Question III

GRATIAN. But that one who, after election, has furnished an oath for the indemnity of the church is not to be held a simoniac is easily proved. For it is one thing to make an oath before election or to agree that one will make it for this purpose, so that one may be elected; it is another, with no preceding agreement, to offer an oath of this kind after election. The former casts him down from office as one who has bestowed a gift; but the latter generates no impediment for the one to be consecrated. Concerning the former case Pelagius writes to the Clergy of Catania:

Some time ago we directed writings of this kind to our brother and fellow bishop Eucarpus concerning the visitation of the church of Catania, so that you could recognize our judgment in them. Nevertheless, because we have learned, also from your report, that certain persons there, with no sound intention but through depraved pursuits, stir up dissensions—persons who, knowing that they cannot be advanced to the episcopate by age, knowledge, or merits of life, wish to disturb the church only for this purpose: that the future bishop may promise them impunity concerning those things which were seized from it, and that ambition for the episcopate may become security for rapine—we have therefore judged that you too should be admonished to hasten, God favoring, to bring to us the decree made concerning the deacon Elpidius and subscribed by all those whom your report designated, together with the letter of the aforesaid visitor and with the same deacon. And a little later: When this son of ours, the magnificent man Leo the praetor, had come here, he reported to us concerning the individual things which were set in motion there, and how the wishes of nearly the whole city agreed upon the deacon Elpidius. Hence, because we can have no doubt at all concerning the testimony of the aforesaid man, therefore cause the deacon Elpidius, as was said, to hasten to us, and do not wait any longer for our admonition to have to be sent to him. Nevertheless, by the present command, through your affection, we specially admonish him not to promise anyone that he will give or is going to give anything, nor dare to give or promise anyone any security concerning past ecclesiastical matters, nor, as though already made bishop, freely permit those things which were plundered to remain so, knowing that, if he has done or does anything of this kind, not only is the promise itself not permitted by us to have force, but, with injury to our judgment which we held concerning him, he will not be able to merit the order of pastoral consecration. GRATIAN. But concerning the second case it is read in the acts of Urban II:

Artaldus, Bishop of Arles and suffragan of the church of Narbonne, came to Rome to be consecrated by the lord Pope Urban; for his archbishop refused to consecrate him because after his election he swore to the canons for preserving the goods of the church. He was therefore consecrated by the lord Pope Urban after first being cleared concerning an oath of this kind: “Before my election I made no agreement, so that I might be elected, concerning the oath which after election I made to the canons of our church. But the Archbishop of Narbonne omitted my consecration for no charge other than this, to my knowledge, nor am I conscious of any charge on account of which he might repel me from the priesthood.”