Question — Decretum of Gratian

Question V

English · Latin · Both

¶.

GRATIAN. But it is lawful for no one to leave his own bishop or withdraw from his office and flee to a secular judge. Hence it is read in the Council of Agde, [c. 8]:

Friedberg, col. 859/860

1.

C. I.

It pleased us that if a cleric, after leaving his office on account of strictness, should perhaps flee to a secular judge, and the one to whom he has recourse should furnish him the assistance of defense, let him be expelled from the communion of the church together with that cleric.

Friedberg, col. 859/860

2.

C. II. Let a priest or deacon deposed by his bishop not approach the emperor.

Likewise from the Council of Antioch, [c. 12]. If any priest or deacon has been deposed by his own bishop, or even if any bishop has been deprived of authority by a synod, let him not presume to bring trouble to the imperial ears, but let him turn to a synod of greater bishops, and let him allege in their council the just claims that he thinks he has, and await from them the sentence that shall have been pronounced concerning him. But if, failing through faintheartedness, he is unwilling to do this, but shall have been importunate to the emperor, let such a one have no pardon, no place for any assertion of his, and no hope of receiving his rank in the future.

Friedberg, col. 859/860

3.

C. III. Let no one defend a person who is condemned by the judgment of bishops.

Likewise from the Fifth Council of Carthage, [c. 2]. If any cleric of any honor shall have been condemned for any crime by the judgment of bishops, it is not lawful for him to be defended either by the churches over which he presided or by any person; a penalty of loss of money and honor is imposed, from which we command that neither age nor sex is to be excused.

Friedberg, col. 859/860

4.

C. IV. Let one who presumes to defend a fugitive from the rule of ecclesiastical discipline be deprived of communion.

Likewise from the Third Council of Arles. If perhaps any of the clerics, evading the rule of ecclesiastical discipline, shall have wandered away, whoever shall have received him and shall not have reconciled him to his own bishop but rather shall have presumed to defend him is to be deprived of the communion of the church.

Friedberg, col. 859/860

5.

C. V. Let one who, after being condemned by bishops, approaches the emperor lack hope of reconciliation.

Likewise from the Council of Pope Martin, [c. 35]. If any bishop, priest, or deacon who has been excommunicated complains that he was unjustly condemned in a council, let him return to a council of greater bishops so that, awaiting their inquiry and judgment, he may set forth before them whatever just causes he thinks he has. But if he shall have scorned this and, thrusting himself importunately into the palace, shall have wished to trouble the ears of the princes, he will be able to attain no pardon, nor will he have hope of future reconciliation.

Friedberg, col. 859/860

6.

C. VI. The causes of bishops ought not to be examined before princes.

Likewise Gregory to the Empress Constantina, [book IV, letter 34]. If the causes of bishops entrusted to me are disposed of before our most pious lords through the patronage of others, what am I, unhappy man, doing in this church? But that my bishops despise me and have recourse against me to secular judges, I give thanks to almighty God and ascribe it to my sins. Yet I suggest this briefly: I shall wait a little, and if they delay coming to me, I shall in no way cease to exercise canonical strictness against them.

Friedberg, col. 859/860