Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| To the Bishops appointed in Campania, Picenum, Etruria, and all the Provinces.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Letter IV.
To the Bishops appointed in Campania,
Picenum, Etruria, and all the Provinces.
Leo, bishop of the city of Rome, to all the bishops
appointed in Campania, Picenum, Etruria, and all the provinces,
greeting in the Lord.
I. Introduction.
As the peaceful settlement of the churches causes us
satisfaction, so are we saddened with no slight sorrow whenever we
learn that anything has been taken for granted or done contrary to the
ordinances of the canons and the discipline of the Church: and if
we do not repress such things with the vigilance we ought, we cannot
excuse ourselves to Him
who
intended us to be watchmen29
, for permitting the
pure body of the Church, which we ought to keep clean from every stain,
to be defiled by contact with wicked schemers, since the framework of
the members loses its harmony by such dissimulation.
II. Slaves and serfs (coloni) are not to
be ordained.
Men are admitted commonly to the Sacred Order who
are not qualified by any dignity of birth or character: even some
who have failed to obtain their liberty from their masters are raised
to the rank of the priesthood30
| 30 Sacerdotii, see
note 5 on Letter I. | , as if sorry slaves
were fit for that honour; and it is believed that a man can be approved
of God who has not yet been able to approve
himself to his master. And so the cause for complaint is twofold
in this matter, because both the sacred ministry is polluted by such
poor partners in it, and the rights of masters are infringed so far as
unlawful possession is rashly taken of them31
| 31 Though no doubt S.
Leo’s language is here harsh and offensive to modern ears, it is
not, I think, substantially out of agreement with S. Paul’s own
teaching (cf. Bible:Titus.2.9">Philemon 1; 1 Cor.
vii. 21; Ephes. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22; Tit. ii. 9), and certainly not with the spirit of
the age. The 73rd Apost. Canon forbids any slave to be ordained
without his master’s consent, and without previously obtaining
his freedom. However, in the times of S. Jerome, S. Basil and S.
Greg. Nazianzen, we find cases of slaves being ordained. However
much we in the latter half of the nineteenth century regret to hear a
great father of the Church speak in this way we must not forget that in
the first half of this self-same century the very same opinion would
have been held on the subject in many parts of the civilized world. | .
From these men, therefore, beloved brethren, let all the priests of
your province keep aloof; and not only from them, but from others also,
we wish you to keep, who are under the bond of origin or other
condition of service32
| 32 Qui originali
(al. origini) aut alicui condicioni obligati
sunt. The class of people alluded to were the coloni
(serfs): such of them as were so by birth were called
originarii: and there were other classes of them also
(alicui condicioni obligati). The essential difference
between all coloni and the ordinary servi was that
the latter’s service was personal, the former were
servi terræ, adscripti glæbæ. Thus
there is a strong resemblance between them and the villeins
(villani) of medieval and modern Europe. For the order
concerning them here given, cf. 2nd Council of Orleans (538), which
ordains “ut nullus servilibus colonariisque
condicionibus obligatus iuxta statuta sedis Apostolicæ ad honores
ecclesiasticos admittatur nisi prius aut testamento aut per tabulas
legitime constiterit absolutum. | : unless
perchance the request or consent be intimated of those who claim some
authority over them. For he who is to be enrolled on the divine
service ought to be exempt from others, that he be not drawn away from
the Lord’s camp in which his name is
entered, by any other bonds of duty.
III. A man who has married twice or a
widow is not eligible as a priest.
Again, when each man’s respectability of
birth and conduct has been established, what sort of person should be
associated with the ministry of the Sacred Altar we have learnt both
from the teaching of the Apostle and the Divine precepts and the
regulations of the canons, from which we find very many of the brethren
have turned aside and quite gone out of the way. For it is well
known that the husbands of widows have attained to the
priesthood: certain, too, who have had several wives, and have
led a life given up to all licentiousness, have had all facilities put
in their way, and been admitted to the Sacred Order, contrary to that
utterance of the blessed Apostle, in which he proclaims and says to
such, “the husband of one wife33
| 33 1 Tim. iii. 2, unius uxoris virum with the
Vulgate, cf. Letter xii. 3. | ,” and
contrary to that precept of the ancient law which says by way of
caution: “Let the priest take a virgin to wife, not a
widow, not a divorced woman34
| 34 Lev. xxi. 13, 14, cf. a letter of Innocent I. to
Victricius, bishop of Rothomagus (Rouen) chap. v., ut mulierem
(viduam) clericus non ducat uxorem: quia scriptum
est: sacerdos virginem uxorem accipiat non eiectam,”
and for the former quotation, cf. ibid. chap vii. ne is qui secundam
duxerit uxorem, clericus fiat: quia scriptum est unius
virum. The 18th Apostolic Canon gives a similar order.
All these rules would seem to refer to marriage before, not after,
ordination. The latter was against the spirit of the early
Church. | .” All
such persons, therefore, who have been admitted we order to be put out
of their offices in the church and from the title of priest by the
authority of the Apostolic See: for they will have no
claim35
| 35 The older editions here
add pro arbitrio (by dispensation), which Quesnel considers a
gloss added later when dispensation was sometimes granted to digamous
clerks. | to that for which they were not eligible, on
account of the obstacle in question: and we specially claim for
ourselves the duty of settling this, that if any of these
irregularities have been committed, they may be corrected and may not
be allowed to occur again, and that no excuse may arise from
ignorance: although it has never been allowed a priest to be
ignorant of what has been laid down by the rules of the canons.
These writings, therefore, we have addressed to your provinces by the
hand of Innocent, Legitimus and Segetius, our brothers and
fellow-bishops: that the evil shoots which are known to have
sprung up may be torn out by the roots, and no tares may spoil the
Lord’s harvest. For thus all that
is genuine will bear much fruit, if that which has been wont to kill
the growing crop be carefully cleared away.
IV. Usurious practices forbidden for
clergy and for laity36
| 36 The practice of usury
and trading generally is often forbidden in the Canons, &c., for
the clergy, but its prohibition for the laity is much more
unusual: cf., however, Canon V. of the Council of Carthage (419),
quod (sc. fenus accipere) in laicis,
reprehenditur id multo magis debet et in clericis
prædamnari. Scripture certainly is against the
clergy participating in lucrative employments, though it was not easy
always to prevent them: it had become, for instance, a common
practice in S. Cyprian’s day in the North African Church (cf.
de laps. 6). But the secular laws certainly countenanced
it in the laity (as Aug. Ep. 154 acknowledges). Leo the Emperor
is said by Grotius to have been the first who
“existimans omne fenus Christiano interdictum, lege id
ipsum communi sanxit” (Quesnel). | .
This point, too, we have thought must not be passed
over, that certain possessed with the love of base gain lay out their
money at interest,
and wish to
enrich themselves as usurers. For we are grieved that this is
practised not only by those who belong to the clergy, but also by
laymen who desire to be called Christians. And we decree that
those who have been convicted be punished sharply, that all occasion of
sinning be removed.
V. A cleric may not make money in
another’s name any more than in his own.
The following warning, also, we have thought fit
to give, that no cleric should attempt to make money in another’s
name any more than in his own: for it is unbecoming to shield
one’s crime under another man’s gains37
| 37 Crimen suum
commodis alienis impendere. I am not sure that this can mean
what I say. | . Nay, we ought to look at and aim at
only that usury whereby what we bestow in mercy here we may recover
from the Lord, who will restore a thousand
fold what will last for ever.
VI. Any bishop who refuses consent to
these rules must be deposed.
This admonition of ours, therefore, proclaims that
if any of our brethren endeavour to contravene these rules and dare to
do what is forbidden by them, he may know that he is liable to
deposition from his office, and that he will not be a sharer in our
communion who refuses to be a sharer of our discipline. But lest
there be anything which may possibly be thought to be omitted by us, we
bid you, beloved, to keep all the decretal rules of Innocent of blessed
memory38
| 38 This was S. Innocent
I., who was Pope from 402 to 417. One of his decretal letters was
quoted from in note 1 to chap. iii. of this Letter. | , and also of all our predecessors, which
have been promulgated about the orders of the Church and the discipline
of the canons, and to keep them in such wise that if any have
transgressed them he may know at once that all indulgence is denied
him.
Dated 10th of October, in the consulship of the
illustrious Maximus (a second time) and Paterius (a.d. 443).E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
