Chapter XVI. The Offenses of Clerics Are to Be Punished More Severely Than Those of Laymen

§ 1. Visitation has two purposes: namely, to correct sins committed and to forestall those which will follow. We must now speak concerning correction or punishment, which ought to be more severe in the sins of Clerics.

Nor does canon 77 of the Council of Nicaea oppose this; in it a Bishop discovered in adultery is deposed forever, yet is not deprived of communion, which is also established in canon 25 of the Apostles. The reason assigned is that the consideration of the sin of a priest and of a layman is not the same. For the sin of a priest is not said to be lighter, but a different consideration is regarded if you consider the punishment. For a Bishop to be deprived forever of office and dignity is a great punishment; therefore the canons were content with it, as Saint Basil teaches. The excommunication of laymen requires penance, upon whose completion they are restored to their order in the fellowship of the Church. But if Clerics are discovered in adultery, they cannot be restored, distinction 50, Si quis. For a Cleric convicted of adultery is shut up in a monastery for the whole period of his life, distinction 51, Si quis Clericus. Therefore, if we consider the matter, the punishment of the Cleric is more severe because it is perpetual, while that of the layman is temporary. So too in the First Roman Council held by Cornelius in the cause of the Lapsed. For it was established that priests, after penance and satisfaction, should be received into the Church, but altogether abstain from priestly functions.

Cyprian, Epistle 67 and Epistle 52: “For concerning Trophimus also, about whom you desired information, the matter is not as rumor and the falsehood of the malicious reported it to you. For, as our predecessors frequently did, our dearest brother Cornelius yielded to necessity for the gathering of our brethren; and since the greatest part of the people had departed with Trophimus, when Trophimus now returned to the Church, made satisfaction, confessed his former error with penitent entreaty, and recalled with full humility and satisfaction the brotherhood which he had recently drawn away, his prayers were heard; and not so much Trophimus as the very great number of brethren who had been with Trophimus was admitted into the Church of the Lord. None of these would have returned to the Church unless they had come with Trophimus accompanying them. Therefore, after deliberation was held there with very many colleagues, Trophimus was received, for whom the return of the brethren and the restored salvation of many made satisfaction. Trophimus was nevertheless admitted in such a way that he communicates as a layman, not according to what the letters of the malicious reported to you, as though he usurped the place of a priest.”

The same, Epistle 68: “In vain do such men attempt to usurp the Episcopate for themselves, since it is manifest that men of this sort can neither preside over the Church of Christ nor ought to offer sacrifices to God. Especially since long ago, together with us and with all the Bishops constituted throughout the whole world, Cornelius also—our colleague, a peaceful and just priest and honored by the Lord’s condescension even with martyrdom—decreed that men of this kind can indeed be admitted to perform penance, but must be prohibited from ordination into the Clergy and from priestly honor.”

And Stephen, in Eusebius, concerning the Bishops who ordained Novatian, says that he received one into lay communion. In the same manner the Council of Sardica, canon 1, the Council of Agde, canon 33, and the First Council of Toledo, canon 4: “After abstaining for two years, let the subdeacon afterwards communicate among the laymen, reconciled through penance.” Therefore they performed a penance more severe than laymen and thereafter forever lacked the fruit and honor of orders. They were not excommunicated, lest the punishment be threefold more severe.

§ 2. A Cleric who sins ought never to go unpunished, nor should dissimulation be employed, which frequently has place among laymen. For the wicked are to be tolerated in the Church because they exercise the good, and through the wicked the good are aroused toward better things. But the sins of Clerics seduce the good and harden the wicked, and therefore must never be tolerated. The sins of a multitude or of a depraved custom are to be rebuked neither harshly, severely, nor imperiously, because whatever is sinned by many is great. But Clerics are few in comparison with the rest of the multitude; therefore they can be punished very readily, provided that gentleness and the good of the Church, not a display of power, prevail in punishment.

The laws also dissemble many sins of laymen which they punish sharply in Clerics. Concerning wicked laymen it is rightly said that they are to be tolerated and associated with so long as correction of them is not despaired of, Cause 23, question 4, canon 1: “The wicked indeed are to be tolerated for the sake of peace, nor should there be a bodily departure from them; but to go out spiritually is to do what pertains to the correction of the wicked, so far as is lawful according to each person’s rank. To be displeased while peace is preserved is not to touch. For the Prophets who said these things did not abandon their people, but dwelt among those whom they rebuked; they entered one temple with them and celebrated the same sacraments. This is to go out: not to spare with the mouth. This is not to touch the unclean thing: not to consent with the will.”

But this has no place in a Cleric, because he ought to correct others by word and example.

§ 3. The sins of priests deserve a more severe punishment because they offend more persons. Therefore they are to be punished more severely. For superiors are truly bound to give examples to inferiors. Cause 8, question 1, Qualis; Cause 12, question 1, Nolo. The threat is severe but nevertheless true, Cause 11, question 3, canon 3: “Above all, avoid communion with your concubine Gualdrada, long since repudiated by you; for she is excommunicated and separated from every fellowship of Christians until our presence. Therefore care must be taken lest you be struck together with her by the equal edge of the sentence and, bound and fettered by passion for one little woman, be drawn to perpetual destruction. For Prelates sin worse in the eyes of God and thereby are themselves punished more cruelly than others, as Blessed Gregory says. For Prelates ought to know that if they ever perpetrate perverse things, they are worthy of as many deaths as the examples of perdition which they transmit to their subjects. Hence it is necessary that they guard themselves from fault so much the more cautiously inasmuch as, through the wicked things which they do, they do not die alone. Moreover, take care lest at some time, according to the Lord’s command, we employ two or three witnesses against you—indeed, lest we tell it to the holy Church, and, what we do not wish, henceforth you become to all as a heathen and a publican.” The laws inculcate the same in Cause 2, question 7, Paulus, and distinction 93.

§ 4. Because they have professed a better life and are honored as magnates, they therefore forcibly extend their fault into an example, distinction 83: “For no one harms the Church more than one who, while acting perversely, possesses the name or order of holiness. For no one presumes to rebuke such an offender, and his fault is vehemently extended into an example when, out of reverence for his order, the sinner is honored.” Therefore a Bishop who does not correct the crimes of such men should be called an impudent dog rather than a Bishop.

What wonder is it, therefore, if he is punished more severely, when his sin is more severe? Thus Cause 17, question 1: “Those who perform good things, if they resolve to perform better ones and after resolving do not perform them, although they persevere in their former good things, have nevertheless fallen in the sight of God by their resolve.” Likewise a little above: “There are those who resolve to abandon all things, submit themselves to God’s service, and restrain themselves by the bridle of chastity; but when they perceive that others have fallen after adopting chastity, by drawing themselves back they lose their merit.”

§ 5. Because knowledge, instruction, and grace are greater in them. Cause 6, question 1, canon 21: “I ask, therefore, who sins more gravely: one who unknowingly has fallen into heresy, or one who knowingly has not withdrawn from avarice, that is, idolatry? According indeed to that rule by which the sins of those who know are placed before the sins of the ignorant, the avaricious man lives knowingly in crime. But lest perhaps this be so, the magnitude of the crime itself produces in heresy what the admission of knowledge produces in avarice, so that the heretic who does not know is equated with the avaricious man who knows.” Likewise canon 20 of the same book: “But whether we ought to prefer a Catholic of the worst morals to some heretic in whose life men find nothing to rebuke apart from the fact that he is a heretic, I do not dare to precipitate a judgment.” Thus Augustine.

But from him to whom more has been given, more will be required.

§ 6. The canons ordinarily punish the sins of priests more severely. For in most cases he is deposed from office, distinction 50, canon 7: “If a Bishop, priest, or deacon has committed a capital crime, falsified a document, or uttered false testimony, let him, deposed from the honor of office, be thrust into a monastery and there, for as long as he lives, receive only lay communion.”

Nevertheless, by authority of several canons in distinction 50, those who are truly penitent are restored to their former rank. Those do not reconcile these canons sufficiently who judge that the truly penitent can be restored, while those who feign falsely cannot be restored. For the canons speak concerning the truly penitent. It must therefore be said: first, that this is the law—that they ought not be restored, and however much the Church sees their long-lasting and most humble penance, she is nevertheless not bound to restore them to their former honors. And this is for the reason that they not feign penance in hope of restoration. Second, that in public and detestable sins which produce vehement infamy, while the infamy remains they are not to be restored. Such are heresy, apostasy, homicide, and adultery. Thus canon 34, distinction 50: “But it has seemed good to us that something be written concerning those who, possessing sacred orders, confess that before or after ordination they were contaminated by capital crimes. In these, as it seems to me, this distinction ought to exist: those who have been detected or publicly caught in perjury, theft, fornication, and other crimes of this kind, according to the institutions of the sacred canons, should fall from their own rank, because it is a scandal to the people of God to have placed above them persons who are known to be vicious beyond measure. For men are thereby drawn away from the sacrifice of God—as they are read formerly to have done when the sons of Eli sinned—and, becoming rebellious and contrary on that account, they grow daily worse through their depraved examples. But those who, by secret confession before the eyes of God and also in the presence of the priest who will enjoin penance upon them, confess the aforesaid deeds secretly committed by themselves and lament that they themselves have sinned gravely, if they shall strive to purify themselves by fasts, alms, vigils, and sacred prayers, to these, with their rank also preserved, the hope of pardon from God’s mercy must be promised.” Nevertheless, I do not doubt that, in the case of those crimes upon which the punishment of deposition is imposed with an annexed clause against restoration, the punishment must be observed and not removed without a lawful cause. A heretic is deposed; one teaching another faith is deposed. Concerning these there are many canons, and they are received again with the greatest difficulty. Not so others who were educated in error and, by great misfortune, lacked true teachers. One who swears is deposed if he swears by the hairs of God, thus in the decrees of Pius, canon 7, Si quis per capillos.

A perjurer is also deposed. See the appendix of the Lateran Council concerning the keeping of oaths.

A homicide, distinction 50, canon 5: even if he killed a pagan while defending himself, he is advised not to discharge the priestly office. The law commands a Bishop to perform penance for fifteen years, a priest for twelve—three of these on bread and water—and a deacon for ten, on bread and water, distinction 50, canon 41: “If anyone has committed homicide, if he is a Bishop, let him perform penance for fifteen years and be deposed; let him also end all the days of his life in pilgrimage. Let a priest perform penance for twelve years, three of these on bread and water, and let him be deposed by the sentence above. Let a deacon perform penance for ten years, three on bread and water, and let him not presume to attain the rank of any priest.”

A forger is deprived of his benefice. Thus in the appendix to the Lateran Council, canon 113: “One who has forged the letters of the Pontiff must be thrust into a monastery of strict religion, despoiled of benefice and office.” Thus distinction 50, Si Episcopus.

And distinction 19, canon 3, In memoriam: “If indeed—which is unbecoming—anyone, whether a priest or a deacon, by contriving some disturbance and plotting against our ministry, is convicted of having brought a false letter from the Apostolic See or something else which did not come from there, with faith preserved and humility toward the Apostolic one intact, let the Bishop possess the power to thrust him into prison or another confinement until, by a letter or suitable legates of his party, he appeals to the Apostolic Sublimity, so that especially

by its holy legation it may deign to decree what the Roman law determines should be defined concerning such men in just order, so that he may both be corrected and a limit imposed upon the rest.”

A keeper of a concubine is deposed; their concubines are driven from the cities. See Binius’s edition, tome 2, part 1, folio 36, column 2c. They themselves are condemned, tome 3, part 2, folio 293, column 1c and following. See also tome 4, part 2, folio 555, column 1d–e and following, and folio 234, column 1d.

A usurer is degraded, distinction 47, canons 5 and 1, whether he does it in his own name or another’s. In these and similar matters punishment is not lacking for secular persons, but nevertheless no punishment is equal to that of Clerics, who are generally deposed. Deposition is indeed grave, since, being ignominious, it also takes away the means of life.

§ 7. Even lighter faults which the laws do not punish in citizens are nevertheless customarily punished gravely in Clerics, because nothing can be light in that state which is the beginning of immense evils.

Namely:

1. It is lawful for a regular advocate to accept nothing; for a secular one, many things. Cause 15, question 3, Observandum.

2. A Bishop is said to plunder when he gives nothing, Part 1, Cause 2, Si quis propter.

3. A Cleric is convicted of plundering another’s goods when he is proved to retain for himself more than necessities. But laymen increase their patrimonies without reproach.

4. If a priest belongs to a college and in adversity withdraws himself from the aid of the Church, he is judged more a schismatic than a priest, Cause 3, question 1, Nulli. But flight through fear is not imputed as a fault to laymen.

5. Those who grow their hair, if they are unwilling to lay it aside, are to be shorn against their will by the Archdeacon. Who judges the hair of laymen worthy of censure?

6. It is not lawful for a Cleric to enter taverns, distinction 43, canon 3: “It is lawful for no Cleric to keep a tavern or workhouse. For if he is prohibited from entering a tavern of this kind, how much more from serving others in it? But if anyone has done some such thing, let him either cease or be deposed.”

Yet secular persons are not even accused in this matter.

7. Distinction 44, canon 1 and following, Non liceat: if feasts are condemnable in laymen, how much more in Clerics.

8. Curiosity in reading philosophers and poets is punished, distinction 37, Sacerdotes.

9. It is ignominious for Clerics to abound in delicacies and preach Christ poor, distinction 35, Ecclesiae.

10. Prelates and Clerics who, after admonition, frequent the houses of women are deposed and degraded, distinction 81, Clericus. The laws punish so gravely even the cause of suspicion.

11. Gamblers, drunkards, and those given to dishonorable games are deposed, distinction 35, Episcopus.

12. A dilapidator of ecclesiastical property is deposed, Cause 10, question 2, and Cause 12, question 2, Diaconi; nor ought one deposed to live in a secular manner, but he ought to perform penance. This indeed is grave, but if the law treats one who squanders his own fruits, it decrees concerning such an offense as the civil law rarely punishes.

13. Irreverence is punished by deposition, Cause 11, question 3, Si quis.

14. A Bishop, priest, or deacon who devotes himself to gaming is to be deposed unless he ceases, distinction 35, Episcopus, and distinction 64, Clericum.

15. A Cleric who is a merchant must be shunned as a pest, distinction 83, Negotiatorem. But we readily allow others to engage in trade.

16. Hunting is prohibited to Clerics and a punishment is imposed, Decretals, Book 5, title 24, canon 1: “It is not lawful for a Bishop, priest, or deacon to possess dogs, hawks, or things of this kind for hunting. But if any person of this kind has been detained rather frequently in this pleasure, if he is a Bishop, let him be excluded from communion for three months; if a priest, for two; if a deacon, let him be suspended from every office.”

And canon 2: “We forbid all servants of God hunts and woodland wanderings with dogs, and hawks or falcons.”

Therefore, since either the small offenses of Clerics or those smaller than the greatest offenses are punished more gravely than those of laymen, this part of discipline must not be neglected. But where it is despised, integrity of morals cannot stand. It is not charity but weakness where wicked morals are not corrected, Cause 23, question 5, Non putes. I shall add that it is frequently ambition; for many Prelates do not correct because they fear offense, lest votes for a greater dignity be denied them because of the severity of their discipline. Indeed, many conduct themselves as though they were approvers of the vices committed by their subjects, lest they be feared as censors if they are raised to the Episcopate. In this matter a Prelate acquires certain damnation for an uncertain hope of dignity, and ordinarily God punishes so wicked a presumption with infamy and rejection.

Next, he destroys his subjects. For not to correct the wicked, but to foster them, is to kill them, Cause 23, question 5, Qui vitiis; distinction 45, Sed illud. Many also fail in their office because of reproaches. For through a false and dangerous mercy they indulge the wicked when the correction of offenders is postponed because of the harshness or flatteries of the tongue, distinction 50, Si diaconus. But a true Prelate ought not to love the praises of the wicked, because they are reproaches, nor to fear their reproaches, because they are praises. Let him hear the canons to which he swore. They say: “A Bishop who does not correct crimes is called not a Bishop but an impudent dog,” distinction 73, Nemo. For it is not cruelty to punish crimes for God, but piety.