Question — Decretum of Gratian
Question VI
GRATIAN. PART II. GRATIAN. But that whoever usurps by his own authority the things which he thinks are owed to him, and does not claim the property through a judge, loses his case is held from the authority of the Council of Milevis, in which it is read to have been established thus, [c. 21]:
GRATIANUS. II. Pars. Gratian. Quod autem quisquis sua auctoritate que sibi deberi putat usurpat, nec per iudicem res poscit cadit a causa ex auctoritate Mileuitani Concilii habetur in quo ita statutum legitur: [c. 21.]
Friedberg, col. 797/798
C. I. [II.] Let a bishop who seeks to take possession by his own authority of his churches retained by another suffer detriment to his case.
It pleased us that whatever bishops shall reclaim churches or communities which they judge to pertain to their see, not in such a way that they conduct their cases with bishops judging, but shall rush in while another retains them, whether the communities are unwilling or willing, are to suffer detriment to their case. And whoever have already done this, if the contention between the bishops has not yet been ended but they still contend concerning it, let the one who is established to have rushed in with ecclesiastical judges omitted depart from it. § 1. Nor let anyone flatter himself if he shall have obtained letters from the primate permitting him to retain it; but whether he has letters or does not have them, let him meet with the one who holds it and receive his letters, so that it may appear that he held peacefully the church pertaining to him. But if the other shall raise any question, let the case be ended through bishop-judges, either those whom the primate shall have given them or those neighboring bishops whom they themselves shall have chosen with the counsel of the primate. PART III. GRATIAN. To the contrary Gregory writes to John the Defender, going to Spain, [book XI, letter 50], saying:
C. I. [II.] Causae suae detrimentum patiatur episcopus, qui ecclesias suas ab alio retentas propria auctoritate querit adire.
Placuit, ut quicumque episcopi ecclesias uel plebes, quas ad suam cathedram existimant pertinere, non ita repetierint, ut causas suas episcopis iudicantibus agant, sed alio retinente irruerint, siue nolentibus siue uolentibus plebibus, causae suae detrimentum patiantur. Et quicumque hoc iam fecerint, si nondum inter episcopos finita est contentio, sed adhuc inde contendunt, ille inde discedat, quem constiterit pretermissis iudicibus ecclesiasticis irruisse. §. 1. Nec sibi quisque blandiatur, si a primate, ut retineat, litteras inpetrauerit, sed, siue habeat litteras siue non habeat, conueniat eum qui tenet, et eius litteras accipiat, ut eum appareat pacifice tenuisse ecclesiam ad se pertinentem. Si autem ille aliquam questionem retulerit, per episcopos iudices causa finiatur siue quos eis primas dederit, siue quos ipsi uicinos cum consultu primatis delegerint. III. Pars. Gratian. Contra Gregorius Iohanni Defensori, eunti in Yspaniam, scribit [lib. XI. epist. 50.,] dicens:
Friedberg, col. 797/798
C. II. [III.] The offense of a person cannot be turned to the loss of a church.
If it shall be established that the bishop—which may it not be—committed such a fault that it is evident he was not unreasonably deposed, let his deposition be confirmed, and let all the property of his church which had been taken away be restored, because the offense of a person is not to be turned to the loss of a church. But if it is said that Comitiolus is dead, let those things which were unjustly taken away by him be rendered by his heir without excuse.
C. II. [III.] Delictum personae in dampnum ecclesiae conuerti non potest.
Si episcopum (quod absit) talem culpam conmisisse constiterit, ut constet eum non irrationabiliter esse depositum, eadem eius depositio confirmetur, et omnes res suae ecclesiae que ablatae fuerant, restituantur, quia delictum personae in dampnum ecclesiae non est conuertendum. Si autem dicitur, quia Comitiolus defunctus est, ab herede eius que ab illo iniuste ablata sunt sine excusatione reddantur.
Friedberg, col. 797/798
C. III. [IV.] Let vengeance proceed against the person of the offender, not against his resources.
The same to Peter the Subdeacon, [book I, letter 42]. We have learned that if anyone from the household commits a fault, vengeance is taken not upon him but upon his substance. Concerning this matter we command that whoever shall commit a fault is indeed to be punished in his own person, as is worthy, but that his property is to be spared entirely.
C. III. [IV.] In personam deliquentis, non in facultates eius ultio procedat.
Idem Petro Subdiacono. [lib. I. epist. 42.] Cognouimus, quod si quis ex familia culpam fecerit, non in ipso, sed in eiusdem substantia uindicetur. De qua re precipimus, ut quisquis culpam fecerit, in ipso quidem, ut dignum est, uindicetur; a commodo eius autem omnino abstineatur.
Friedberg, col. 797/798
C. IV. [V.] Let the property of those who fall from the clergy be handed over to a monastery together with them.
The same, [in the same letter]. Concerning fallen priests or anyone from the clergy, we will you to observe that you do not involve yourself with any contamination in their property; but seek out the poorest regular monasteries which know how to live according to God, hand the fallen over to penance in those monasteries, and let the property of the fallen profit the place in which they are handed over to do penance, so that those who bear solicitude for their correction may have support from their property. But if they have relatives, let their property be given to the lawful relatives, yet in such a way that the maintenance of those who shall have been given over to penance ought to be sufficiently provided. § 1. But if any priests or Levites, monks or clerics, or any others from the ecclesiastical household shall have fallen, we will that they be given over to penance, but that their property not be withdrawn from ecclesiastical right. Nevertheless, let them receive for their own use that from which they may subsist for penance, lest, if they are stripped bare, they be burdensome to the places in which they shall have been placed.
C. IV. [V.] Res eorum, qui ex clero labuntur simul cum ipsis monasterio tradantur.
Idem. [in eadem epistola] De lapsis sacerdotibus, uel quolibet ex clero obseruare te uolumus, ut in rebus eorum nulla contaminatione miscearis: sed pauperrima regularia monasteria require, que secundum Deum uiuere sciunt, et in eisdem monasteriis lapsos trade ad penitenciam, et res lapsorum in eo loco proficiant, in quo agere penitenciam traduntur, quatinus ipsi ex rebus eorum subsidium habeant, qui de correptione eorum sollicitudinem gerunt. Si uero parentes habent, res eorum legitimis parentibus dentur, ita autem, ut eorum stipendia, qui in penitenciam dati fuerint, sufficienter debeant procurari. §. 1. Si qui uero ex familia ecclesiastica sacerdotes uel Leuitae, uel monachi, uel clerici, uel quilibet alii lapsi fuerint, dari eos in penitenciam uolumus, sed res eorum ecclesiastico iuri non subtrahi. Ad usum tamen suum accipiant unde ad penitenciam subsistant, ne, si nudentur, locis, in quibus dati fuerint, sint onerosi.
Friedberg, col. 799/800
C. V. [VI.] A useless priest does not deprive his church of its dignity.
Likewise Leo IV to King Charles. If perhaps—which we do not believe—we are judged useless among you, nevertheless the church over which, by the Lord’s permission, we preside is not useless, but is deservedly called by all together the head and beginning of all.
C. V. [VI.] Inutilis sacerdos ecclesiam suam dignitate non priuat.
Item Leo IV. Karolo Regi. Si fortassis (quod non credimus) apud uos inutiles iudicamur, ecclesia tamen, cui permittente Domino presumus, non inutilis, sed caput principiumque omnium merito simul ab omnibus uocatur.
Friedberg, col. 799/800
C. VI. [VII.] A bishop is not permitted to take away the possessions of a monastery because of the abbot’s sin.
Likewise in the Council of Mainz. A bishop is not permitted to take away the possession of a monastery, although the abbot has sinned; but let him subject the abbot to the power of the abbot of another monastery. [PALEA.
C. VI. [VII.] Possessiones monasterii pro peccato abbatis episcopo tollere non licet.
Item in Magontiensi Concilio. Episcopo non licet possessionem monasterii tollere, quamuis abbas peccauerit; sed subiciat eum potestati abbatis alterius monasterii. [PALEA.
Friedberg, col. 799/800
C. VII. [VIII.] Let subsequent pontiffs by no means presume to take away the things which priests have given.
Likewise Gelasius. We have judged that this is to be established: whatever benefactions preceding priests shall have given to clerics or those serving them, from the property of the church for use or from their own property for ownership, let subsequent pontiffs by no means presume to take them away. But if there shall have been any fault, let severity be exercised against the person according to the quality of the persons or the rule of the preceding canons, not against the property. ] GRATIAN. Therefore, if the offense of a person cannot be turned to the loss of a church, since an administrator can make the condition of the church better, not worse; if the possessions of a monastery are not permitted to be taken away because of an abbot’s sin: how will the offense of a bishop be turned to the loss of a church, so that it should suffer detriment to its case on that account? But to suffer detriment to the case is not to be understood in such a way that the church is deprived of its right; rather, when the clerics stand before the judge, the bishop will be silent and will be fined for the injury inflicted, if he shall have property of his own.
C. VII. [VIII.] Que sacerdotes dederunt subsequentes pontifices nullatenus auferre presumant.
Item Gelasius. Illud statuendum censuimus, ut quascumque munificentias clericis aut sibi seruientibus de rebus ecclesiae in usum, aut de propriis in proprietatem precedentes dederint sacerdotes, subsequentes pontifices nullatenus auferre presumant. Si quid tamen culpae extiterit, pro qualitate personarum uel regula precedentium canonum in persona habeatur, non in facultate districtum. ] Gratian. Si ergo delictum personae in dampnum ecclesiae conuerti non potest, quin procurator condicionem ecclesiae potest facere meliorem, non deteriorem; si peccato abbatis possessiones monasterii auferri non licet: quomodo delictum episcopi uertetur in dampnum ecclesiae, ut inde detrimentum causae suae patiatur? Sed detrimentum causae pati non sic est accipiendum, ut ecclesia suo iure priuetur, pocius, quia clericis coram iudice stantibus episcopus tacebit, et pro iniuria illata multabitur, si propria habuerit.
Friedberg, col. 799/800