Ill. POST OCTAVA DECRETI SAECVLARIA COMMEMORATIONI GI{ATIANAE INSTRVENDAE FORCHIELLI ALPH. ~f. STICKLER

Transcription

1 STVDIA GRATIANA POST OCTAVA DECRETI SAECVLARIA A VCTORE CONSILIO COMMEMORATIONI GI{ATIANAE INSTRVENDAE ED ITA Ill. CVRANTIßVS 105. FORCHIELLI ALPH. ~f. STICKLER or. H1ST. lyro (4lt. pont. ATHaN. S\LIS. AYC.V';T'. TA\MJW. INSTITVTVM GRATIANVM APVD VNIVERSITATEM STVDIORVM BONONIAE MCMLV

2 THE EARLIEST DEVELOPMENT OF EXCOMMUNICATION LATAE SENTENTIAE BY GRATlAX AND THE EARLIEST DECRETISTS PETEH. HUIZI~G S. J. Pontl6c'ia Univer'Slta Gregoriana, Noma

3

4 Antiquiores decretistae in describendis tribus formis excommunicationis, inadaequate inter se distinctis, excommunicationis se. datae sententiae, excommunicationis latae sub conditione et excommunicationis per sententiam generalern. prima elementa doctrinae excommunicationis quae postea latae sententiae vocabitur efformaverunt. Quomodo decretistae excommunicationem datae sententiae conceperint, illustratur eorum commentariis in varia capitula Decreti, quae continent vel continere videntur excommunicationem ipso facto incurrendam: respiciunt crimina haeresis, resistentiae decretis S. Sedis, iniuriae realis clericis illatae, simoniae, concubinatus clericorum et investiturae a laicis datae vel acceptae. (Animadvertendum est, nomine excommunicationis, minoris scilicet, etiam venire suspensio clerici, ut alibi demonstrabimus). Excommunicatio lata sub conditione eundem effectum sortitur ac excommunicatio datae sententiae, at dum haec potius respicit poenam a delinquente incurrendam. ilia magis significat sententiam vel decretum superioris quae statim admisso delicto vim habere incipit. Excommunicatio generalis vel imponitur person is quae delictum iam commiserunt at superiorem latent, vel est sententia lata in omnes qui determinatum delictum commissuri sunt: in hoc altero casu excommunicatio generalis eundem cffectum ac excommunicatio datae sententiae sortitur. Hae formae excommunicationis mutationem induxerunt regulae iuris poenalis Ecclesiae inde a saeculo 9 incipiente ab omnibus receptae, poenam scilicet ecclesiasticam publice tantum peccantibus esse imponendam. [P, H.]. The typical provision in Canon Law by which, for certain offences, the legislator provides for the automatic excommunication of the offender, without further intervention on the part of judge or other authority, is to be found long before the Decree of Gratian; it is especially common in the case of heresy. (1) This extraordinary legislation only began to be clearly understood when Canon Law was first (1) For the history of excommunication latae sententiae, see P. HIN- SCHIUS, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts mit besonderer Rücksicht au] Deutschland, 5 Band, Berlin 1895, p. 131 ss.; F. KOBER, Der Kirchenbann nach den Grundsätzen des kanonischen Rechts, Tübingen 1863', p. 479 ss; E.

5 280 Peler Huizing studied scientifically. At first some doubt existed as to whether such a punishment could legitimately be imposed. This doubt was supported by the acknowledged fact that a criminal could only be excommunicated if he remained obstinate after repeated warnings. The question was quickly settled; the Church has indeed the right to punish a criminal with immediate excommunication. The decretists made a distinction between, on the one hand, excommunications which are immediately bound up with the offence, and on the other, excommunications which take effect only after a sentence has been passed by the judge or court. The ecclesiastical legislator, in the provision which contains a threat of excommunication, expressly states whether he himself attaches this punishment to the offence so that at the moment that the offence is committed the sentence takes effect - excommunicatio latae sententiae - or whether he leaves the imposition of the penalty to another competent authority, in which case the sentence has still to be pronounced - excommunicatio ferendae sententiae -. The cases of excommunicatio latae sententiae later increased alarmingly in number, but in the time of the decretists the number had not yet become so great (2). In the writings of the decretists we find three concepts which formed a foundation for the further development of the excommunication latae sententiae, namely the excommunicatio dandae sententiae, the excomnumicajio lata sub conditione, and the excommunicatio imposed per sententiam genera/em. Though these three concepts do not exactly coincide with excommunicatio latae sentcntiae as we now understand it, all three do provide elements which contrihute to the make-up of this juridical institution. VERSAV, Le t Liber de excolllnlullicatione. du cardinal Fredol, precede d'une introduction historique sur l'excommunication et l'interdit en droit canonique de Gratien a la fin du 13 8 siecle, Paris 1912, p. XXXVII XLVI; this gives the opinion that the excommunication which, in the terminology of Gratian, is incurred solo reatu, is the same as a secret excommunication latae sententiae (p. XLI n. 3). Actually the excommunication solo reatu is an aspect of the sin, whereby one is excommunicated quoad Deum, while the concept of excommunication latae sententiae as understood in Canon Law is not found explicitly mentioned in Gratian. Concerning the meaning of the expressions sciat se esse excommunicalum, excommunicamus etc. in ecclesiastical legislation, see HINSCHIUS, op, eit. 1\'. p ; V, 1-3; (2) See chiefly HINSCHIUS and KOBER 11. cc.

6 The earliest developmellt of excommunication lalae smtentiae 28r I. Excommunication «dalae I) and «dandae.. senleniiae. a) General observations. It was Stephen of Tournay who first set down. with reference to certain penal provisions in the Decree. that the case in question was a capitulum daiae or dandae senlentiae ; this terminology has since come into general use (3). He was not. however. the first explicitly to call attention to this legal form. Roland had already spoken of persons, who ipso iure had incurred excommunication (4). Later writers contrasted the excommunication which arose ipso iure with that which was imposed by a judge or by a court sentence (5). There also often occur the expressions..cxcommunicati ipso facto It (6) or (I de iure.. (7). and not infrequently also. ipso genere delicti ~or ex genere delicti. (8). Among the decretists after Huguccio one finds the term «laiae senten- (3) j. F. von SCHULTE, Die Summa des Stephanus Tornacellsls liber das Decretum Gratiani, Giessen p, XVIII. On p. 48 Stephen speaks of a sententia quae ex dando canone procedit. (4) F. THAJl:ER. Die Summa maeistri Iiolandi nachmals Papstes Alexander Innsbruck 1R74, p. Ill: Excommunicatorum quidarn surrt excornrnunicati ipso iure, quidam non t. (5) Summa Tractaturus magister in C. 17 q. 4 princ.: Pena sacrilegi duplex est. spiritualis et corporalis. Spiritualis secundum novos canones statim ipso iure irrogatur... secundum antiquos vero per iudicem est inferenda. Bibl. Nation. Paris. Cod. lat r. 64 v. SICARDUS, Summa i. h. I.: Punitur sacrilegus... spiritualiter ut anathemate, ipso iure vel per sententiam secundum diverserum opiniones t BibI. Apost. Vat. Cod. Pal. tat. 653 f. 77 v. (6) E. g. apparatus glossarurn Ecce vieit lea in C. 11 q. 3 c. 107 v. eliminamus: c Ergo videtur quod sit ilie canon date sententie et sic quod raptores et viotatores ecclesie sint excommunicati ipso facto. quod dixerunt quidam... t Bibl, Nation. Paris. Nouv. acq. lat f. 195v. (7) E. g. H, SI~GER. Die Summa decretorum des Mogister Rufinus. Paderborn in C. I q. 1 C, 7: Nota simoniacum de iure excommunicatum esse t. p. 204: The same text by johasnes FAVF.:-ITINUS. Summa. BibI. Apost. Vat. Cod. Borgh. 162 r. 14. (8) Hucuccio, Sllmma in C. 16 q. 7 c. 5: e.,; et ita ipso genere delicti hereticus et excommunicatus erat... BibI. Apost. Vat. Cod. Vat. lat f Apparatus glossarum Glossa Palatina in C. 1 q. 1 C. 7 v. a statutis pairum : Quasi ipso iure, ex genere delicti t. Bibl, Apost. Vat. Cod. Pal. lat. 658 f. 24. Cod. Reg. lat. f. 71. In the Cod. Pal. lat r. 7 there is the gloss: c Excommunicatur quis duobus modis. directe et ipso genere; directe. cum aliquis excommunicatur nominatim; ipso genere: cum aliquis inicit manus.in sacerdotem ipso genere excommunicatur t..

7 Peter Huizing tiae» (9). but I have never come across the term «[erendae sententiae. Rufinus establishes a rule according to which one can distinguish between laws containing an excommunication latae sententiae or ferendae sen ten tiae: c Sciendum quod canones alii anathematizant, alii anathematizandos precipiunt. Illi anathcrnatizant, in quibus talis verborum forma ponitur: anathematizamus vel excommunicamus, vel aliquid quod his verbis equipolleat. ut infra C. XVII q. IV c. omnes ecclesie (5), si quis suadenie (29) et supra C. I q. I repperiuntur (7). Illi canones anathematizandos precipiunt, in qui bus imperativi modi forma proponitur vel aliquid equipollens. ut anathemaiizentur, excommunicentur, quorum exempla ubique fere trita sunt - (10).. This rule was adopted by Stephen, with the observation that yet another penalty. viz. infamia, is present in both these forms: Item attendenda capitula quae sunt datae sententiae, quae vero dandae. Datae sententiae sunt illa, quae insinuant transgressorem suum iam excommunicatum, dandae quae denuntiant excommunicandum, ad similitudinem infamium, quorum quidam sunt infames ipso iure, quidam per sententiarn s (u). There are but few cases in this period in which a major excommunication was incurred in the commission of the offence itself. The early decretists, at least as regards the general law. only know of cases of heresy and of acts of violence committed against ecclesiastical persons. A catalogue of excommunications latae sententiae, which is (9) Summa Tractaturus Magister:,... in eo autem qui incidit in canoncm late sententie... I. c. (no. S) f. S2 v. Summa Reginensis in d. 18 c. IS: «Hoc capitulum dieo et illa superiora di. xxxii nullus (S), preter hoc (6) sunt late sententie t. Bibl. Apost. Vat. Cod. Reg. lat f. 15. Glossa Palatina in d. 19 c..5 v. prostratus : e Vidctur ergo canon late sententie t. Cod. Pal. c. (no. 8) f. S; in C. 17 q... c. 29 v. anathemati :,Hie est unus canon late sententie. I. c. (no. 8) f. 61 and f. 171 v. Apparatus glossarum Ius naturale i. h. I.! et nota quod hie canon est late sententie rnaioris excommunicationis t. BibI. Nat. Paris Cod. lat f Clm in d. 19 c. 9: Infra xi q.iii quoniam muttos contra. Set fotinus communicaverat acbatio eius heresi consentiendo, et similiter anastasius fotino et achatio. unde uterque inciderat in canonem late sententie... t f. QV; the same gloss in Cod. Haenel (BibI. Univ. Lips.) 18 f. I~ V has for late date: juncker. Die Summa des Simon von Bisignano und seine Glossen. in: Sav. Zschr, I. RG. Kan. Abt. IS. 1'l26. p. 378 n. S. (10) Summa in C. 3 q... c. 6 p (11) Summa in introductione p. 4.

8 The earliest development of excommunication latae sententiae 283 to be found in the Glossa Palatina, adds the crimen falsi, the forging of papal letters, and also a measure of Pope Clement In which only concerned Bologna. The minor excommunication latae sententiae occurred more frequently, but the number of cases was not nearly as great as the same apparatus seems to suggest (I2). The decretists never dealt with the quaestion why it was that just these punishments, the major and minor excommunication, and including the suspension of a cleric, occurred in this form, and why, for instance, a priest who had committed a serious offence never was ipso facto depositus. Laurentius did not even see any difficulty in principle in this connection (13). b) Various cases of Excommunication 41 datae sententiae t. 1. Heresy. The decretists undoubtedly admitted that a heretic was 41 ipso facto. cut off from the Church as an excommunicated person (14). Some expressly state that even if there were no positive legislation of the Church on the point, the separation arose from the Natural (12) In C. 17 q. 4 c. 29 v. anathemati : Hie est unus canon late sententie. Alius est extra iii de [alsariis, licet ( c. 2 = X c. 5), alius extra ii de locations, ex rescripto (3. 12 C. un. = X c. I): alius xxiv q. iii quidam (39) et q. i. c. ii et c. i. Set late sententie suspensionis infinit] sunt canones t. 1. c. (no. 8) f. 61 and f. 171 v.' The decretal Ex rescripto of Clement III ratifies a local law which threa-,tened with anathema latae sententiae (. sub poena anathematis.) any student or professor of Bologna who should hire a room in which another lived. before the period of tenure of that other should have expired. or at least without his permission. Evidently a measure of rent control I The bishop had each year to bring this law to the notice of the whole body of masters and students assembled together. on which occasion excommunicationis sententia exprimatur t. (13) Ius naturale i. h. 1.:... Et nota quod hie canon est late sententie maioris excommunicatioms. Est alius extra ii de locations et conductions, ex rescripto (I. c.). alius xxiv q. i (c.) ii, iii etc. Sed quare non habemus similiter canones date depositionis? Resp.: dico quod aliquis ipso iure cadere potest etiam a gradu, sicut dicit lex de milite: Codex de locatu (ms. locati) (1. 35) lex ult. laurentius t. I. c. (no. 9) f (14) See n. 12 and 13. Stephanus, Summa in C. 1 q. 1 c. 31 v. exiretis : per separationem haeres is vel sententiae t: in c. 97 ib, V. separatis: vel haeresi vel excommunicatione. Bibl, St. Genevieve Paris. Cod. 342 in C. 9 q. 1 c. 1 v. ab excommunicatis: I. e. hereticis et schismaticis : omnes enim tales ipso iure excommunicati sunt s; in C. 5 e. q. v. nominatim excommunicatis : nominatim

9 Peter Huizing Law (15). Excommunication was so closely linked with heresy that all excommunicated persons were, in a certain sense, called heretics (16). This question, however, presents a number of difficulties. Was every Ecclesiastical Prelate who held heretical opinions immediately excommunicated? Even if this heresy was occult? Even if his doctrine, although heretical, had never been proscribed by the Church? If he were excommunicate then he also lost his jurisdiction immedia-.. tely, for an excommunicate cannot sit in- judgment on the faithful. Gratian himself treats this matter. In C. 24 q. 1 he deals with the question of whether a heretical bishop still.has the power to excommunicate his subjects. The answer is relatively simple if the heresy which he maintains has already been condemned and his adherents are already excommunicated. In this case it is superfluous to begin a new examination to consider whether the doctrine is heretical. An dicuntur excommunicati omnes heretici se. tarn sequentes quam inventares heresis; eadem enim sententia notantur ut xxiv c. i ii iii iv. f. 60v. The same gloss also in Bibl. Apost. Vat. Cod. Ross. 595 f (IS) Apparatus Ecce vicit leo in C. 11 q. 3 pr. v. queritur : «Major autem excommunicatio affligitur a iure naturali et canonico et a iudice. A iure naturali ut propter heresim, quia qui inciderit in heresim ipso iure est excommunicatus ut xxiv q. i achacius (I). Et hec excommunicatio ortum habet a iure naturali; dicit enim apostohis: hereticum hominem post primam et secundam correctionem devita, ut xxiiii q. iii dixit (29)... t. I. c. (no. 9), f (16) RUFINUS,Summa in C. 9 q. I dc. p. c. 3: «.. Omnes enim pro sua culpa excommunicati dicuntur non catholici i. e. heretici, ut supra C. IV (q. I) c. 2 t. HUGUCCIO, Summa i. h. 1.: «Omnes enim non excommunicati dicuntur catholici quia omnes excommunicati dicuntur non catholici i. e. heretici, ut iv q. i c. it. 1. c. (no. 8), f. 160; in C.. 4 q. I C. 2: «dicitur quod omnis excommunicatus est hereticus i. e. ab unitate vel sacramentis ecc1esie separatus t f Glossa Ordinaria i. h. 1.: v. ab ecclesia proiecti: «nota quod omnis excommunicatus dicitur hereticus t. Bibl. Apost. Vat. Cod. Pal, Iat, 624 f. Il4v; in C. 24 q. 3 dc. p. c. 25 v. heresim:.variismodisdiciturhereticus. Uno modo dicitur hereticus quicumque est dubius in fide; secunda modo dicitur omnis simoniacus; tertio modo omnis precisus ab ecclesia, secundum quod excommunicatus dicitur hereticus; quinto modo omnis qui male interpretatur sacram scripturam; sexto modo qui vult auferre privilegia romane ecclesie; septimo qui transgreditur precepta apostolice. sedis. Item quandoque large dicitur hereticus omnis qui non tenet articulos fidei; secundum hoc iudeus gentilis sunt heratici et secundum hoc non omnis hereticus est excommunicatus. Stricte sumitur heresis omnis qui remotus est ab ecclesia quia errat in fide et secundum hoc hereticus (est) excommunicatus t. f Varii modi quibus quis hereticus dicatur etiam enumerantur in Glossa Palatina i. h. I., I. c. (no. 8) f. 72 et 209; in Cod. 342 Bibl, St. Genevieve in C. 1 q. 1 C. 3 v. heresim, f. 25 v.

10 The earliest development of excommunication latac scntentiac 285 action against the heretic is unnecessary, the excommunication which has once and for all been settled takes effect. The heretical bishop is therefore excommunicated and has lost his power to condemn his subjects (17). This is therefore a clear case of excommunication latae sententiae. But what is the position of the bishop who «ex corde suo» has thought out a new heresy? Gratian decides that as soon as he begins to proclaim a heresy he loses the power to excommunicate. But because he is unable to fall back on an excommunication which has already been determined upon, he has to find another explanation, and this is no easy task. He begins by laying down that he alone possesses the power to bind and to loose who has received the Holy Ghost. Outside the unity of the Church the Holy Ghost cannot be received and does not work. The power to forgive or to retain sins, to excommunicate or to reconcile with the Church, is an ' opus Spiritus Sancti " a 'virtus Christi'. Heretics, schismatics, 'sententia notati' viz. those who have been excommunicated and therefore are outside the body of the Church, are unable to expel others from that body or to reconcile. them with it. Moreover only a superior can pass sentence on an inferior, hence a heretic cannot judge one of the faithful, his superior, nor a heretic judge another heretic, his equal (18). Yet, according to Augustine, a heretic does not lose his power to baptise. Since the power both to baptise and to excommunicate flows from the ' sacerdotalis unctio " one has to maintain tliat the heretical bishop evidently does not lose his priestly power, the' potestas officii', but that he is forbidden the exercise of his power, the, executio' or ' administratio '. But although he retains the power, he cannot in any case excommunicate a catholic, even if the verdict considered in itself should be just, because he cannot even accuse him or witness against him, let alone sentence him (19). Neither is he able to excommunicate another heretic, even though Augustine teaches that a catholic should not receive a criminal who has been excommunicated by a heretic. This namely does not imply, that a sentence passed by a heretic is recognised, but that criminals should be punished. Finally one can understand the teaching of St. Augustine to be as follows: the only power which a heretic possesses is that of (17) C. 24 q. I dc. i. pr.; inscriptiones cc. 2 et 3; dc. p. e. 3 (18) I. c. de. p. e. 4. (19) I. c. de. p. c. 37

11 Peter Huizing baptising: all other sacraments which he confers as, for example, the Eucharist or the sacrament of reconciliation and excommunication have either no effect (are invalid) or have a sinful effect (are illicit). Under no circumstances may they be received by. the faithful (20). But Gratian's solution does not get rid of all the difficulties.' In the first place, why does a man who elaborates a new heresy lose his jurisdiction only at the time when he preaches his heresy publicly? Why not before, if by reason of his heresy he is already excommunicated? If he has not been excommunicated before, why does he not lose his jurisdiction only when he is formally excommunicated? Roland offers another solution. According to him a heretic retains his jurisdiction as long as he is tolerated by the Church; he loses it at the time when he is rcprobated by Her (2I). However it is not 'clear whether they are held to be reprobated who by reason of their heresy are already excommunicated, or whether the reprobation itself signifies their excommunication or, at least, contains it. The same uncertainty is found in Rufinus who admits with Gratian that a prelate who lapses into an already condemned heresy eo ipso' incurs excommunication and so ceases to have jurisdiction. In the case of a prelate who elaborates a' new heresy the prelate de iure ' loses the power at binding and loosing but as long as he has not be declared reprobate by a sentence of the bishops,.anyone excommunicated by. him is bound to seek absolution from the excommunication (22). The Summa Tractaiurus magister clearly distinguishes between a tolerated heretic and one who is cut off, that is" between a non-excommunicated and an excommunicated heretic: «Hereticus ordinatus ab eo qui non habuit potestatem ordinandi vel ab eo qui habuit preter formam ecclesie neminem potest ligare vel solvere; ordinatus autem ab eo qui habuit potestatem et cum forma ecclesie quamdiu toleratur ab ecclesia potest, viii q. iiii nonne (~O) I. c. de. p, c. 3<). (~I) Summa in C. 24 q. I. p. 100: he continues however: Vel dicamus haereticos non catholicos ab haereticis, si tarnen culpabiles fuerint, esse Iigandos... Eius verba fere transenbunt Summa Qlloniam status' ecclesiarum i. h. 1., BibI. Nat, Par. Cod. lat f. 60 s. et Summa Cum in tres partes B. N. P. Cod f. 67v. (22) Summa i. h. 1. p. 415; cf. in C. 11 q, 3 c. 46. p. 318 s.

12 The earliest development 0/ excommunication [alae sententiae 287 (c. un.), post quam precisus est non potest, infra c. q. audiuimus (4)" (23) The author of the apparatus glossarum Ius naturale seems to suppose that anyone who starts a new heresy is not t ipso facto' excommunicate immediately but becomes so only by a sentence of excommunication:.. Hie intitulatur ia questio in qua queritur an hereticus alium possit suspcndere vel excommunicare. Huic autem questioni ita potest responderi quod ille qui in heresim iam dampnatam incidit privatur ipso iure christianorum communione et omni ecclesiastica iurisdictione, qui vero in novam, iurisdictionern non amittit nisi per sententiam. Videtur tarnen amittere ex quo incipit predicare, ar. infra e. q. art. (!) aperte (36), di, xviiii anasiasius (9). quo~ quidam antiqui concesserunt, ut gratianus i. e. q. si autem (de. p. c. 4),. (24). Many decretists rejected this opinion because according to it not all heretics were excommunicated. Simon of Bisiniano records the opinion that even occult heretics have no jurisdiction, but according to the supporters of this opinion, it holds only for occult heretics and not for all secret excommunicates: «Si autem usque ex quo talia predicare. Hinc videtur innui quod si hereticus aliquem excornmunicat vel degradat 'quamdiu eius heresis latet quod sententia eius teneat etsi non possit hoc de vite merito facere set de officio quo nondum est iudicio ecclesie spoliatus. Cum vero publice contra fidem aliqua docet et predicat tunc ut quibusdam placet eo ipso est depositus et neminern potest eius sententia absolvere vel ligare. Set quoniam quanto heresis serpit occult ius tanto gravius. dominicam vineam in simplicibus demolitur inde est quod in odium et detestationem heretice pravitatis dicunt quidam specialiter esse statutum ut sententia heretici licet occulti nullus possit absolvi vel excommunicationis vinculo innodari, et sic exponunt hanc litte- (23) In C. 24 q. 1 pr. v. quod autem, I. c. (no. 5) f. 71 v. Cf. SICARDUS. Summa i. h. l.: «... Hereticus aut toleratus aut non; si toleratus potest sententia notare de officio set non de vite merito; si non nullo modo potest, non catholicum nee etiam hereticum c. (no. 5) f. 97 v s. (24) In C. 24 q. 1 pt., I. c. (no. 9) f. ICJ7V; cf. in tic. p. c... : e De his qui novam heresim confingunt tractat gratianus in hoc paragrapho ostendens rationibus et auctoritatibus quod neminem possunt dampnare;. quod verum est per vite rnerita vel ex quo inde fuerint dampnati, alioquin non dicit verum I f. 198.

13 288 Peter Huizing ram: maxime ex quo talia predicare ceperunt, set quasi idem est et si ante I) (25). It is fare more probable that this treats of all occult heretics, both of those who adhere to an already condemned heresy and of those who profess a new one. Certainly this is the mind of the writer of the Glossa Palaiina: I( In hac questionc dicunt quidam quod si hercticus alium excornmunicat hereticum valet..: Alii cum gratiano distinguunt an veterem heresim iam dampnatam sequatur, et tune non valet, an novam confingat, et tunc potest, ar. i. e. achaiius (3) et i. e. si auiem (de. p. c. 4) in pr., quia adhuc tolleratur ab ecclesia. Sed tu die indistincte quod sive vetcrem sive novam sequatur excommunicatus est licet sit occultus, et ideo alium non pot est excommunicare, extra de hereticis, ad abolendam (la Comp. 5,6 e. II = X. 5, 1 C. 9). Alia tarnen que agit tenent dum tollcratur, ar. iii q. vii tria (de. p. e. 1). Sed et sententia excornmunicationis quam tulit toleranda est dum ipse est occultus, licet sit nulla, ar. predicti et extra de iure patronatus. consultationibus (la Comp. 3, 33 c. 23 = X. 3, 24 c. 4; cf. 3, 38 c. 19) Qui vera heresim iamiam dampnatam. Hec distinctio locum non habet, nam omnis heresis est dampnata et omnis hereticus excommunicatus quantumcumque sit occult us, et ideo non potest alios excommunicare. Unde si scirem prelatum meum esse hereticum quia novam fingit, nee tarnen predicaret, si me excommunicaret celebrarem in oeculto sed non in aperto, quia cum non possum probare eum esse hereticum et ita nec me excommunicatum deponeret s (26). (25) Summa in C. 24 q. 1 dc. p. c. 4, Bibl. Nat. Par. Cod. lat A, f. 88v; cf. ]UNCKER, I. c. (no. 9) p From the Summa Tractaturus magister it is clear that according to another opinion all those who were secretly excommunicate lost their jurisdiction, but not if they were secret heretics: in C. 24 q. 1 c. 4 v. excommunicatus excommunicare non polest:,hinc arguunt quidarn quia excomrnunicatione facta in generali pro aliquo crimine, si quis interim excommunicaverit aliquem et postea detectus fuerit reus criminis iiiius, non teneat eins excommunicatio; alii contra de (?), bar (Bazianus), phi (?) t. I. c. (no. 23) ' (26) In C. 24 q. I pr., I. c. (not. 8) f. 70 et f. 202 v. The same gloss in Glossa Ordinaria i. h. I., I. c. (no. 16) f Laurentius seems to have followed the same opinion as can be seen in his «Apparatus. in C. 24 q. I pr.: «Laurentius dicit quod omnis heresis sive vetus sive nova dampnata sit et omnes heretici sint excommunicati; extra de heres., ad abolendam (I. c.). Sententia ab heretico lata sive occulto sive manifesto nulla est ipso iure. Illi tarnen sententie stari debet quousque sciatur utrum

14 TABVLA XX '\ \_ t1 ne co 11' 'i'l~""-"\'~,,,. \'U li.w... Hl "Ull\.IPV"~ ntnr.f~tn~l1~opm~nan;~ {1tUi: flue. erki:.mtttu; obftut'uj cu 1n'r.1 (\ :t1unmo fitfr;.t71'lloum rnttrl""mm. u m CAI'SA TRIGESI~It\ D" cognationc spuituali et de nup tiis clandcstiuis Ouidarn populorum Ircquen tia impeditus SUUIl1 filium de bap tism ato suscopi t "" Bononiac, BibI. CoIl. l lispan., Cod. 2Rr, ro, z2r'

15

16 The earliesl development of excommum'cation lalae sententiae Resistance to the decisions of the Holy See. The method of the decretists is well illustrated by the way in which they attempt to reduce the unwieldy contents of d. 19 c. 5 to a more manageable law (27) In this capitulum the vague crime of «resistance to decisions of the Holy See» is threatened with numerous penalties: the offender sit... ruinae suae dolore prostratus I), «nec locum deinceps inter sacerdotes habeat It, «extorris fiat a sancto ministerio It, non de eius iudicio quisquam postea curam habeat», because he is «iam darnpnatus a sancta et apostolica ecclesia..; «maioris excommunicationis deiectione est abiciendus I), and finally «sitque alienus a divinis et pontificalibus offitiis It. Melcndus limits the offence to an obstinate resistance, and lays. down as punishment excommunication latae sententiae: 41 N(ota). Videtur in hoc loco quod ille qui (non) obedit preceptis apostolicis quam cito non obedit sit excommunicatus. Multo magis ergo qui non obedit apostolicis vel evangelicis preceptis vel precept is veteris et novi testamenti sive decalogi. Ad hoc dicit M..quia duobus modis obviatur preceptis apostolicis, ut si dominus papa mandaret (et p) alieui episcopo quod daret mihi prebendam, si ille non statim daret, non ideo esset excommunieatus, set si postmodum acquiescere nollet et procederet in contumaciam, vel si insurgeret in apostolicam eit hereticus. llii tamen qui primum sustinent predictam decretalem intelligunt de illa heresi quam constat esse heresim : multa enim dicuntur et tenentur que in rei veritate hereses sunt, quia tamen nesciuntur esse hereses non sunt qui eas sustinent excommunicati t. Bibl. Nat. Par. Cod. lat f. IQ7v. In the same codex there is a note from the Apparatus Ius naturale in dc. p. c. 4 e. q. v, neminem dampnare potuit: «verum est de vite merito, potuit tarnen ex officio s; with an addition: «lau. contra, quia ncc ex officio nee ex vite merito t. Immediately following, however, is a gloss by Laurentius in v. intra ecclesiam, which says the opposite: «loquitur ac si ille qui in novarn heresim incidit extra ecciesiam sit. quod non est verum ut dicit lau. [alsi : hi tollendi sunt i. e. condempnandi (ms. condempnati), quia quamdiu tolerantur ab ecclesia et iudicare et excommunicare possunt: iii q. vii ult. Vel hoc referas ad vite meritum, quia falsi non habent potestatem de vite merito. lau. t C (27) Gratian ascribes this capitulum to Gregory IV. The text, as also ni the case of d. 12 C. 2, is taken from a forgery of the oth century; see JAFF! 11 n. 2579: P. HINSCHIUS, Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae, Lipsiae 1863, p. CLXXXVII - CXCV Studia Gralialla. - Vol. III

17 Peter Huizing auctoritatem per superbiam vel alio modo, lam excommunicatngesset I) (28). The solution of John Faventinus, who allows an excommunication latae sententiae for formal, but not for purely material disobedience, differs little from that of Melendus; «Canon iste date sententie est et non dande, quod patet ex eo 'quod dicitur prostratus, iam. dampnatus. Nee illud inconveniens timendum est quod omnes mortaliter peccantes, cum eo ipso canones transgrediantur, huius canonis sententia astricti sunt. Transgreditur enim quis (quandonque?) non observando, quadoque (non) reprobando. Qui ergo canones non observatrnt, dummodo contemptus absit, huius sententia non obligatur, qui vero reprobat eos con ternpnendo hoc canone ligatur » (29). According to this opinion the clergy and the faithful should of their own accord refuse to obey their bishop if the latter obstinately or formally resists an order of the Pope. Decretists, who were unwilling to accept this conclusion declared the capitulum «dandae sententiae s (30). Huguccio rescues himself from this impasse by accepting two possibilities: if it is a question of formal disobedience, contemptus, which Huguccio ascribes to heresy or schism, then the punishment must be regarded as an excommunication latae sententiae; if, however, the capitulum only speaks of a material disobedience, then the punishment is intended to be an excommunication ferendae sententiae: (28) Bibl. Nat. Par. Cod. lat i. h. I. f. 9 v. The difficulty which Melendus answers is formulated as follows in a gloss of the Cod. lat Bibl, Nat. Par.: s Canon iste secundum plurimorum sententiam dande sententie est, non date, quod colligitur ex illo verbo fiat et ex illo postea et presertim ex illo abiciendus. Date enim sententie secundum illos esse non potest, cum huiusmodi sequeretur inconveniens quod omnes mortaliter peccantes iam huius canonis sententia ligat t. f. 12. (29) Bibl, Nat. Par. Cod. lat, c. (no. 28). Cf. von SCHULTE,Die Glosse zum Decret Gratians von ihren Anfängen bis auf die jüngsten Ausgaben, in: Denkschriften d. kais. Ak. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl, 21 H, 1872 p. 41 n. 7; juncker, I. c. (no. 9) p. 376 n. 5. (30) The Summa Lipsiensis gives an account of the controversies, and concludes: «Alii dicunt quod dande sententie est. Licet enim episcopus non obediat pape, tarnen donee eum tollerat ecclesia tenentur subdite (!) obedire... ca gloss in the Cod. Phillips 1742 of the State Library in Berlin contains both the defence of the opinion that the canon is datae sententiae and also the following words: «Qui nolunt preceptis obtemperare apostolicis anathematizentur. Ita juncker, I. c. (no. 9) p. 375 s.

18 The earliest development of excommunication latae sententiae 291 «Canon.iste potest intelligi esse date sententie, ad quod faciunt illa verba capituli prostratus, damp natus ; potest etiam intelligi esse dande sententie, ad quod faciunt illa verba fiat, postea, abiciendus. Si dicatur esse date sententie loquitur de contemptoribus, si dande de aliis transgressoribus. Sunt enim quidam, qui contumaciter apostolicam sedem esse caput omnium ecc1esiarum negantes, dicunt ipsam non posse condere canones... Isti tales scisma et heresim sapiunt, et ipso genere delicti tamquam heretici excommunicati (Cod. Vat. excommunicandi) sunt, ut di xxii (Cod. Vat. xvii) c. i et xxv q. i violatores (5) et ii q. si quis dogmata (18); et de talibus loquitur iste canon si dicatur esse date (ms. sunt) sententie. Sunt (ms. ut) alii qui transgrediuntur decreta apostolice sedis, dicunt tarnen et credunt ea esse observanda, Tales ipso iure non sunt excommunicati, et de talibus 'loquitur iste canon si dicatur esse dande sententie. Duobus enim modis (ms. ergo) quis transgreditur decreta apostolice sedis, se. aut ipsa reprobando ex contemptu, asserendo ea observanda non esse - hoc heresim sapit et qui hoc facit ipso iure est excommunicatus - aut non observando, ere den do tarnen esse observanda; hoc non sapit heresim, et qui hoc facit nop est ipso iure excommunicatus, licet peccet mort aliter. Sive ergo hoc capitulum dicat(ur) sententie date sive dande, nullum sequitur inconveniens. Ego tarnen potius credo date sententie esse, quia contra contemptores decretorum loquitur, et contra eos a gratiano inducitur i (31). In this way d. 19 c. 5 has been reduced to a practical rule of law which fits into the general pattern of Canon Law. With one exception (32) this explanation was subsequently followed everywhere (33). (31) Summa, 1. e. (no. 8) f. 17. (32) Ecce vieit lea i. h. 1. v. prostratus: Ergo videtur quod ille ipso iure sit excommunicatus. Et hoc dicunt quidam, quia talis blasphemat spiritum sanctum ut xxv q. i uiolatores (5); ergo est hereticus. Set omnis hereticus ipso iure qui incidit in heresim iam dampnatam ipso (I) est excommunicatus, ut xxiiii q. i achacius (I). Nos credimus quod non sit excommunicatus, tamen peccat mortaliter quia contra canones facit, si tales sint qui ad fidem pertineant vel bonos mores. Et expone prostratus i. e. prosternendus vel prostratus per mortale peccatum t. l. e. (no. 6) f (33) Summa Reginensis i. h. 1.: Si dicatur esse canon date sententie, quia et pro hoc et contra videntur facere verba canonis, dicatur quod loquitur in eo casu quando aliquis contempnendo canones et decreta ecclesie romane contumeliose resistit, unde quia scismaticus ipso iure excommunicatus debet haberi. Si dicatur dande non est inconveniens t. I. e. (no. 9) f. 3 v. Bibl. Apost. Vat. Cod. Ross. 595 i. h. I. v. sue dolore (prostratus):.i. e. dampnatus.

19 292 Peter H uizi JIg 3 Violent treatment of clerics. The second Lateran Council under Innocent II (1139) had decreed in her famous canon IS, Si quis suadente diabolo, that anyone who violently laid hands on a cleric or monk (violentas manus iniecerit) was thereby automatically excommunicated (anathamatis vinculo subiaceat); no bishop could release him from this sentence before he had appeared before the Pope in Rome and submitted to his authority (34). Gratian reduced this punishment to a simple excommunication latac sententiac. He argued that anathema in this case meant 41 iuxta ethymologiam» separatio, a separation from the Eucharist and from the right of entering a church. In this way hetried to reconcile the decree of Innocent 11 with canon 5 of the Council of Ravenna (817), (35) which laid down that he who had stolen from a church or had done injustice to any ecclesiastical persons was excluded from the Eucharist (sciat se communione lore privatum) until he had given satisfaction; should he refuse to give satisfaction after having repeatedly been called upon to do so, the faithful must shun him as guilty Videtur canon date sententic. set quia post dicit abiciendus et fiat videtur quod sit dande. Set nonne quicurnque peccat mortaliter transgreditur decreta, ergo ornnis peccator erit ipso iure excomruuuicatus? R.: canon iste loquitur de his qui dicunt decreta sedis apostolice non esse servanda, et ita excommunicati ipso iure... Potest tarnen did sententie damle et mtelligitur de quacumque transgressione... f. 27 v. Ius naturale:,cum dicatur prostratus, dampnatus, date sententie videtur canon iste. Set quia sequitur abiciendus et fiat videtur dande, Item nonne quicumque peccat mortal iter decreta transgreditur? Erit ergo omnis peccator excommunicatus ipso iure. R.: de illis loquitur canon iste qui dicunt apostolice sedis decreta non esse servanda, qui ex hoc ipso scismatici et heretici intclliguntur et ipso genere delicti per canonem sunt excommunicati. Potest tarnen did sententie dande et intelligi de quacumque transgressione, et exponitur prostratus i. e. prosternendus. I. c. (no. 9), f. 14 v. Glossa Palatina i, h. 1. v. prostratus : c videtur ergo canon late sententie, nee intelligi de omnibus qui canones transgrediuntur, quia fere iam essemus omnes excommunicati, cum cotidie contra canones peccemus. sed tantum de illis, qui per scisma ab ecclesia roman a recedunt et ius eius ac potestatem anullat (I), precepta eius et canones contempnendo nec capit (I) earn reputando. Nec contradicit iliud participium abiciendus, narn per se censetur et ost ' quid fieri debeat /Ill. Cod. Pal. eit. (no. 8) f. 5 (34) C. 17 q... c. 29. This canon is referred to in the expression c privilegium canon is whereby the special protection enjoyed by clerics and religious under ecclesiastical law is indicated. (35) In Gratian C. 17 q. 4 c. 21 3, and attributed to John VIIl.

20 lhe earliest development of excommunication latae sententiae 293 of sacrilege (36). In other words, the anathema only came into force after repeated warnings. Gratian's attempt at reconciliation, however, met with little success. Although the antinomy which he had discoverd puzzled the eanonists for a considerable time, they nevertheless unanimously maintained that the anathema of the canon Si quis suadenie diabolo was a genuine one. Rufinus was convinced of this (37); John Faventinus also taught it; in another context we shall find the opinion of Faventinus who held that the trangressors of this canon were excommunicated ipso iure but not nominatim. According to Huguccio, the new decree of Innocent repealed all the old canons which threatened with excommunication ferendae sententiae all those who had perpetrated sacrilege against clerical persons: «Et nota hoc capitulum esse date sententie, turn ex consuetudine ecc1esie, turn ex illo verbo absolvere, et est date sententie et quoad. communionem sacramentorum et quo ad communionem fidelium, in tantum quod nullus cum tali excommunicato debeat participare, etiam ante denunciation em si crimen eius notum est, licet gratianus aliter hoc capitulum intellexerit, ut xi q. iii evidenter (dc. p. c. 24), et magister ioannes aliter in illa glosa super eundem paragraphum, que sic incipit: ego eum puto etc. Et corrigit hoc capitulum omnia capitula predicta, que videntur esse dande sententie, sc.' quod tales sacrilegi non sint excommunicati, ut s. e. q. quisquis (2I), si quis (22), de presbiterorum (23)) (38). - According to Huguccio, Albertus de Morra - later Pope Gregory VIII, who, before being raised to the Cardinalate in IIS6, may perhaps have taught at Bologna (39) - defended the same opinion as Gratian; at least he did not believe that in such a case there was any question of excommunication latae sententiae. Albertus even dismissed the possibility of such an excommunication, because - at least Huguccio assumes this motive - only an obstinate offender could be (36) See C. 11 q. 3 de. p. e and 3 (37) See the text quoted from his Summa above p. 2, and in C. ~7 q... c. 4: «. qui saerilegos manus mittunt in personas ecclesiasticas, se. in clerieos vel monachos, ipso iure sunt exeommunicati, quod notatur ex ilio c. Si quis suadente diabolo (29) infra e. q. p STEPHEN only makes a note in c. 29: Hoc c. est datae sententiae» p (38) Summa, 1. c. (no. 8), f. 228 v. (39) Cf. von SCHULTE, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des Canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis au] die Gegenwart, Stuttgart I, 1875, p. 130 s,

21 294 Peter Huizing excommunicated; and the obstinacy could only be established after repeated warnings. Huguccio explained the theory of Gratian and Gregory as follows: «anathemati i. e. separationi. Ut xxiv q. iii cerium (9). Magister fuit in hac oppinione, quod ille canon si quis suadenie non est canon date sent en tie quoad anathema, set quoad simplicem excornmunicationem, et quod ille qui percutit clericum 'non est anathematizatus i. e. iure ipso separatus (i. e.) a communione fidelium, set est excommunicatus i. e. a sacramentis corporis et sanguinis et introitu ecclesie separatus. Quod autem in illo canone continetur nomen anathematis non nocet, quia ponitur ibi secundum suam interpretationem que est separatio. Ubi enim dictum est anathema interpretatur separatio. Set papa et tota ecclesia tenet (in) contrarium. Tenet enim quod ille sit canon date sententie quoad anathema, et quod percussor elerlei ipso iure sit anathematizatus, et quod ante absolutionem vel reconciliationem non est ei communicandum. Et ego firmiter credo... Quod autem magister in tali opinione fuerit patet ex eo quod dicit ut iwxta etc., quia a corpore et sanguine etc., more penitentium ete. Set mirum est unde magister hoc habuit cum ecclesia teneat contrarium. Gregorius papa viii idem dice bat et tenebat antequam fuerit papa; expresse enim eum audivi dicentem, nullum, vel percussorem clerici vel hereticum vel alium, esse exeommunicatum eo ipso quia hoc vel illud facit, set esse excommunicandum. Set forte uterque dixit hoc ea ratione, quia quisque deberet premoneri antequam excommunicetur. Set dieo quod et hie premonetur ab innocentio, sieut invenies.distinctum infra xvii q. iv si quis suadenie (29)) (40). (40) In C. II q. 3 de. p. e. 24, I. c. (no. 8) f Many subsequent glosses depend on this text: Ecce vicit lea i. h. 1. : «Si quis suadente: '" male dicit hie gratianus quia ita hoc inteuexit quasi hoc e. si quis suadenie intelligeretur de minori excommunicatione. Set falsum, imo de maiori intelligitur, 'et ita servat decretalis (no. cited)...,. I. c. (no. 6) f. 190 v. Ius naturale i. h.l.: «anathemaüsaüs. Hee expositio habetur i. xxiiii q.: iii certum (9). Et decepit gratianum quia in iuo canone non accipitur sie nomen anathematis,' set significat separationem a corpore Christi quod est ecclesia ut s. iii q. iiii c. ult. I. c. (no. 9) f. 134v, Bibi. Nat. Par. Cod. lat f. 34. Glossa Palatine i. h. l. v. subiaceat: «... Hie ergo sentit gratianus quod qui clericum verberat non est excommunicatus nisi a sacramentis. Nee obstat quod in illo e. si quis suad, ponitur nomen anathematis, quia anathema idem est quam separatio, xxiiii q. iii cerium. Sed tota ecclesia tenet contrarium, et etiam contra eum est extra de appellalionibus, pervenit (la Comp. 2, 20 c. 15 = X. 2, 28 c. 13). I. c. (no. 8) f. 47 and f The same gloss in Glossa Ordinaria i. h. l. v. ab ingressu ecclesiae, I. c. (no. 16)

22 The earliest development of excommunication latae sentetltiae 295 The contents of this canon were further specified by a whole series of enactments of Popes Alexander Ill, Innocent III and Gregory IX. Women, the aged, invalids, children and monks were exempted from the journey to Rome; their own bishop, oras the case may be, their abbot, could absolve them. (41). The conditions were also laid down which increased or reduced the responsibility for the crime: youth, error, official duty, absence of criminal intention, right of punishment, just command of authority, self-defence (42). The decretists were more inclined to put the papal laws into practice than to prepare the way for them. Besides the already mentioned subjects their comments refer chiefly to the offender, the persons who were protected and the description of the crime itself. Women, even nuns could commit the crime; (43) clerics likewise (44). According to the earliest decretists, children were incapable of it. (45). Under the term offender must also be understood those who had instructed or ordered another to commit the offence, but not those who had only given advice or had shown their approval after the event; this restriction was based on the rule already in force that all criminal laws had to be strictly interpreted (46). f To these glosses may be added the gloss in Clm i. h. 1. and the gloss in Cod. BibI. St. Cenevieve 3'P i. h. 1. v. alienum, f. 66v. Cf. GILLMANN, Ard«, I. k. KR. 92, J912, p. 213 s. (,p) Cf. S. )(UTTNER. Kanonistische Schuldlehre von Gratian bis au] die Dekretalen Gregors I X, Cittä del Vaticano 1935, p. 6<) n. I. (42) Cf. KUTTNER. o. c. p. 69 n. 2. For the commenteries of the decretists and decretalists on these.conditions cf. ibo p , 179 s., 239, and 343 (43) Glossa Palatina in C. 17 q. 4 c. 29 v. si quis. In hoc loco intelligitur si qua, quia masculinum concipit femininum... Nam mulier, etiam rnonialis, incidit in canonem... t I. c. (no. 8) f. 61 and f. 171 v. Cod. BibI. St. Genevieve 342 i. h. 1.: Tarn rnarem quam feminam complectitur, ut H. de verborum obligatiombus (Dig. 45. I) 1. I. Mulieres enim incidunt in hune canonem, ut infra de sententia excommunicationis. mu/ieres (la Comp c. 7 = x c. 6); f. 91. Cf. 3a Comp..5, 2J c. 6 = X. 5, 39, c. 33 (44) Huguccio, Summa i. h. I.: Clericus vel laicus, masculus vel femina t. 1. c. (no. 8) f (45) KUTTNER, o. c. p According to the gloss in Ius naturale i. h. 1. the excommunication ' latae sententiae ' is not applied in impuberc percutiente. (f. 167). whilst the Glossa Palaiina says on the point of absolution: Excipiuntur etiam mulieres. senes, pueri, debiles et qui levem iniuriam vel modicam irrogaverunt... l. c. (no. 43). (46) Cod. BibI. St. Genevieve 342 i. h. 1. v. per se vel per alium:... Hoc idem expresse habetur infra de sententia excommunicationis, mulieres (I. c.)

23 296 Peter Huizing Besides the clergy and monks, the following classes were also protected by the canon: the (c conversi», the numerous men who were intended for extern work, and, although never having received the tonsure or toe monastic habit, were nevertheless by a peculiar religious profession attached to an abbey (47); in the same way the «canonici t, the canons, or perhaps more precisely those who belonged to a canonical chapter, although they had perhaps never personally received any Orders (48); the ccpsalmista», who must have been those who had' only received the tonsure, or possibly one who, even without the tonsure, had been (c blessed. or «consecrated) as a singer (49). AU who had dedicated their lives to the service of a church or a monastery, and who had the right to wear ecclesiastical dress, enjoyed as in fine. Quid autem diccndum de eo qui tantum consilium dedit percutiendi clericum? Respondent quidarn quod idem est de eo quam de ilio qui precepturn dedit, quia si non verbis canonis, tarnen mente canonis excommunicatus est... Set mentis est, quod nemine m interpreternur in canonem ipso facto incidisse nisi hoc a canone habeatur expressum. Set pene potius emollicnde sunt quam exasperandc, ut infra de pen. d. i pene (18) t. Glossa Ordinaria in C. 17 q... C. 22 v. consentiunt: Cooperando, ut extra iii de sent. exc., a nobis et c. nuper (5, 21 cc. 2 and 3 = X. 5, 39 cc. 28 and 29). Sed pone quod aliquis percutit clcricum et ego ratum habeo, numquid sum excommunicatus? Videtur quod sic, quia non solum in contractibus sed etiam in malcfitiis ratihabitio mandato comparatur... Immo et qui pot est resistere et non resistit est excornmunicatus, ut extra alani de sent. exc, quante (4 Comp c. 3. = X c. 47) Resp.: si nomine meo quis percutit c1ericum, ibi ratihabitio mandato comparatur (ms. operatur), aliter non t. I. c. (no. 16) f. 177 v. Huguccio holds only the opinion that the' mandans ' is not bound by the excommunication but must go to Rome: Quid si quis non percutit c1ericum set fadt eum pereuti i, e. iussu eius percutitur, numquid in hune canonem incidit? Et dicunt quidam quod sic; ar. xxii q. vc. i. et d(ceretalis) alexandri mulieres (cf. X c. 6), ubi hec questio determinatur. Et respondent quod ille intelligitur facere cuius precepto et auctoritate fit. Mihi tarnen videtur quod talis ipso iure non sit excommunicatus; dcbent enim verba istius c. sicut dictum est cum effectu accipi. Graviter tarnen peecat. Neque in illa d. mulieres (non) dicitur quod sit excommunicatus, set quod ad curiam romanam sit mittendus, quod forte in detestationcm criminis et terrorem malefactorum dictum est et in pene exasperation cm. I. c. (no. 44). (47) Diet, de Dr. Can. v. Conuers, c. 566 s. (48 Diet. de Dr. Can. v. Chanoines, I, Histoire. For the history of the term canonicus see J. C. Drcxrxsox, The origins of the Austin canons and their introduction into England, London 1950, p. 18, 23 s., 37, 60 s. (49) Cf. ds. 25 c. I. Du CANGE, Glossarium, v. Psalmislatum, Diet. de Dr. Can. v. Chantres. Gl. Pal. 1. c. (no. 43) v. clericum : etiam psalmistam vel conversum: extra eod. tit. 110nest dubium (1 Comp c. 6 = X c.

24 The earliest development of excommunication la/ae sententiae 297 persona ecclesiastica» the protection of the canon (50). But this privilege could be lost, either for good or for a time. It was lost for good if the cleric was dismissed and reduced to lay state; but according to the general opinion he did not lose this privilege if he had only been excommunicated or had been forbidden the practice of his sacred duties, unless he had also fallen away from the faith (51). Anyone who unjustly assaulted another could not claim his rights against him or his family. Neither did the canon protect one who, dressed in lay attire, was not recognisable as a cleric (52). Despite the wording of the canon, which, strictly and literally interpreted is only concerned with violence done by the hands (vio- 5). Set quid de eo qui nullum habet ordinem et tamen corona m portat quia canonicus est? Forte, cum cleric us non sit, incidit in canonem percussor eius.... Cod. St. Gen. 342 I. c.: «per monachum intellige quemlibet deo devotum, quia devoti et monachi in hoc eodem iure eensentur; infra de sent. exc., parochianos (I- Comp c. 14 = X c. 9), ut (t) dubium (/. c.) et supra e. q. quisquis (21). # (50) Huguecio I. c. (no. 44): «monachum vel conversum vel aliam personam ecclesiasticam que ecclesiasticum habitum sumpsit et ecclesie perpetuo se devovit ut s. e. q. quisqusi (21) et in extra non dubium (I. c.). Aliter est de eo qui est in ecclesia conductus vel ad tempus. (51) Ius nat, in C. 17 q. 4 C. 22 V. [orte: «ar. in excommunicatum non committi sacrilegium; pro heretico enim reputatur... Hie tamen canonice iudicatum intelligo depositum, qui privilegio clericali est exutus s. Cod. St. Gen. 3 P in d. 81 C. 8 V. gradu amisso: I ar. contra illos qui dicunt exauctoratum privari sacramento, unde colligitur talem posse verberari sine sacrilegio, quod secus est s. f. 16v. GI. Ordinaria in C. 17 q. 4 C. 22 V. priorum:... quidam tamen ex hoc loco dixerunt quod si quis iniecerit manus violentas in clericum excommunicatum quod non esset excommunicatus, et per id quod legitur xxiii q. V. excommunicatorum (47). Quod non credo. I. c. (no. 16) f (52) Huguccio i. h. 1.:... Sunt tamen viii casus... in quibus illi qui percutiunt clericos non incidunt in canonem istum, vel si incidunt, ideo ad apostolicam sedern non sunt mittendi, qui casus excipiuntur ab alexandro in illa decretali sicut dignum (cf. la Comp C. 7 = X C. 6). Quorum prirnus si quis infra puberes annos clericum percutiat. Secundus est si adultus ex ioco. Tertius est si magister scolarem instinctu discipline vel correctionis. Quartus est si quis in continenti repercutit ciericum vim inferentem. Quintus est si qui percutit clericum quem invenit turpitcr cum uxore vel matre vel sorore vel filia. In his casibus non incidit quis in canonem date sententie t. f. 228 v. According to Ius naturale i. h. 1. protection is not afforded to: apostata: qui negotiasecularia administranda suscepit; qui alienum invadit et repercutitur; qui cum propinqua primi gradus in stupro deprehenditur; depositus; qui clericus esse ignoratur. I. C. (no. 9) f So GI. Pal. I. c. (no. '43).

25 Peter Huizing lcntas manus iniecerit}, the offence embraced all real injuries (53). According to Huguccio, who defends this opinion against the contrary view, the mere attempt which, contrary to the intention of the offender, comes to nothing, is not sufficient to constitute the offence as definied; nevertheless such an attempt is grievously sinful (54). This summary of the explanation of the canon Si quis suadente, to which more details could be added, clearly shows how much the excommunication latae sententiae gives a juridical character to the process of ecclesiastical punishments. Under the old discipline. of penance, the misdeed was regarded simply as a religious or moral matter, and was punished accordingly. In practice' the bishop could in each case decide how an offence should be punished, or whether the sinner must undertake a pilgrimage to Rome. In the case of the crime which involved immediate excommunication, it was clearly required that the criminal should have been guilty of a serious offence in the moral sense, i. e. a mortal sin. Also of the utmost importance was the purely juridical requirement that the offence must be one of those already determined and defined. This consideration naturally increased the need which was felt of defining strictly and accurately similar earlier determined punishments. It is obvious that in this period of the decretists the difference became greater between the religious ideas of sin and penance, and the juridical concepts of the offence as a legal fact and the punishment as a legal consequence. The texts we have quoted clearly indicate the important contribution which the canon Si quis suadenie made towards this development. (53) Huguccio l. c. (no. 52): manus: quid si cake vel alio membro eum ledat? Idem est. Set ideo dicit manus quia potius manibus solemus perentere quam alio membro. Quid si ex odio aqua eum aspergat vel eum permingat vel spuat in faciem eius? Et adhuc credo eum incidere in canonem t. (54) Summa I. c. (no. 52): c iniecerit. Cum effectu. Numquid si quis lapidem iacendo vel gladiurn emittendo vel lanceam vel pilum vel baculum prohiciendo vel manum extendendo percutere clericum moliatur, est sacrilegus vel incidit in hunc eanonem? Et dicunt quidam quod sic, ex quo per eum non steterit quominus eum percuteret et in actum processerit exteriorem, cum pro sola voluntate quis puniatur ; ar. i q. i qui studet (II) et di li si quis post (4). Eadem enim severitate voluntatem et sceleris effectum puniri iura voluerunt ut vi q. i quod I/erum (de. p. c. 21). di I si quis (8) et de pe. di i si cui (30). Ad idem est argurnenturn s. e. q. sicut (12) ex illo verbo insequitur, Set dico quod iste talis revera graviter peccat, set ipso iure non est excomrnunicatus. Hec enim verba iniecerit manus violentas in clericum cum effectu accipi debent. Similiter iliud verbum insequitur s. e. q. sicut qui (12) t.

26 The,earliest development of excommunication latae sententiae 299 The antinomy which existed between the provision of the canon whereby who harmed ecclesiastical persons or property incurred minor excommunication, and the canon Si quis suadente, whereby assaults against clerics were punished with anathema, was solved by Gratian when he reduced the anathema to a minor excommunication. When it became clear that this would not do, the tendency was at first in favour of extending the 41 anathema» to attacks on church property as well. So Rufmus held that those who stole church goods incurred 'ipso facto' major excommunication, which a fortiori applied to those who desecrated a consecrated building (55). Some adopted this view, while others maintained that these desecrators should certainly be excommunicated, but that they were not' ipso facto' excommunicated (56). Huguccio rejected Rufinus' theory (57); these crimes involved only the minor excommunication and that ipso facto (58). (55) See his commentary on C. I1 q. 3. c. 2 where he quotes C. 17 q. 4 c. 5 (p. 314) and c. 4 e. q.: Hi vero sacrilegi duplici poena puniuntur, excommunicationis et pecuniae. Qui enim committunt sacrilegium in res ecc1csiae eo ipso contrahunt excommunicationem. eo quod in proximo c. dicitur anathematizamus, unde patet eos qui in res ecclesiae sacrilegium committunt anathematizatosesse... Eodem modo et qui in ipsa loca ecclesiae sacrilegium committunt poenam sacrilegii contrahunt, quod ex eo conicitur. quia si aliquis excommunicatus habetur quia rem ecclesiae deputatam, licet ipsa non sit sacrata, tarnen sacra, ternerat. multo magis anathematizandus iudicandus qui ipsa loca ecclesiae violat. Et hoc quidem intelligendum est per nova statuta. Nam secundum antiquos canones huiusmodi etiam sacrilegi ipso iure non iudicabantur excomrnunicati, nisi per sententiam episcopi notarentur. Quod videtur ex illis capitulis Quisquis inventus (21). Si quis deinceps (22). De presbvterorum (23) infra e. q. p. 373 s. (56) Summa Tractaturus in C. 17 q. 4 pr.: Pena sacrilegii dupplex est. spiritualis et corporalis. Spiritualis secundum novos canones statim ipso iure irrogatur... secundum antiquos vero per iudicem est inferenda. Sed si in personam fuerit commissum sacrileglum, a solo romano pontifice absolvitur nisi in articulo mortis... si vero in rem vel in ecclesiam. a suo prelato t. I. c. (no. 5) f. 64 v. Sicardus i. h. 1.: Punitur sacrilegus... spiritualiter ut anathernate, ipso iure vel per sententiam. secundum diversorum opiniones t. I. c. (no. 5) f. 94. (57) In C. I I q. 3. c. 107: Quidam dicunt quod sit canon date sententie, et secundum hoc omnes sacrilegi ipso iure sunt excomrnunicati, quod falsum est; ar. xii q. ii indigne (21) et xvii q. iv quisquis (21). Dico ergo quod non est canon date sententie. I. c. (no. 8) f. I8J. (58) In C. 12 q. 2 C. 21: indigne ad altare. 1. e. ad sacramenta altar is suscipienda. quibus sacrilegi ipso iure suspensi sunt, ut xvii q. iv quisquis (21). Set et ab ingressu ecclesiae debet abstinere utpote simplici excommunicatione excommunicatus t f. 188v.

27 3 00 Peter H uizing This did not exclude the possibility of the major excommunication if the criminal after repeated warnings refused to make satisfaction and remained obstinate. (59) The Glossa Ordinaria has two solutions: according to one, the anathema followed ipso facto on the desecration of a church but not on other crimes involving the property of the church; the second proposes that even in the case of desecration of a church the anathema was not incurred ipso facto, but only after a sentence of condemnation had been passed, unless a bishop in consecrating the church had proclaimed a sententia. generalis, whereby all who desecrated the church were excommunicated, or if a bishop or Pope proclaimed a general canon latae sententiae against the desecration of churches, or finally, if this crime was punished according to local custom with an excommunication latae sententiae (60). In the whole of this period the controversy thus remained very confused. (59) Ecce vieit leo C. JI q. 3 c. 1 7:.. eliminamus, Ergo videtur quod sit ille canon date sententie, et sic quod raptores et violatores ecc1esie sint excommunicati ipso facto, quod dixerunt quidam. Set non est verum, immo post trinam admonitionem exeommunicandi sunt maiori sc. excommunicatione. Vel die quod sunt excommunicati minori (ms. maiori) excommunicatione, set non maiori s. J. c. (no. 6) f. 19SV. Ius naturale in C. 17 q... c. 21: sciat se communione esse privatum: sacramentorum ipso iure, a communione fidelium post admonitionem per sententiam t. J. c. (no. 9) f (60) In C. 17 q... c... :... Si in re ecclesie fit sacrilcgium, tunc post trinam admonitionern est excommunicandus, ut infra e. quisquis (21)... t. 1. c. (no. 16) f. 177v. In c. 5 e. q. v. anathematizamus : Videtur hie quod omnes saerilegi et dilapidatores sunt ipso iure exeommunicati ut (ms. et) xi q. iii canonica (107) et extra ii de sent. exc., conquesti ( C. I I = X e. 22). Ar. contra infra e. quisquis (21) et c. sequenti, ubi dicitur quod sunt excommunicandi si non resipiscant. Resp.: violatores ecclesie ipso iure sunt exeommunicati, alii non. Vel dico quod si in conseerationc eeclesie vel eum datur res eeclesie fert episcopus sententiam quod quieumque fecerit violentiam in re tali sit excommunicatus, tune dicerem quod statim esset excommunicatus sacrilegus, non ratione sacrilegii set ratione sententie dudum late, ut xxiv q. i c. j et ii et extra ii de sent. exc., a nobis ( e. 10 = X C. 21). Vel die quod refert an papa vel alter hee verba proferat ius constituendo an sententiando. Si profert ea ius constituendo, tunc non est excommunicatus qui rapit res ecclesie, si autem sententiando profert talia verba tunc est excommunieatus. Vel die quod si consuetudo loci habet quod tales sunt excommunicati, tune ilia servanda est, quia consuetudo est optima interpres iuris t f. Inv.

28 The earliest development of excommunication lalae sententiae Simony. The excommunication for the crime of simony, decreed in canon 3 of the Coun~il of Toledo (653) and adopted in the Decretum Gratiani C. 1 q. 1 C. II and there attributed to Ambrose, was an excommunication latae sententiae, but of a special kind. One who offerred money or anything else in order to receive ordination, was automatically excommunicated without the further interference of any authorities or judge; yet the excommunication did not came into force when the crime was committed, but when it became known (61). At first the decretist did not know how to deal with this. Two things were not clear: did the person who committed simony incur a major or minor excommunication, and at what moment did he incur it? Rufinus declares that the punishment was incurred ipso facto, but seems to consider this as a minor excommunication, as his own words suggest when he says that a person whom one knows to have committed simony or of whom it has been definitely established, is to be regarded as $ interdictus It: _ " Nota simoniacum de iure excommunicatum esse. Undc si constat aliquem simoniacum esse, licet nondum per sententiam sit notatus, tarnen ab cius participatione sicut alicuius interdicti abstinerc debemus It (62). Stephen, it seems, held that the buyer of an ordina-tion incurred ipso facto a major excommunication (63), and this is certainly the (61) '..- quicumque <\einceps pro accipienda divina doni dignitate quodlibet premium detectus fuerit obtulisse, ex eodem tempore se noverit anathematis obprobrio condernpnatus atque a participatione corporis et sanguinis Christi alienurn, ex quo ilium constat execrabile Christo perpetrasse flagitium t_ (6.2) Summa p The same text in j oannes Faventinus. Summa I. c. (no. 7) f. 14 Rufinus classifies this cap. (C. I q. I c. 7) among the cases of anathema latae sententiae: see Summa p In c. 21 e. q. he says again that the simoniac omnibus modis a communione abscidatur t: cf. C. 1I e. q. Thus also a gloss in his Summa which, however, is certainly of a later date:, Feriuntur autem simoniaci quadruplici pena: excommunicatione sc. si contumax... _ p. 200 n. I. (63) Summa i. h. l.: ignitum ergo [errum vocat districtarn excornmunicationis sententiam et deposition is. Et nota quoniam c. istud est datae sententiae, quod patet ex eo verbo condemnaium t. p. 124 s. Strictly interpreted, a depositio latae sententiae ' is here referred to! Fortunately Stephan adds that it is de rigore ', de misericordia' can be dispensed.

29 3 2 Peter Huizing opinion of Sicardus (64). Appealing to the practice of the Church and to the declarations which appeared after the time of Ambrose, Huguccio solves the difficulty by saying that one who had publicly been guilty of simony and after having been warned by the bishop continued to exercise the sacred powers so received, was ipso facto suspended from his office and incurred a minor excommunication, so that he must refrain from saying Mass and the faithful must not be present at a Mass offered up by him: «condempnatum opprobrio anathema/is. Videtur quod ipso iure symoniacus sit anathematizatus; ar. infra e. q. placuit (22), quicumque (12), et quod hoc capitulum sit date s~ntentie quoad (a)nathema, ut mud de verberatione clericorum (ut) xvii q. iv si quis suadenie (29). Set hoc nusquam invenitur nee ecclesia hoc tenet. Itern quare multi can ones etiam post ambrosium dicunt symoniacos esse anathematizandos si ipso iure sunt anathematizati, ut infra e. q. qui studet (n) et q. iii ex multis (9) et q. vii si quis omnem (2)? Dico ergo quod anathema hie dicitur suspensio ab. officio et separatio a corpore et sanguine christi; et est a participatione corporis et sanguinis christi alienum i. e. remotum ipso iure. Et hoc in notorio crimine symonic, non alias, unde subit quo constat per evidentiam facti. Est ergo hoc c. datc sententie contra symoniacos quo ad suspensionem ab officio et separationem a corpore et sanguine christi... Unde gregorius prohibuit audire officium symoniacorum in notorio crimine symonie iacentium, ut xxxii di. uerum (de. p. c. 6). Ergo ex quo aiiquis sacerdos dcprehcnditur esse in notorio crimine symonie debet admoneri ut satisfaciat; si non vult cessare et satisfacere ipso iure, auctoritate ambrosii et gregorii, est suspensus ab officio et separatus a corpore et sanguine christi, et tune quilibet sua auetoritatc potest abstinere ab officio eius. Idem est in notorio crimine fornieationis ut di xxxii verum» (65). (64) Summa in C. I q. 5 and 6: Sunt autem pene symoniacorum aut corporales ut in monasterio ut supra q. i repperiunlur (7) aut opinionis ut supra q. e. uentum est (18) aut spirituales ut ipso facto anathematizati censeantur. Incidunt enim in canonem date sententie ut q. i repperiunlur et spiritualibus donis, maxime symoniace conquisitis, ecclesiastica censura priventur, ut supra q. I si quis (8) t. t, c. (no. 5) f. 77 v. Note that' censura ' has here as yet no technical meaning, and is used quite by chance to denote a vindicative punishment. (65) Summa i. h. I., BibI..Nat. Par. Cod. lat. )892 f. oo v.

30 The earliest development 0/ excommttnicatio1l lalae sententiae 303 I t has since been established that one who had committed simony by «buying. an ordination, only incurred a minor excommunication. The decretists however, wer~ unwilling to concede to Huguccio that this punishment only covered public simony and then only after warning. No doubt Huguccio had the same motive for this solution as he had for that which we shall meet in the punishment of public concubinagc, namely that the faithful should not of their own accord turn themselves away from a priest and his office. Nevertheless the opinion gains ground that a minor excommunication follows even a secret simony, even though this opinion requires a subtle explanation of the text, probably an invention of Laurentius. The gloss to this canon in the apparatus glossarum Ius naturale reads: 4< dam pnaium, Ar. quod symoniacus ipso iure est anathematizatus. Codex ad legen: iuliam maiestaiis c. (!) si quis crimen (9, 8, 1. 3) ar. quod non est verum. Un de expone anathemaus i. e. excomrnunicationis a saeramcntis, a quibus symoniaeus ipso iure est suspensus, sive fuerit occultus sive manifestus; ar. extra de symonia, tanta (la Camp. 5, 2 c. 16 = X. 5, 3 c. 6). Alii dieunt quod non nisi fuerit manifestus et notorius ; ar. hie et xxxii di. uerum (de. p. c. 6). Et hoc dicit hug(uccio) propter illud verbum delectus et propter illud constat. Lau(rentius) tenet primum, et dicit quod iste terminus ex quo non determinat hoc verbum constat, set hoc verbum perpetrasse, ut sic intelligitur (?): ex quo illum perpetrasse, i. e. perpetravit, flagitium execrabile christo, constat nunc ipsum fuisse excommunicaturn _ (66). Then follows from the apparatus of Laurentius: «Et hoc dieo quia postea anathernatizandus est: infra eodem c. et infra c. qui studet (II) et q. iii ex multis (9). Quod est pro quolibet mortali. Set ad detestationem istius dicitur quod generaliter intelli- (66) 1. c. (no. 9) f. 74. Above the words «i. e. excommunicationis a sacramentis s is written: «unde expone: atque perinde est: la t. Cf. the Glossa Pal. i. h. 1.: anathematis : ar. quod ipso iure est anathematizatus symoniacus, Vel anathema dicit separationem a corpore et sanguine Christi, unde subdit atque, i. etc., nam post excommunicandus est ut infra e. qui studet (11) et q. iii ex multis (9). Quod est pro quolibet mortali peccato. Set ad detestationem istius dicitur quod generaliter intelligitur. Vel speciale est in notorio crimine fomicationis et symonie, ut di xxxii verum (dc. p. c. 6) t. This gloss is also in the Cod. Ross. 595, with the omission of nam post... ex multis e ; in the Cod. St. Gen. 342, with the addition: «Set si proprie accipias anathematis, tunc expone condempnatum i. e. condernpnandum. Simile di xlviii sicut (= c. 2?) f. 26. The Glossa Pal. continues: Set bene intelligitur de occulto quod suspcnsus sit ab introitu ecclesie, set de eo tantum qui ordinem emit.

31 Peter H uizing gitur. Vel quod veri us est, speciale est in notorio crimine fornicationis et symonie: xxxii di. & uerum (dc. p. c. 6). Et hoc verum credo secundum h (b?) tam de occulto quam de manifesto, set de eo tantum qui ordinem emit. Et expone litteram constat illum etc. ex quo constat, quasi dicit: ex eo tempore sciat se esse condempnatum, ex quo tempore constat eum perpetrasse etc. la.» (67). In this text we find Laurentius unable to formulate the difference between the minor excommunication which every sinner incurred and the minor excommunication which was prescribed for both simony and concubinage. The problem which arose was quite obviously this: - Why did the Church expressly forbid one guilty of simony or a priest living in concubinage to receive the sacraments or to say Mass when the same was forbidden to all sinners? What was the reason for this special ban? That the «simoniacus ~ was not allowed to enter a church would not have seemed extraordinary to one who held with Bartholomeus that all sinners came under this restriction. The punishment threatened in this canon would seem to be merely that which applied to all sins but which is emphasized here to show the Church's detestation of the sin of simony. A certain distinction could be seen if this special prohibition meant that the ' simoniacus ' and the ' concubinarius ' were forbidden not only from receiving the sacraments but also even entering the church. We find the same line of thought as that of Laurentius in the Glossa Palatina in C. 7 (68) and in C. I q. I c. II v. a communions fidelium: ~ Nam ab alia ipso iure est separatus etiam occultus, quod tenendum est: extra i de symonia, tanta est (1. c.). Dimisit. Ar. expressum contra bar. dicentem quod quilibet per peccatum mortale erat privatus introitu ecclesic ; ar. de pen; d. i qui sanctus sacerdos (66), xxxiii q. iiii vir cum propria (7). Narn dominus solos symoniacos de ecclesie corpore eiecit, relictis aliis peccatoribus, Intellige tarnen hoc de illis qui symoniam committunt in ordine accepto, licet aucto- A statu/is pa/rum: quasi ipso iure, ex genere delicti; ex quo: quasi dicit: ex eo tempore sciat ipsum se ex quo tempore constat vobis etc.; ar. Codex ad legem iuliam maiestatis, quisquis ( ) usque donationes ( 4) etc. Et ita iiiud ex quo dcterminat verbum perpetrasse, ct secundum hoc irrtellecturn. etiam occultus suspensus est. Si autem determinat constat, ergo ex quo constahat eum symoniacum, tunc demum erit suspensus. Hoc ultimum dicit martinus hyspanus. I. c. (no. 8) f. 24 and f. 71. (67) I. c. (68) See no. 66.

32 TABVLA XXI fi t1 I ". t DECRETVM GRATIANI CA\'SA T1UGESIMA De cognatione spirituali et de nuptiis clandcstini Ouidam populorum Irequentia impcditus suum filium de baptismatc susccpit '''' Senis, Bibl. publ. e degli Intronati e, Cod. 1<, I. 3, (0, 27Sr

33

34 The earliest developmmt of excommunication latae se"telltiae ritas generaliter loqui videbatur. Unde dico cum b. et m. quod nee talis symoniacus nee publicus fornicator debet ecclesiam ante penitentiam intrare It (69). It apparently makes little difference for the author that the sinner is forbidden ante penitentiam to go to communion, and that the buyer of an ordination is forbidden ante penitentiam to enter a church, or rather, he is unable to formulate clearly the difference which he perceives. The first to indicate clearly the dividing line in this special case was, it seems, Johannes Teutonicus. In his Glossa Ordinaria he notes, in c. 7: (j anaihemaiis. Ar. quod ipso iure sit anathematizatus symoniacus c1ericus... Vel dicit anathema separationem a corpore et sanguine, unde subdit a/que i. e. etc.; nam postea excommunicandus est, infra ead. qui studet (11) et q. iii ex multis (9). Quod est pro quolibet mortali peccato. Set ad detestationem ipsius dicitur quod generaliter intelligitur. Hoc tarnen speciale est in notorio crimine fornicationis et symonie quod suspensi sunt, ut di. xxxii verum (1. c.). Set ar. tarnen est guod symoniacus non sit ipso iure suspensus extra ii e. ex tempore (!). Dicas ergo, quod ornnis peccator occultus suspensus est quoad seipsum, ut infra e. sacerdotes (90), set symoniacus suspensus est quoad seipsum et alios, ut extra i de symonia, tanta (1. c.). Et hoc verum est de illo qui emit ordinem. Talis enim pcnitere non potest, cum rem furtivam habeat s (70). This is the crux of the matter. Every priest who has committed a mortal sin, is in conscience suspended, i. e. he must abstain from celebrating mass etc., but he who is guilty of simony is also suspended in relation to others, i. e. others have a right that he should not celebrate mass, and can legally object to his doing so. The moral obligation of abstaining from celebrating mass and the loss of the right to do so in the community of the Church are here distinct in principle. I t is curious to see how long it took before this view came to be ac-. cepted in this particular case, while the general distinction between excommunication as a matter of conscience and as an ecclesiastical penalty had been commonly held at least as early as the time of Stephan. (69) I. c. (no. 66). (70) I. c. (no. 16) f StIldia Cratiana. Vol. III

35 306 Peter Huizing 5. Priest Living in concubinagc. The Council of Rome, which was held under Pope Nicholas II in 1059, had laid down in canon 3, that. anyone who knew with certainty that a priest had a concubine must no longer attend his mass. Four years later under Alexander II this regulation was confirmed (7I). As Gratian points out, it was the intention of this canon that his being shunned by the faithful should help the priest to come more quickly to repentance (72). But how was this to be reconciled with the fact that the laity are not to be judges of priests, but are to leave this judgement to the bishop (73); or that one has not the right to refuse the sacraments from a priest of whose way of life one disapproves, as though his sacraments were therefore less holy (74)? Gratian himself' says elsewhere that the sacraments can be received from any priests so long as he is tolerated by the Church (75). This problem also was only gradually.brought to a conclusive juridical solution. While some of the decretists adopted the opinion of Rufinus and maintained that the faithful were not allowed to deprive themselves of the ministrations of a priest who lived in secret concubinage of which only few were aware, but were allowed to do so if the situation became common knowledge (76), there were others who said that the intervention and judgement of the bishop were required before they might do so (77). According to Rufinus, therefore, and his followers there is a case here of a capitulum latae sententiae; according to their opponents it is one of ferendae sententiae. Johan- (71) ds. 32 C. 5: Nullus missam audiat presbiteri, quem seit concubinam indubitanter habere... t. (72) ds. 32 de. p. e (73) ds. 28 c. 17 (74) C. I q. I C. 84. (75) C. J5 q. 8. e. 5. (76) Summa in ds. 32 e. 5 p. 73. (77) Cf. Stephanus. Summa i. h. I.:... quidam... dicunt canon em istum esse dandae sententiae, quasi quo insinuetur quid fieri debeat si detur sententia in eum. Nam antequam procedat sententia ex dando canone non est eavendum ab huiusmodi, qui usquequo ab ecclesia tolerantur, praetextu criminis eorum officium subterfugere non licet, ut infra 3 q. 7 ult. (de. p. c. 7) t. p. 48. Thus Cod. Trev. 906 i. b. 1. v. indubitanter: I. e. per sententiam in eum ordine iudiciario lata m a prelato suo. Etsi enim alias crimen sit publicum, reputatur tamen occultum quousque ordine iudiciario fuerit publicatum, sicut et

36 The earliest development of excommunication la/ae senten/iae 307 nes Faventinus seems to have been the first who expressly laid down that the priest who openly lived in concubinage ipso facto incurred the ecclesiastical punishment of suspension. Whence it followed automatically that no one, not even a bishop, might be present at his mass (78). Huguccio associated himself with Johannes, and held that the priest who openly lived in concubinage was ipso facto suspended, but he seems to have considered that the priest did not incur the penalty unless he remained obstinate after he had been warned by the bishop. In this opinion he was perhaps influenced by Gandulphus, although the warning served not to make the penalty possible but to render the offence public: (I Ex quibus omnibus contrariis colligitur quod ante sententiam nul- Ius debet abstinere a sacramentis vel offitiis presbiterorum. Ad hoc dicunt quidam, quod nee in hoc casu aliter debet esse, se. nullus debet abstinere a missa taiis donee condempnatus sit per sententiam. Et isti exponunt indubiianter i. e. per sententiam ordine iudiciario probatam a suo iudice. Set pot ius dicendum quod ilia capitula intelliguntur de tolleratis ab ecclesia vel canone, ac de criminibus aliis ac fornicatione sive simonia occult is sive manifestis, vel de occult a crimine fornicationis, aut sola infamia respargitur, quo casu locuntur ilia capitula di xxviii consulendum (27) et xv q. ult. c. ult. Hec autem capitula specialiter locuntur de crimine fornication is notorio et cum publice vel generaliter omnes dicunt et sciunt presbiterum detinere fornicariam, nee ipse infitiatur ore vel saltem facto, cum filios habeat ex ea et in una domo et camera. et in uno lecto cum ea habitet et iaceat. Secundum hoc inducitur indubitanier, i. e. 'sine dubitatione, ita se. quod crimen iudex, quam vis crimen aliter noverit, inscius tarnen reputabitur quousque testibus reus convincatur legitimis, ut infra xi q. iii quamuis (75) et c. eorum qui (76) f. 81. ]UNCKER. Summen und Glossen, in: Z. Sau. Kan. Abt. Lt, 1925, p. 444 n. 7.. The Summa Lipsiensis says: tg(andulius) (dicit): dande sententie est. quia debet precedere ammonitio... juncker. 1. c. (78) Cod. Trev c.: «Vel secundum io(annem) canon iste sententiam suspensionis inducat (!), et ille infra di lxxxi si qui presbiteri (IS). Iste quoque date sententie est et non dande, quod patet ex eo quod dicitur infra proximo c. precipimus et omnino contradicimus ut missan non cantet etc. Nichilominus et iiie date sententie esse convincitur ex verbo illo inte,dicimus etc. (ds. 18 c. IS). Constans est ergo, ncminem eius missam audire debere quem seit indubitanter concubinam habere, i. e. qui palam sibi aliquam copulaverit ut j. pr. c., cum tempore ipso iure ab omni sacerdotalis officii executione sit suspensus, quippe cum nee ab episcopo suspensi debeat officium audiri... io JUNCKER, I. C.

37 308 Peter Huizing sit notorium, quo casu sacerdos ipso iure suspcnsus est ab offitio auctoritate nicholai et alexandri et gregorii, ut d. lxxxi si qui presbiteri (IS). Et ideo quilibet tune sua auctoritate potest cessare ab offitio talis tamquam suspensi, etiamsi episcopus toleret eum. Set distinguendum est; cum enim taiis sacerdos debet arnoneri ut cesset, si cessat non est abstinendum ab offitio eius, si vera admonitus Iuerit pertinax et elegit perseverare et iacere in tali crimine, statim ipso iure est suspensus a papa, se. nichoiao, alexandro et gregorio, sicut sunt anathematizati ipso iure qui verberant clericos. Quo casu quilibet sua auctoritate potest abstinere ab offitio eius tamquam suspensi ab episcopo, multo minus debet aiidire offitium suspensi a papa... De aliis cri minibus notoriis non est expressum in eanone et ideo pro aliis non est abstinendum ab aliquo, quousque ab ecclesia tolleratur» (79).. The solution here is clear. The order to the faithful to boycott the priest is a punishment incurred 'ipso facto' for a well defined offence, namely, that of public concubinage. The punishment meant that the priest could no longer exercise his ministry while the faithful were no longer allowed to accept his ministrations. The canon contains, therefore, a suspension or a minor excommunication" latae sententiae.. If Huguccio demanded warning by a bishop, the Summa Reginensis was more consistent in abandoning this requirement, because a bishop was not free to tolerate anyone who was already condemned by the law: «Hoc cap. (ds. 81 c. IS) et ilia superiora di xxxii nullus (5), preter hoc (6) sunt late sententie. Unde si talis prelatus repertus fuerit, subditi sui sua auctoritate possunt se a communione illorum removere, et debent, non expectata sententia alia, nee possunt tales in ecclesia tollerari, cum iam per sententiam canon is intelliguntur remoti. Iniroitum. Ar. quod clerici criminosi privandi sunt introitu ecclesie; si tarnen non sunt excommunicati, aut ipso iure ut isti per sententiam nominati, non sic. Peccatum paganitatis. 1. e. simile illi. Alia ergo capitula, que dicunt non esse recedendum ab obedientia sui prelati quantumcumque criminosi ante sententiam, locuntur quando (79) Summa i. h. l., I. c. (no. 65) f. 37. The gloss, given by juncker.l. c. P"444 in Cod. Berol, lat. 96 (Phillips 1742) f. 23 v and Cod. Haenel 18, f. 24 v, makes a distinction between the case, in which the offence is notorium vel pcne notorium " and that, in which it is simpliciter manifestum ',

38 The earliest development 0/ excommunication latae sententiae 309 non incidit in canonem late sententie, puta si non ita publice habent fornicariam suam, i. e. ut aliquo modo possit de eius excessu dissimulari, aut alias ipso iure non sit excornmunicatus i (80). 6. Lay Investiture. The Glossa Palatina maintains that C. 16 q. 7 C. 12 was a canon latae sententiae. In this canon Gregory VII institutes sanctions in support of the ban on lay investiture, by denying «gratiam B. Petri et introitum ecclesie & to the cleric who accepts an ecclesiastical dignity from a lay person, as well as to the lay person who gives it. The suspension or minor excommunication (the words are used here also synonymously) is incurred 'ipso facto': «Lnierdicimus. Exponunt quidam interdicimus i. e. interdicendum dicimus. Non enim concedunt istos adhuc suspensos esse. Sed tu die prout sonat verbum, cum enim ipso iure isti suspensi sunt ab introitu ecclesie, tarn dans quam accipiens. Sed videtur contra extra i de lure patronatus, preterea (3, 3 e. 5 = X. 3, 38 c. 4), ubi dicitur quod tales debent excommunicari. Sed illud dicitur maiori excommunicatione, minori enim ipso iure sunt excommunicati. Reges ergo et qui accipiunt ab eis investituram ecc1esiarum suspensos die ipso iure, nee tali prelato tenetur quis obedire; infra e. sane (IS)... Et hee omnia capitula de illis intelligas qui dant tamquam prelati et de illis qui accipiunt tamquam prelati; in eo casu ipso iure suspenduntur. Ar. supra q. i (ms. e. q.) quoniam (68), extra de iure patronatus, cum pastorali (3, 33 c. 13 = X. 3, 38 c. II) (81). (80) I. c. (no. 8) f. 15. Thus also the gloss in Bibl, Nat. Par. Cod.lat A in ds. 81 c. 15: «Nota quod hoc c. et ilia d. xxxii 1II'//us (5), preter (6) sunt date sententie, suspension is sc., et ideo si presbiteri tales repcriuntur subditi sua auctoritate possunt se retrahere ab eorum officio, non expectata alia scntentia, licet episcopus tales toleret. Sunt enim suspensi a domino papa ipso iure, sicut excommunicati sunt ipso iure qui verberant c1ericos... Infra i q. i multi (84) contra, ii q. i multi (18) contra, xv q. ult. c. ult. contra, viii q. iiii nonne (c. un.) contra. supra d. xxviii c. ult. contra. Hec omnia contraria 10- quuntur in eo casu quando prelatus non est excommunicatus vel suspensus per sententiam vel ipso iure, puta cum prelatus infamatur set non est eius crimen notorium, hoc vera c. loquitur de eo qui est suspensus ipso iure, a quo potest quilibet recede re t f. 41. (81)'I. c. (no, 8) f. 60 and f, 168.

39 3IO Peter Huizing II Excommunication la/a sub conditione. When Pope Gregory I learned that, without his knowledge, Maximus had been consecrated Bishop of Salona, he forbade him to say mass «sub excommunicationis interpositione I). Maximus ignored this prohibition, and the Pope made the accusation «quod excornmunicatus missas facere praesurnpsit s (82). There is here no question of a general law, the infringment of which brings about an excommunication, but of a particular order given to a certain individual under threat of excommunication. In such a case the legal authority issued a sentence of excommunication which immediately came into force when the order was disobeyed, without further action on the part of the authority. On this cap. Simon de Bisiniano makes the following observations: «Quod ei sub excommunicationis inierpositione mandamus. Ita dicens: sub pena excommunication is precipio tibi ne missam cantes. Unde cum sic prelatus aliquid subditis precipit vel prohibet, non statim, set cum illud postea faciunt sunt excommunicati. Unde et hune papa hie excommunicatum vocat» (83) It is also possible that the Pope or a Bishop might give an order with the threat that an excommunication would be given if the order were disobeyed. Here also a juridical criterion is required to determine what form the threat of punishment should have in order to came into force immediately the offence is committed. In other words, what form of order contains a conditional excommunication, a sentence which is suspended until the requisite condition, viz., the. disobeying of the order, becomes a fact. The decretists all agree that the formula: «excommunico te si hoc feceris,.has this effect, and it is also clear that the term: (j excornmunicabo te si hoc feceris,. does not. They do not agree over the formula used by Gregorius, and equivalents such as: «praecipio tibi sub poena excornmunicationis s. Huguccio declares apodictically that he and the Church teach that it is a conditional excommunication: «Sub excommunicationis interpositione. 1. e. pena in hune modum:«sub pena exeommunicationis precipio tibi ut non cantes missam t. Vel sub excommunicaiionis interpositione i. e. interponendo excommunicationem conditionaliter in hunc modum: «excommunico (82) ds. 63 c. 24. (83) Summa i. h. 1., I. c. (no. 25) f. 6ov.

40 The earliest development 01 excommunication latae sententiae 3II te si cantaveris missam I). Et tali modo credo fuisse excommunicaturn sub condicione. Et idem est sensus sive hec forma excommunicationis servetur sive ilia. Et in neutra incurritur anathema ante: 'quam fiat prohibitum. Set quam cito quis facit quod prohibitum est, statim inicitur anathema. Unde gregorius appellat istum excornmunicatum, quia post talern intimation em missam cantavit. De prima forma habes infra c. obeuntibus (35) et x q. i sanctorum patrum (14), de secunda infra xvii q. iv si quis suadenie (29). Quidam tarnen dicunt quod sub prima forma non excommunicatur quis cum facit illud, set' postea debet excommunicari. Set ecclesia tenet ut dixi. Si verum per futurum dicatur: «excommunicabo te si hoc vel illud feceris I), et tu fades quod prohibitum est, non incurris anathema quousque postea nominatim fiat s (84). The opinion of Huguccio was far from generally accepted. According to Laurentius, the.meaning of the formula in question depended on the intention of the authority: viz., whether it was intended to excommunicate or only to issue a prohibition: «Laurentius dicit quod ubi aliquis ita dicit 1);«prohibeo tibi sub pena excommunicationis ne hoc facias s, si intendat excommunicare excommunicat, si tantum intendit prohibere non. Nee est contra extra de iure patronatus, relatum (la Comp. 3, 33 c. 27 = X. 3, 38 c. 21) ad hoc, quia ibi intendebat tantum prohibere. Vel expone: excommunicationi subdatis i. e. excommunicatos denuncietis s (85). This solution is likewise inconclusive. The Glossa Ordinaria makes three suggestions. The first suggestion which has been ascribed to Huguccio, but which is clearly in contradiction to the passage which has just been cited from his summa, makes a distinction between the appearance of the formula sub poena excommunicationis in a particular. order or in a general law ; in the first case the excomunication comes into force atthe moment of the infringment, but not in the second case, as a law had to be more benevolently interpreted than' an order to an individual. I have not met this opinion elsewhere in Huguccio's summa, but it does appear in an anonymous gloss on the text from (84) Summa i. h. 1.. BibI. Nat. Par. Cod. lat f f. 77~. The Code of Bibl, St. Genevieve 342 f. IO~ gives a summary of this text: the same gloss is found in the Bibl, Apost. Vat. Cod. Ross where after the words «postea nominatim fiat. follows: «Quidam vero dicunt quod iste sollempniter fuit excommunicatus si hoc fecerat ita se. «excommunicamus eum si hoc fecerit e, et erat diffinitiva sententia f. 63. (85) I. c. (no. 26) f. '50'

41 312 Peter Huizing Laurentius quoted above (86), and another gloss written in the same manuscript by d. 63 c. 34 attributes the opinion to Laurentius (87). The second suggestion proposes this criterion: if the authority intends by this formula to pronounce a definite sentence, then there is a conditional excommunication; but if it only intended to declare what is right, then there is not. In practice it all rests on the distintion which Laurcntius made between a sentence and an order. Johannes Teutonicus says that in this case the excommunication automatically comes into effect, as soon as the breach of the law OT of the order becomes a fact: Excommunicationis. Et hoc videtur quod per talia verba fiat excommunicatio, cum sic dicitur: precipio tibi hoc sub pena excommunicationis &. Et ar. ad idem extra de eo qui ordinem furtive recepit (5, 25) c. i (= x. 5, 30 c. 1); ar. extra i de iure tjatronatus, relalum (1. c.) in fine, et de sagittariis c. un. (5, 19 c. un. = X. 5, IS c. un.). H. dicit quod si talis prohibitio fiat a canone, non fit excommunicatio per ilia verba, ut xxx di. per totum, secus si ab homine, quia canon mitius agit quam homo. Alii dieunt: differt an diffiniendo illa verba proferantur, ut tune per ea fiat excommunicatio, an constituendo ius, ut tunc non fiat excommunicatio per ilia verba. Set hee veritas est quod ilia verba non habent vim sententie, set tantum comminationis, ut Codex comminationes epistulas (7, 57) per totum. Hoc autcm seias quod sub conditione apotest quis excommunicari, et taliter intelligo hie latam sententiam; unde existente conditione ligat excommunicatio et non prius a. (88). The examples which are given for an excommunication sub conditione are for the most part not threats of punishment in orders to indivi- (86) Sic cum aliquis facit contra contractum committit in penam... Et hoc intellige de prohibitione facta ab homine. Ubi autem fit a iure, necessaria est sententia.nisi sit late sententie. Set quomodo scietur quod sit late sententic? Per verba ibi posita sicut hie (?). et colligitur per verba illius c. si quis suadenie (29)... (87) Sub anathematis. Ecce forma exeommunicationis.x q. i sanctorum (li)' Et ideo qui eontravenit in excommunicationem incidit; s. e. salonitane (24). Et ita videtur canon date sententie. Potest tarnen exponi anatbematis dati, non dandi (I). Secundum lau (rentium) ubi ita Iertur a iure, contraveniens non excommunicatus (est). set excornmunicandus, secus ubi fertur ab homine, ut dixi supra e. salonilana( 1 c. 24) f. 5 I. (88) I. c. (no. J6) f. 49. a - a is missing and is put in from BibI. Nat. Par. Cod. lat. J4317 f. SI.

42 The earliest development of excommunt'cation lalae sententiae duals, as in d. 63 c. 24, but in general decrees. (89) Thus far the excommunication sub conditione and the excommunication latae sententiae coincide, except that in the second case the stress is laid more on the passive aspect of the punishment, on the delinquent, who through his offence was simply cut off from the society of the Church, while the excommunication sub conditione lays more stress on the active side, the act of the authority which in its effect is bound up with a certain condition. It was from this idea that the problem arose (a typical example of the extremely realistic mentality of those times) how, namely it was possible that the sentence, the act of a Pope or Bishop which excluded someone from the Church, should only afterwards, perhaps a long time afterwards, come into force. Bound. up with this question there is also the problem of the relation between the binding power of the law and the personal authority of the lawgiver. Also, the excommunication which was' incurred by the delinquent at the moment he committed the offence was taken to be the effect of a sentence issued by the authorities. We have already seen the distinction made between the authority which decided the law and that which passed a sentence; the conditional excommunication, as for example the canon Si quis suadente, is considered as a sentence more than as a law. Huguccio puts the question thus: «Excommunicatio enim dicitur actio que est in excommunicante, et excommunicatio dicitur passio que infertur iui qui excommunicatur. Et sepe contingit quod illa actio est in aliquo et tarnen nulla (est) passie ex illa actione infertur tunc, set per conditionem suspenditur illa actio. Postea existence conditione infertum (actio) passio ex illa actione que iam non est, set quantum ad illationem passion is intelligitur tunc esse et illam passion em inferre... Est ergo sensus: iste excommunicat i. e. actum proferendi excommunicationem exercet, set nullus excommunicatur ab eo, i. e. nullus obligatur ab eo vinculo excommunication is, set postea existente conditione ligatur ab eo... Huiusmodi tarnen questio potius videtur dialectica quam decretalis. (90). (89) Thus, for example, it is clear from the Ius naturale: c... sub conditione recte fertur sententia excommunicationis, ut xvii q. iv si quis suadenie (29) t. 1. c. (no. 9) f (90) Summa i. h. 1.; I. c. (no. 84) f. 73 and 77 v. Cf. Ecce uicit leo i. h. 1.: Set posset queri quando cxcommunicat iiie qui dicit: ego excommunico te si hoc Ieceris t. Potest did quod in prolatione istorum verborum (.i.) actum

43 3 1 4 Peter Huizing When we follow this line of thought it is obvious that doubt still existed as to whether the excommunication only had effect from the time of the offence or whether, once the offence had taken place, the excommunication was regarded as having been in force from the time when the sentence was imposed. The texts which have been quoted seem to suppose the first opinion. Johannes Teutonicus asks, without suggesting any answer: «Utrum autem conditione existente intelligatur retro fuisse excommunicatum per id quod legitur ff qui potiores in pignore, potiores (Dig. a, 4, II) et ff. de manumissis testamento, neraticus (40, 4Z), vel tantum de tempore conditionis extantis per id quod est ff de edilicio edicto, bovem si sub conditione (ZI, 1,43, g), disputationi relinquo» (gi). The most acute case of the separation of the sentence and the actual incurring of the penalty occurs when the person who imposed the sentence is already dead when the offence takes place. One has no hesitation in declaring that in such a case the offender is excommunicated by no one, or by a dead person (g2). Only the author of the apparatus Ecce vicit leo appears to consider the distinction between «praeceptum s and «lex», which was later introduced into this matter. The question as to whether a threatened excommunication is still effective after the death of the bishop by whom it was made is not directly answered, but it is established that a bishop could in any case promulgate a law which had the sanction of excommunication latae sententiae: excommunicandi exercet. Set nemini infert aliquam passionem {nisi inferetur passio} nisi existente conditione. Set conditione extante erit excommunicatus. Et est simile extra (i) de condicionibus appositis, super eo (4. 5. c. 4 = X e. 5), ubi dieitur quod dicat ita aliquis: _consencio in te si pater meus voluerit s non est matrimonium (? ms. &,) non tarnen est ad rl'l, quantum ad effectum vel exequtionem; H. de donationibus inter virum et uxorem, cum hie status, siue (24. I ). Item quid iuris (?) cum dicitur: e excommuuico te si appellaveris s? Reservetur deputationi (!) t. l. c. (no. 6) f (91) Bibl. Nat. Par. Cod. lat i: 51. (92) Ius naturale: sset queritur a quo tunc excommunicatur. Videtur quod non ab eo qui tulit sententiam, quoniam forte ipse dormit vel mortuus est. Et est verum quod a nullo tunc exeommunicatur,' exeommunicationem.tamen incurrit t. l. c. (no. 9) f. 50. In the same folio there is this gloss on the word iticidit: «et potest dici quod a mortuo excommunicatur... t. Glossa Ordinaria I. c. (no. 91): «Set quid si exeommunicans moritur priusquam extat conditio? Et ita aliquis excommunicatur a mortuo.

44 The earliest developme11t 01 excommunication latae smtentiae 3IS 4< Set quid si excommunicat (viz. the bishop) sub conditione, sic: «si quis hoc fecerit excomrnunicamus eum s et post moritur, et aliquis facit prohibitum, estne excommunicatus? Verum quod episcopus in suo episcopatu pot est condere canonerniate sententie - (93) The 28th canon of the second Lateran Council (II39) quoted by Gratian in d. 63 c. 35, is drawn up in the same terms as those which pope Gregorius had used (d. 63 c. 24) in reference to the threat of excommunication: «sub anathemate interdicimus, ne canonici de sede episcopali ab electione episcoporum excludant religiosos viros... t. Hence this excommunication was also regarded as an excommunicatio sub conditione, or as an excommunicatio latae sententiae (94). The gloss in the apparatus Ecce vicit leo, which differs on this point, nevertheless admits that the letter of the law, especially that of the excommunication formula, must, considered in itself, be so understood (95) III Excommunication by a General Sentence. Besides the two forms of excommunication which come into existence after the crime has been committed, viz. the excommunication datae sententiae and the conditional excommunication, there is also a third excommunication which can have the same effect, that by a general sentence. What is the basis of this form, and what is the connection with the other two?. The first description which I found, by Rolandus, contrasts the general sentence with one in which a person mentioned by name is condemned. A sentence «by name _ specifies the person in question, either directly or indirectly, one knows who he is: a general sentence' does not specify the person in question who remains unknown, but (93) In C. IJ q. 3 c. 40, 1. c. (no. 6) f (94) BibI. St. Genevieve Cod. 342 i. h. 1.: A nathematis. Nota: qui non vocant religiosos viros hoc ipso sunt anathematizati; supra e. salonitane (24) f. 1I'll. The same gloss in Bibl. Nat. Par. Cod. tat Bi. h. l., f. 43 v; Glossa Ordinaria i. h. 1., I. c. (no. 91) f. 52 V. (95) Sub anathematis vinculo interdicimus : ergo vicletur hie canon ~ate sententie; sub tali forma excommunicatur, ut supra e. di.: salonilane (24) Et hoc concedunt quidam, et ita excommunicati sunt, qui ab electione religiosos repeuunt. Melius est ut dicatur quod non sit late sententie, quamvis videatur secundum formam verborum, quia non ubicumque est forma excommunicandi est excommunicatio, ut xxx (i) di c. i et ii et iii. 1. c. (no. 6) f. 106.,.

45 316 Peter Huizing is condemned if, for instance he should be guilty of murder or theft: «cum nee nomina excommunicatorum nee quod vicem nominum obtineat in medio proponitur, sicut cum homicidae, rapinaevel similium auctor generaliter vinculo anathematis innodetur. Item excommunicatorum quidam sunt excommunicati ipso iure, quidam per sententiam,. (96). -There are two distinctions to be found in Rolandus. One is between a person condemned by the law and a person condemned by being sentenced. The other is that between one who is condemned by name or one who is condemned in general terms. Quite clearly Rolandus implies when using the term general excommunication, the case when an offence has taken place but the criminal is not known; the authorities of the Church then issued a sentence of excommunication on the offender without being able to mention his name; in this case a heavy pressure was placed on his conscience to declare himself openly. Rolandus thus makes the following division: excommuni eatio ipso iure - excommunicatio per sententiam; the latter is subdivided in excommunicatio nominatim - excommunicatio generalis. A general excommunication could also mean an excommunication which was issued at regular times by diocesan synods and provincial councils against certain sorts of offences and delinquents. These did not apply so much to crimes already committed but rather to future ones. Such a sentence was not so much an act of legislation but rather one of jurisdiction and condemnation issued in a solemn form (97). The effects of these sentences and of a canon datae sententiae were identical. (96) Summa in C. 26 q. I. The same text in the summa IQlloniam status ecclesiarum f. 65 and the summa Cum in tres partes I. c. (no. 21) t. 71. Cf. Rufinus, Summa in C. II q. 3:... alii nominatim. alii generaliter sunt anathematizati,. p (97) Cf. f. e. Stephanus in C. I q. I C. J: Quae de exauctoratis et excornmunicatis diximus, intelligimus etiam de simoniacis illis et haereticis, qui per generalern sententiam in synodo vel concilio promulgatam cum haeresi sua damnati sunt t. p Cf. also, the gloss in the Summa of Stephen where it is stated that 'no one shall be excommunicated without the ordinary trial except those who are excommunicated' generally': in C. 2 pr. p. 158 D. 2. Council of Londen (1200) c. 7: Singulis annis in genere solemniter excommunicentur sortiarii, periuri super sacramenta, incendiarii, lures, atrociores raptores t. HARDUIN, VI Cf. HINSCHlUS, 1. c. (no. I) p

46 The earliest development ot excommunication latae sententiae 317 The Summa Coloniensis contrasts the general excommunication which was imposed for a secret offence with the personal excommunication with which a public offence was punished (98). Here. personal. is synonomous with «( nominatim s as was discovered by Ro- Iandus. The judgement of an unknown criminal can be termed' general' because it applies to the criminal whoever he may be (99). For example, when a theft has been committed in a church, the parish priest can excommunicate the culprit in general terms if he is not known by name. He could do this even if he were aware of the identity of the offender through confessional knowledge, if those interested were to insist that he should do so (100). The excommunication by a general sentence would seem therefore to have two meanings, (a) a sentence imposed on a person unknown who has already committed a crime or (b) a sentence to be imposed on those who in the future shall perpetrate a specific crime (101). The alternative (b) is almost identical with an excommunication' datae sententiae '. An allied problem which racked the brains of the decretists, arose out of the fact that their code of law, the Decree, not only contained regulations which applied generally (what we would call laws) but also a whole series of decisions which had been given in particular cases. The question could therefore arise, whether any verdict or (98) Cum sit excommunicatio generalis et personalis. i. e. pro occulto crimine et manifesta temeritate... t BibI. Kat. Par. Cod. lat f. 86. (99) Huguccio gives an example of this sentence: Summa in C. 5 q. I c. 2:.Quidam conseripsit famosum libcllum contra notarium gregorii, unde gregorius admonet eum ut exeat et probet quod dixit vel saltem confiteatur'delictum suum. Quia non fecit exeommunicat eum simplici exeommunicatione. Set si nee sic exit set in contumacia perseverat ponit eum sub anathemate... t I. c. (no. 84) f. 129V and f. J59 (roo) Huguccio I. c. continues: Tali modo excommunicantur fures cum constant de furtis et non de furibus, etiam si fures sint secreto confessi sacerdoti set nolunt satisfacere; tunc enim sncerdos potest eos excommunicare, tacitis tamen nominibus eorum, set ponit equipollentiam propiorum nominum ut in extra si sacerdos (cf. X. I. 3I. c. 2) t. BibI. St. Genevieve Cod. 342 i. h. I.: Itern si quis sacerdoti fuerit confessus se furtum vel aliud comisisse et nolit satisfacere, et alius instet saeerdoti ut eum excommunicet, debet eum excommunicare proprio nomine non expresso, ut in c. alexandri tertii si sacerdos» f..52 V. (101) Cf. Summa Coloniensis: Item excommunicatur alius ex nomine, alius ex crimine, cum vel id agit unde sententia indefinite profcrtur vel cum id agit unde in canoncm date sententie incidit t. I. c. (no. 98) f. 84.

47 Peter H ~izing decision had only to be applied to a special case, or had in the future to be considered as law; the difference between a particular decision and the law was not yet formally laid down. It was the same in the case of the decision which embraced a sentence of excommunication; it could at the same time be a future law. In the sententia generalis we have already become accustomed to a sentence which applied for the future. Huguccio feels that the verdict is only of force for the present and not for the future, when the Pope says: ~ I excommunicate Engeltruda and all who associate themselves with her s; but he can also mean a law according to which the heresy of Sabellius is punished with an excommunication latae sententiae, if he says: We excommunicate Sabellius and all his followers ~ (I02). As such, both formulas are exactly similar. Others therefore argue with as much or as little right that the first formula could also apply to the future (I03). * The introduction of an excommunication C latae sententiae " the sententia generalis' and C sub conditione prolata ' was a great innovation in a rule of the Church's penal code which was universally ac- (102) Summa in C. 1r q. 3 C. 102: Set ecce sie fit cxcommunicatio: Excommunico engeltrudam et omnes fautores vel (ex)communicatores eius t; cornprehenduntur tunc presentes an et futuri (ex)communicatores? Credo quod tantum presentes, nisi plus in verbis eprimatur. Si tarnen papa veilet (ms. valet) statucre canoncm date sententie et sententia anathematis heresim vel aliud factum condempnare et dicere: excommunicarnus heresim sabellii vel sabellium et omnes sequaces eius vel Iautores s, satis crederem ibi comprehendi non tantum presentes set etiam futuros sequaces, ut xvii q. iv si quis suadenie (29) et xxiiii q. i c. i et ii. 1. c. (no. 8) f Cf. Rufinus in C. 3 q. 4 c. 7: omnes quos... lam preteritis quam [uturis temporibus : preteritis ut.anathematizamus omnes qui sic et sic feceruntt; futuris ut. anathematizamus omnes qui hoc vel illud facturi sunt t. p (103) Ius naturale in C. II q. 3 C. 102 v. communicatoribus: qui nominatim fuerunt excommunicati si ita dictum est: excommunico engeltrudam et quicumque ei communicaverit excommunicatus sit s: ar. inst. de exheredatione libtrorum. masculos ( I); extra (ii) cum sis preditus ( c. I); et quicumque eis communicat incidit in excommunicationem; ar. (x)vii q. iv si quis suad. Secus si ita dictum est: excommunico eos omnes qui modo communicant ei vel communicaverunt in tali facto»: ff. de serultutibus urbanorum prtdiorum, si seroitus (Dig ), ubi dicitur: si servitus ita inponatur: e Iimina que nunc ita sunt, ita sint t de futuris non cavetur; si ita cautum est: ne liminibus officiatur s futura continentur. Immo si ita dictum est:

48 The earliest development of excommunication la/ae sententiae 319 cepted since the time of Charlemagne. In a certain sense it was the restoration of the primitive penal discipline. It seems strange to us that, despite the express wording of the canon, Gratian, Gregory VIII and others were unaware of an anathema which was ipso facto' incurred for certain crimes. Among the reasons which can be given to explain this, one of the more forceful would seem to be that they all admitted the principle that public penances were to be imposed only for public offences while secret offences could only be punished secretly. The Community was not interested in secret sins. The judge and the legislator dealt' with public crimes which could be proved (104). The problem which now arose, however, was, how could the Church punish a crime with an anathema independently of the judge's sentence and consequently without previous proof? How could anyone be cut off from the body of the faithful secretly? This, in my opinion, was the difficulty in accepting immediately the obvious meaning of the canon «Si quis suadente diabolo s. Hence we have a partial explanation why Gratian was of the opinion that a person who struck a cleric only incurred a simple excommunication. There was no difficulty in barring the occult sinner from receiving Holy Communion and this was prescribed for all those in a state of mortal sin, nor was it anything new that one who had sinned gravely had to make a pilgrimage to Rome to obtain absolution. The principle «Ecclesia de occult is non judicat s remained true and retained its full force for the decretists (105). It was not allowed to accuse in public one who was secretly excommunicated nor to shun him in public until his crime had been proved. But the meaning excommunico earn et omnes ei communicantes t, qui communicabunt excommunicati erunt, sicut ille qui dicit: oblige res meas s intelligitur obligare res futuras: c. que res pignori obligari (added: extra iii de sent. exc. quod in dubiis. ( c. 9 = X c. 30). f. 35 I. c. (no. 9) f. 138, BibI. Nat. Par. Cod. lat (104) For how this rule came into being 'in Gaul in the beginning of the 9th century see P. HINSCHIUS, I. c. (no. J) p. 92 S.: B. KURTSCHEID, Das Beichtsiegel in seine, geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Freiburg 1912 p. 38 s.: B. POSCHMAr-;N, Die abendländische Kirchenbusse im f,ühen Mittelalter Breslau J930 p. 965.: F. Russo, Penitence et excommunication: elude historique sur les,apports entre la thlologie et le droit canon dans le domains penitentiel du 9' au 13' siicle, in: Rech. de Se. Rei p. 459 s. (105) Cf. S. KUTTNER, Ecclesia de occultis non iudicat, in Acta Cone', iu,. intern., Romae JlJ36 p. 225 s.

49 3 20 Peter Huizing of the axiom had been changed completely for, whilst an occult sin had formerely only been judged in the secrecy of the confessional by a priest acting as God's minister, now canon law began to punish with an ecclesiastical penalty certain grave sins, even though occult, and absolution could be obtained only from ministers indicated by the law. Along with the «forum internum sacramentale I> had arisen the «forum internum juridicum». Thus the old penitential discipline of the Church was resuscitated albeit in a completely new form and the custom of the early church of removing even from juridic society those who had offended God grieviously came into being once again.

50 TABVLA XXII It () nll cdt. t.l~ CO r.ftlr..!lcc dllnt DEU{ETVM CRATIA I CA VSA TRlGES1MA De coguatiouc spiritual! et de n upti is clandcstinis ~]uida111 populorum Irequcutia impeditus suum filium de baptism ate suscepit Remis, Bibl. publ., Cod. 677, (0, 2,16'