Question IX

GRATIAN. PART I. Hence it is asked: if the Church, deceived by the fraud or ignorance of witnesses, separates persons who after the separation contract other marriages, and afterward the witnesses’ cunning or false opinion is discovered, are the former marriages to be restored? That this cannot be done is proved by arguments and authority. For a judgment, unless it has been relieved by appeal within the limit established by law, will obtain irrevocable force. Hence blessed Gregory also writes, saying:

It is fitting in every way for ecclesiastical discipline or moderation that things which have been reasonably ordained or decided ought not afterward to be disturbed by any opposition.

Likewise Stephen V to Paul, Bishop of Piacenza. Consideration of our office admonishes us, by the authority of reason, to confirm things advantageously decided by our predecessors and likewise readily to punish things presumed by rash persons. Let one who strives to rescind things advantageously concluded and dares in any way to violate things confirmed know oneself to be guilty before the sight of the divine Judge. For the order of ecclesiastical vigor is confounded if either unlawful things are rashly presumed or unconceded things are attempted with impunity. Therefore, if we negligently disregard things that are evilly usurped, we undoubtedly open a way of transgression to others.

GRATIAN. Therefore, because this judgment was given reasonably and was not relieved by appeal within a fixed limit, it appears that the former marriages are by no means to be restored. To these things the response is as follows: it is one thing to rescind a judgment and disturb things reasonably decided, and another to correct things that occurred by surreption after they have been discovered. For each person is permitted to correct one’s own error; and therefore things unlawfully committed by anyone, or found to have been admitted by predecessors, ought to be recalled to a better condition. Moreover, the wife was unlawfully separated from her husband and joined to another while he was living, since the Lord commands that a wife be separated from her husband for the cause of fornication alone. Therefore, just as, if a woman whose husband was thought dead were joined to someone and, when any occasion intervened, withdrew from his fellowship, then, although by the Church’s judgment she was compelled to return to the one whom she had left, nevertheless, if after three years the husband who was thought dead happened to return, the former marriage would be restored: so, when persons separated from one another on account of consanguinity are discovered not to have been blood relatives, the bonds of the former fellowship are to be repaired.

PART II. § 1. But that things unlawfully admitted or found to have been admitted are to be corrected, and that even a judgment of the Roman See can be changed for the better, is shown by the authority of Popes Hilary and Nicholas. For Hilary, Bishop of the city of Rome, presiding over a synod, says, [c. 4]:

Whatever anyone has committed unlawfully, or has found admitted by one’s predecessors, one will condemn if one wishes to avoid one’s own peril. For we wish to exercise severity of vengeance in no matter; but one who sins in the causes of God either through contumacy or some transgression, or who refuses personally to abolish what is wrongly done, will find in oneself whatever one did not cut away in another. So that this can be observed more tenaciously hereafter, if it pleases you, furnish all your judgments and your own subscriptions, so that unlawful access may be closed by synodal judgment.

Likewise Gregory. A judgment of the Apostolic See is always conceived with such moderation of counsel, matured with such maturity of patience, and delivered with such gravity of deliberation that it does not deem alteration necessary—unless perhaps it was delivered in such a way that it can be reconsidered, or exists as one to be altered according to the tenor of the condition previously stated.

Likewise Innocent, [letter XXII to the bishops of Macedonia]. I shall now come to Photinus as to a certain principal theme and—what is anxious and most difficult for me—I shall review the judgments of my predecessors. Something indeed rather grave had been established concerning him in some manner, as you yourselves also remember. But because, as you assert, it is shown that this was surreptitiously obtained from this See through a false rumor and elicited by snares, because the matter has returned to salvation, with you urging us so greatly in this matter we supply pardon after condemnation according to apostolic custom; and we judge it harder than every hard thing not to give assent to such great assertions of yours and to you who are so good and so dear. Therefore, on account of your approval, judgment, and petition, regard Photinus as bishop—it is lawful to establish it as you entreat—and receive for yourselves our judgment changed for the better, sharing in your labor or testimony. But do not expect Eustasius, who has very often been approved by me, to be stripped of the grace of the diaconate. For I willingly hear you when you are solicitous for salvation; on the contrary, even if something is to be done, I do not willingly admit it. To the one to whom you extend a hand, I extend it with you; to the one to whom I extend a hand, extend it with me.

Likewise Pope Nicholas, [to Emperor Michael in letter VII]. We do not deny that a judgment of the Roman See can be changed for the better when either something has been obtained by surreption, or it has itself decreed, by consideration of ages and times or grave necessities, to ordain something dispensatorily—since we read that the eminent Apostle Paul dispensatorily did certain things which he is afterward read to have reproved. Yet this is to be observed when that Church, namely the Roman Church, has chosen with most discerning consideration that this be done, not when it wishes to reconsider things which have been well defined.

Likewise from the Book of the Pontiffs. Gregory IV consecrated as bishop of the Church of Segni Theodosius, whom his predecessor Eugenius had deprived of the honor of the priesthood. Leontius was deposed while he was a priest and afterward was patriarch in Antioch. Gelasius, his successor, both restored to communion Misenus the bishop, who had been condemned by Pope Felix, and restored him to his church.

Likewise Innocent to the bishops established throughout Macedonia, [letter VII]. It ought not to have seemed burdensome to your most pious minds to reconsider anyone’s judgment, because truth, when more frequently examined, shines forth more brightly into the light, and ruin, when recalled into judgment, is condemned more gravely and without penance. For it is a divine fruit that justice be reviewed more frequently.

GRATIAN. Therefore, just as a judgment of the Roman See can be changed for the better, so a judgment of any church, when it is recognized to have been given through surreption, can reasonably be revoked.