself commanded him through the heart of the king. Thus Nebuchadnezzar himself, moved and changed after the miracles of the deliverance of the three boys, issued an edict for the truth against error: that whoever blasphemed the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego should go to destruction and their house to dispersion. And do you not wish Christian emperors to command something like this against you, when they know that Christ is breathed out by you from those whom you rebaptize? The same in the Psalms: § 1. Julian arose as an unbelieving emperor. Did he not arise as an apostate, unjust, an idolater? Christian soldiers served the unbelieving emperor. When it came to the cause of Christ, they recognized no one except Him who was in heaven. When he wished them to worship idols and offer incense, they placed God before him. But when he said, “Bring forth the battle line; go against that nation,” they immediately obeyed and distinguished the eternal God from the temporal lord.

Likewise Gregory, [book XXXV on Job, c. 12]. What wonder is it, therefore, if sinful man subjects himself to obedience in the brevity of the present life, when the mediator of God and men does not abandon it even when He rewards the obedient? Nevertheless, it is to be known that evil is never to be done through obedience, but sometimes a good which is being done ought to be discontinued through obedience. For the tree in paradise which God forbade man to touch was not evil; but so that well-created man might grow better through the merit of obedience, it was fitting that he be prohibited even from a good, so that what he did would be a virtue the more truly, the more humbly, by ceasing even from a good, he showed himself subject to his Author.

Likewise Isidore. One who consents to sinners and defends another who offends will be accursed before God and men and will be corrected with the severest rebuke. Hence also a certain most holy Father says: “If anyone defends a sinner, let him be restrained more harshly than the one who sinned.” Hence another Father also says: “If anyone consents to the error of another, let him know that he is to be judged guilty in a like manner with him.”

Likewise Isidore. If one who presides has done, or has commanded anyone to do, what is prohibited by the Lord, or has passed over or commanded to be passed over what is commanded, the sentence of the holy apostle Paul is to be brought against him, saying: “Even if we or an angel from heaven has evangelized to you other than what we evangelized to you, let him be anathema.” The same: § 1. If anyone prohibits us from what is commanded by the Lord, or again commands to be done what the Lord prohibits from being done, let him be execrable to all who love God. The same: § 2. If one who presides either says or commands anything beyond the will of God or beyond what is manifestly commanded in the holy scriptures, let him be held as a false witness of God or as sacrilegious. GRATIAN. Therefore, when subjects are excommunicated because they cannot be compelled to evil, then the sentence is not to be obeyed, because according to that statement of Gelasius, “An iniquitous sentence burdens no one either before God or before His church.” PART VIII. § 1. But the command above that those communicating with excommunicated persons be cast from the church is not to be understood concerning those communicating in just any manner. Hence Pope Nicholas to Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims:

The most excellent King Charles consulted our apostolate as to what is to be done concerning those who communicate with those who communicate with the woman Engiltrude, so often condemned, since it is established that she is bound by an equal bond of anathema together with those communicating with and favoring her. Therefore we now enjoin your Beatitude that, relying upon our authority concerning this, you endeavor to take care concerning them. And because your Holiness, divinely taught, knows well that one thing is committed from necessity, another from ignorance, and another deliberately, and that this last is to be punished more strictly than the first two, therefore let it keep skillful watch and judge the circumstances of individuals with cautious severity, so that those who offend from necessity or ignorance may be absolved by you through our authority—provided, nevertheless, that their ignorance or necessity was true and not simulated and did not proceed from will, because, as you well know, there are very many who indeed can but do not wish to know right things. Hence the Psalmist says concerning persons of this kind: “He did not wish,” he says, “to understand, that he might act well.” But those who are bound by their own deliberate action and through contempt set aside our prohibitions, we wish by no means to be absolved by you unless worthy satisfaction precedes.

Likewise Gregory VII, [book V of the Register, in the Council held at Rome]. Because we perceive that many, as our sins demand, perish daily on account of excommunication—some conquered by ignorance, some by excessive simplicity, some by fear, and some also by necessity—moved by mercy, we temper the sentence of anathema for a time, insofar as we can. Therefore by apostolic authority we withdraw from the bond of anathema the following: wives, sons, male and female servants or bondservants, as well as peasants and servants, and also all others who are not courtiers to such an extent that crimes are perpetrated by their counsel; those who unknowingly communicate with excommunicated persons; and those who communicate with those who communicate with excommunicated persons. But whoever, whether an orator, pilgrim, or traveler, comes into the land of excommunicated persons where he cannot buy or does not have the means to buy, we grant permission to receive from excommunicated persons. And if anyone wishes to give something to excommunicated persons not for the sustenance of pride but for the sake of humanity, we do not prohibit it.

Likewise Boniface the Martyr to Pope Zachary, [in the letter which begins “Of Paternal”]. Gregory of venerable memory, the predecessor of your predecessor, when he ordained me, unworthy as I am, and sent me to preach the word of God to the German peoples, bound me by an oath to become a supporter and helper in word, deed, and consent to canonical and just bishops and priests. With divine grace I endeavored to fulfill this; but as for false priests, hypocrites, and seducers of the peoples, I was either to correct them to the way of salvation or to avoid them and abstain from their communion. I preserved this in part, and in part I was unable to guard and fulfill it; but I fulfilled the oath spiritually, because my soul did not enter into their consent and counsel, though bodily I could not altogether abstain from them. For when, under the compulsion of the churches' necessity, I had come to the prince of the Franks, I did not find there such men as I wished, but nevertheless I did not communicate with them in the holy communion of Christ's body.

Likewise Pope Zachary to Boniface the Martyr, [in the letter whose beginning is “Blessed Be God”]. Our predecessor Gregory of blessed memory, ruler of this apostolic see, when he sent your fraternity to preach the word of the Gospel in the regions of Germany and among those pagan peoples, wished it to be fortified beforehand by a word of promise, so that you would further confirm and communicate with whatever orthodox bishops, priests, or others you could find perfect in the word of exhortation—which was done; but if you found any seducing bishops or pseudo-priests straying from the right path of faith, you were to have no communion with them. You have confessed that, with God assisting you, you have preserved this spiritually even to the present; or, if you were altogether unable to abstain from them bodily on account of the princely and human favor of the Frankish people when you approached them, under the compulsion of the necessity of God's churches, your soul nevertheless was not defiled in their counsel and consent of communion. Therefore, because you associated with them without consenting to their iniquity, there is no detriment to you before God. PART IX. GRATIAN. But the form and manner of excommunication and of reconciliation is this:

Twelve priests ought to stand around the bishop and hold burning lamps in their hands, which at the conclusion of the anathema or excommunication they ought to cast upon the ground and trample underfoot. Then let a letter be sent through the parishes containing the names of the excommunicated persons and the cause of excommunication.

Likewise from the Council of Orange. Following the canonical institutions and examples of the holy Fathers, by the authority of God and the judgment of the Holy Spirit we remove N., violators of the churches of God, from the bosom of holy mother church and from the fellowship of all Christianity until they come to their senses and make satisfaction to the church of God.

Likewise from the same. When someone who has been excommunicated or anathematized, led by penance, seeks pardon and promises amendment, the bishop who excommunicated him ought to come before the doors of the church, and twelve priests with him, who ought to stand around him on this side and that. And if the man, prostrate upon the ground, seeks pardon and pledges caution for the future, then let the bishop, taking his right hand, lead him into the church, restore him to Christian communion, and chant the seven penitential psalms with these prayers: Lord, have mercy. Our Father. Save your servant. Prayer: Grant, we beseech You, O Lord, to this Your servant the worthy fruit of penance, so that, by obtaining pardon for the things committed, he may be restored guiltless to Your holy church, from whose integrity he had strayed by sinning. Through the Lord.

PART X. GRATIAN. But what penance is to be imposed upon priests who, while excommunicated, presume to handle the sacred ministry, John VIII determines when writing to the Clergy and Order of Salona, saying:

Concerning those priests who, after being excommunicated in the time of our most holy predecessor, the lord Pope Nicholas, presumed to handle the sacred ministry: they brought upon themselves a sentence of condemnation, as the canons establish. Nevertheless, because apostolic compassion is accustomed to furnish pardon to those corrected, from the multitude of mercy we show them this indulgence: that, fattened by holy communion, for three continuous years they endeavor to fast entirely from wine and meat on every Monday and Friday throughout the week and by no means commit further things to be lamented. GRATIAN. But those who communicate with excommunicated persons shall receive a measure of penance according to the measure of the sin. Hence Urban II to Genebald, Bishop of Constance:

It is established that provision was made by the sacred canons that whoever communicates with excommunicated persons shall be excommunicated. Nevertheless, we determine the measures of that penance and absolution with this moderation: that whoever has contaminated himself by their feasting, prayer, greeting, or kiss, whether through ignorance, fear, or the necessity of some very great and especially necessary business, shall obtain participation in our fellowship with the remedy of a lesser penance. But those who have fallen into it either voluntarily or negligently we wish to be received under such coercion of discipline that fear may be instilled in the others.