Question III

GRATIAN. PART I. But that one who unwillingly undertook the purpose of religion is not to be compelled to observe a purpose undertaken unwillingly is testified by Pope Leo, [letter XC, otherwise XCII, to Bishop Rusticus, c. 12], saying:

The purpose of a monk undertaken by one’s own judgment and will cannot be abandoned without sin. For what anyone vows to God he also ought to render. Hence one who, after abandoning the profession of the solitary life, has fallen away to military service or marriage is to be purified by the satisfaction of public penance; for although military service may be innocent and marriage honorable, nevertheless to have abandoned the choice of better things is a transgression.

Likewise from the Seventh Council of Toledo, [c. 6]. The course toward pleasure is ready, and nature is an imitator of vices. Therefore, whichever man or woman shall once have voluntarily put on the religious habit—or if a man shall have been dedicated to a church or a woman assigned to a monastery of girls—let the transgressor of either sex be compelled to return unwillingly, so that the man is tonsured and the girl returns to the monastery. But if through any patronage the deserters wish to remain such, let them by priestly sentence be held banished from the company of Christians, so that there may be no place of communion for them. § 1. Let widows also who desert their profession or habit be condemned by the preceding sentence, just as the universal synod established long ago.

Likewise from the Council of Chalcedon, [c. 7]. We have decreed that those who have once been enrolled in the clergy or assigned to a monastery are to come neither to military service nor to secular honors. But those who shall have dared to do this and shall have preferred not to repent of the matter by returning to that very thing which they previously purposed for themselves under the pretext of God ought to be anathematized. PART II. GRATIAN. When it is said, “the purpose of a monk undertaken by his own judgment and will,” it is understood that if it was not undertaken by his own will, he is not compelled to observe it. Hence Pope Nicholas writes to all the Bishops in the Kingdom of Louis:

The present cleric, named Lambert, together with his father named Atto, formerly indeed a count but now a cleric, hastening to the thresholds of the Apostles, approached our presence, asserting how that father of his, while still in the lay order, had built two monasteries on his own estates, having the will that after his death his present son Lambert should succeed him in his place. When Lambert was still at a tender age between his eighth and tenth year, the aforesaid father by his own judgment, without an institution according to the rule and entirely against Lambert’s will, put the cowl upon him. Then, after a certain interval of time—as he himself says—Bishop Solomon, together with certain others, without an offering by the father or a blessing received from an abbot, caused the same Lambert to be clothed in the monastic habit, unwillingly, as they report; and on this occasion he was deprived by his brothers of his paternal and maternal inheritance, and his father wished him, contrary to his entire will, as was said, to remain as though a monk under the rule. Investigating this matter with diligent care, we questioned his father under adjuration whether he spoke the truth. But that cleric Atto answered that he had had and still had such a will: that his son should become a true monk and succeed him in his place. Moreover, under attestation he affirmed by oath that when he first put the cowl upon him, that Lambert always resisted and never consented to become a monk; but at length he was afterward violently clothed in the monastic habit, asserting: “Because he never at any time promised the rule, nor did I, his father, offer him clothed in the altar cloth, nor, after receiving a blessing from any priest or abbot, as custom requires, did he ever promise that as a monk he would be subject to the rule.” Concerning all these things the aforesaid cleric Atto testified that if at that time he had understood the monastic rule to be of such harsh observance, he would never have compelled his son Lambert to bear the cowl. § 1. Therefore, prudently recalling the words of the Psalmist by which he declares that he sacrifices himself to God voluntarily and prays that the voluntary offerings of his mouth be pleasing in God’s sight, we judged that the present cleric named Lambert, as was said, ought by no means to be made a monk under such violence. For what a person does not choose or desire, he certainly does not love; but what he does not love, he easily despises. Therefore no good is good unless voluntary. For this reason the Lord also commanded that a staff, through which violence might be inflicted upon anyone, is not to be carried on the way. Therefore it is done more prudently if, by preaching contempt for the world and love of God through pious persuasions rather than by inflicting violence, you kindle him toward heavenly love. Hence we have decreed that this letter of our apostolate is to be committed to the charity of you all, admonishing and commanding that—if the truth is as these men say—no bishop, abbot, or assembly of the other monks compel him unwillingly to be subject to monastic rules; nor may his brothers on this occasion have license in any way to deprive him of his paternal or maternal inheritance. But until, pierced by divine inspiration, he subjects himself to the rule by his own will, let it be lawful for him, removed from worldly and lay wanderings or business, to live the canonical life among religious and ecclesiastical men. For we do not think—which may it not be—that religious canons are separated from the fellowship of holy monks, because each person, according to the Apostle, will receive his own reward according to his labor. PART III. GRATIAN. But if any persons, enticed by the promises of a bishop or abbot, shall have received the tonsure or religious garment, let them indeed remain in what they began, but let their property be restored to their heirs. Hence it is read in the Council of Mainz:

This sacred assembly indeed established that bishops or abbots who, intent not upon the fruit of souls but upon avarice and shameful gain, tonsured any persons by deceiving them and took away their property by such persuasion are to be subjected to canonical penance as followers of shameful gain. But let those who, having been enticed, laid aside their hair be compelled to persevere in what they began, and let their property be restored to their heirs.