causa — Decretum of Gratian
Causa XXII
GRATIAN. A certain bishop swore to something false which he thought true. When this was discovered, his archdeacon swore that he would never furnish obedience to him. The archdeacon is compelled by the bishop to exhibit the customary reverence to him; the bishop is accused of double perjury, both because he swore what was false and because he compels the archdeacon to commit perjury. (Question I.) First, it is asked whether an oath is to be furnished or not. (Question II.) Second, whether one who swears to something false which he thinks true is a perjurer. (Question III.) Third, whether it was lawful for the archdeacon to deny the customary obedience to the bishop. (Question IV.) Fourth, if it is established that what the archdeacon swore is unlawful, whether it is to be observed. (Question V.) Fifth, if it is established that it is to be observed, whether the bishop is guilty of perjury who compels his archdeacon to act against his oath.
GRATIANUS. Quidam episcopus iurauit falsum quod putabat uerum, quo conperto archidiaconus eius iurauit se numquam prestaturum ei obedientiam. Conpellitur archidiaconus ab episcopo ad exhibendum sibi consuetam reuerentiam; accusatur episcopus de dupplici periurio, et de eo, quod falsum iurauit, et quia archidiaconum ad peierandum conpellit. (Qu. I.) Primum queritur, an iuramentum sit prestandum, uel non? (Qu. II.) Secundo, si sit periurus qui iurat falsum quod putat uerum? (Qu. III.) Tertio, si licuit archidiacono denegare episcopo consuetam obedientiam? (Qu. IV.) Quarto, si constiterit esse illicitum quod iurauit archidiaconus, an sit seruandum? (Qu. V.) Quinto, si constiterit illud seruandum esse, an episcopus sit reus periurii, qui contra iuramentum archidiaconum suum ire conpellit?
Friedberg, col. 859/860