| |
BOOK II.
GREGORY'S PONTIFICATE.
CHAPTER IV
GREGORY PATRIARCH OF THE WEST.
HIS RELATIONS WITH THE CHURCHES OF THE SUBURBICARIAN
PROVINCES AND THE ISLANDS
APART from the primacy of honor which was universally
conceded to the Roman Church, the patriarchal jurisdiction of the Bishop of
Rome was anciently recognized as extending in strict right only over the
Churches of Central and Southern Italy and of the adjacent islands. It was, in
fact, conterminous with the jurisdiction of the Vicarius Urbis, which was exercised over the provinces of Picenum Suburbicarium, Campania, Tuscia,
Umbria, Apulia, Calabria, Bruttii, Lucania, Valeria,
Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and the lesser islands. Within these bounds, at the
close of the sixth century, the authority of the Bishop of Rome was, of course,
undisputed; beyond them he possessed, indeed (in virtue mainly of Imperial
legislation), certain powers, visitatorial in their character, but they were
somewhat indefinite, not strictly canonical, and by no means universally
recognized. In Italy itself the Aemilian and Flaminian territories, together
with Picenum Annonicarium,
were immediately subject to the Metropolitan of Ravenna; Liguria, the Cottian
Alps, and the Rhaetias, to the Archbishop of Milan;
Venetia and Istria to the Patriarch of Aquileia; and beyond the borders of
Italy the Pope had never hitherto exercised a jurisdiction which was entirely
undisputed. How Gregory made use of his primacy of honor, and of the powers
conferred on the Popes by Imperial legislation to assert a claim to supremacy
over these other Churches, will be explained in the following chapter. At
present I deal simply with his relation to the Churches within the ancient
canonical limits of the patriarchate, i.e. in Central and Southern Italy and in
the islands.
Within this area the only metropolitan Church besides
the Roman was that of Cagliari in Sardinia. It has, indeed, been questioned
whether the Church of Syracuse did not also enjoy this dignity. But the
evidence of Gregory's letters proves conclusively that such was not the case.
The bishops of Sicily, together with the rest, were directly subject to the
metropolitan jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Thus, save in respect of
Sardinia, the area of the Pope's canonical authority as Metropolitan and as Patriarch
was the same.
On the mainland a great portion of suburbicarian
territory was at this time in possession of the Lombards, and with the Churches
in these parts Gregory had but slight connection. From many of the cities the
Catholic clergy had fled, either to Sicily or to other districts which still
remained in the hands of the Imperialists; and the Arian clergy whom the
Lombards elected in their stead Gregory refused to recognize. In some places,
indeed, orthodox bishops still remained at their posts. But even with these the
Pope had little intercourse. The hostilities between Romans and Lombards made
communication extremely difficult, and frequent visits and appeals to Rome from
the clergy isolated in Lombard territory were, of course, out of the question.
Gregory, however, seems to have entertained hopes that by the agency of the
Catholic clergy the Arian conquerors might eventually be converted to the
orthodox faith. Thus a few months after his consecration—in January 591—he
issued to all the bishops throughout Italy a vigorous address, intended to
stimulate their efforts in this direction: "As the impious Authari last
Easter forbade Lombard children to be baptized into the Catholic Faith—for
which crime God Almighty slew him, that he should never see another Easter—it
is meet that your Fraternity should admonish all the Lombards in your dioceses
that, in view of the pestilence that is threatening every place, they should
reconcile the children baptized in the Arian heresy to the Catholic Faith, and
so appease the wrath of God. Admonish all you can; impel them to the right
faith with all your powers of persuasion; preach to them constantly the Word of
eternal life, that when you appear in the presence of the severe Judge, you may
be able to show souls that have been won by your pastoral solicitude."
Similarly, a few months later, when the plague was raging in the little Umbrian
town of Narni, on the southern bank of the Nar—which,
in spite of its inaccessible situation on its lofty hill, had fallen into the
hands of the Lombards—Gregory wrote to the bishop to urge him to exhort the
heretics of his flock to adopt the orthodox faith. But if the Catholic clergy
responded to the Pope's appeal, we have no information as to the measure of
success that crowned their efforts. From the fact that Gregory never again
alluded to the matter, we may, perhaps, conjecture that it was small.
In some respects the desolation caused by the Lombards
occasioned Gregory much anxious thought and labor, as it was necessary for him
to take measures in the interest of the devastated Churches. The effects of a
Lombard onslaught were disastrous. In the 17th of his Homilies on the
Gospels Gregory utters a lament over cities laid waste, fortified places
overthrown, churches and monasteries reduced to ruins, and populous centres turned into dreary solitudes. The capture of a town
usually meant a complete or partial depopulation, and the death or the
dispersion of the resident clergy. In some cases, indeed, the desolation was
not absolute. A remnant of the inhabitants remained or returned after the
pillage, and there was some hope that the place would again revive and be able
to support a bishop of its own. Under such circumstances Gregory usually
commissioned some neighboring bishop to repair to the desolated Church, and
ordain there a certain number of clerics to perform the necessary offices.
Thus, in the first year of his pontificate, he sent the following mandate to
Balbinus, bishop of Rosella, in respect of the old Tuscan town of Populonia: "We have learnt that the Church of Populonia is so entirely destitute of clergy, that penance
cannot be given to the dying or baptism to infants. We therefore charge your
Fraternity, by the authority of these letters, to visit the aforesaid Church,
and to ordain in the city one cardinal-presbyter and two deacons, and in the
parishes attached to the aforesaid Church three presbyters; selecting such men
as you may consider most fitted for the office by their venerable life and
serious character, and against whose appointment there exists no canonical
impediment. Thus let provision be made with all due caution for the interests
of the Holy Church." A similar commission was sent to the Bishop of Sipontum, in Apulia, in favour of
the neighboring Church of Canosa. The Church of Terni, where a few clergy and
people remained—not enough, however, to make it worthwhile to elect a bishop—was
administered by the Bishop of Narni, whose episcopal
residence was only six miles distant. The Bishop of Agropoli was entrusted with the care of the three devastated cities of Vella, Buxentum, and Blanda, on the coast of Lucania, which were
destitute alike of bishops and of priests. The surviving Bishop of ruined Lissus was transferred to Squillace, on the condition of
his returning to his former diocese if at any future time it should be
recovered from the enemy. And the Bishop of Taurianum (Seminara) in Bruttii was transferred to Lipari, with
orders to revisit his old diocese from time to time.
In the cases above mentioned, the Churches, though
devastated, were yet not ruined beyond all hope of revival. But there were many
places where the desolation was much more complete, where neither clergy nor
people were left any longer, and where there was no chance of any future
restoration. In such instances Gregory was accustomed to unite the ruined
district with a neighboring diocese. Thus, in October 590, he joined to the
diocese of Formiae (Mola) in Latium, the devastated
see of Minturnae, close to the mouth of the Liris,
nine miles off. Both these cities were situated within a short distance of
Gaeta, whither the seat of the bishopric has been since transferred. The
document authorizing the unification was addressed to Bacauda bishop of Formiae, and runs as follows: "The
necessities of the times and the diminution of the population require us to
make such arrangements for the desolate Churches as may be prudent and
beneficial. Whereas, then, we have learnt that the Church of Minturnae is utterly desolate, and destitute both of clergy
and people, and whereas we consider that your petition for its union with the
Church of Formiae, in which rests the body of St.
Erasmus the Martyr, and over which your Fraternity presides, is dictated by
right feeling and is thoroughly just; therefore we have thought it necessary,
out of consideration for the desolation of that place and the poverty of your
Church, that the revenues of the aforesaid Church of Minturnae,
with all that has belonged to it or that may belong to it in any way by any
right or privilege, ancient or modern, should be transferred to the right and
power of your Church by the authority of this our injunction. You shall,
therefore, from the present time look upon the Church of Minturnae as your own Church, and attend to it as well as you can, so that the property
which hitherto, perhaps, has been entirely neglected, may henceforth be
profitable to the poor and to the clergy of your own Church." Many similar
arrangements were made. In 592 Cumae was joined to Misenum; TresTabernae to Velletri, five miles offs; Fondi to Terracina,
both being cities of Latium, about ten miles apart. In 593 Cures Sabinae (Correze) was united to
Nomentum (Mentana); and in 595 Carina was amalgamated
with Reggio. The arrangement made for the bishopric of Velletri indicates that
the people were beginning to move from the plains into the hills for protection
against the enemy. The character of the times, Gregory writes, makes it
expedient to transfer episcopal sees from the cities in which they were
formerly established to other places in the same diocese which might be safer,
so that the people might be less exposed to danger from the inroads of the
enemy. He therefore permitted the Bishop of Velletri to transfer his residence
from Velletri to a place called Arenata, which is
probably to be identified with the modern Rocca Massima, and there to set up
his episcopal chair in the Church of St. Andrew.
The districts in Italy which still remained in the
hands of the Imperialists were divided up into a vast number of little
dioceses, many of them only a few miles in extent. Every town of any size, and
many towns which were little better than villages, possessed a bishop. The most
considerable see was that of Naples, and among the more important of the rest
at this time were Perugia, Orvieto, Terracina, Agropoli,
Reggio, Squillace, Taranto, Gallipoli, and Otranto. In the affairs of the
diocese of Naples Gregory took the warmest interest, and the prominent part he
played in the Neapolitan elections will be alluded to immediately. Of the other
sees we know little. The disturbances incident on the Lombard invasion had
thrown out of gear the machinery of ecclesiastical government. Communication
between Rome and outlying dioceses was frequently interrupted, and many bishops
found it impossible to maintain close relations with their metropolitan.
Gregory did what he could to keep in touch with all the bishops under his
jurisdiction, but the number of his letters addressed to Italian prelates and
dealing with the affairs of their dioceses is curiously small.
While on the mainland the Lombard invasion had thrown
everything into confusion, in the islands the Church system was maintained as
before. Of these islands, as has been already said, the most important by far
was the corn-growing, fruit-bearing island of Sicily, which for centuries had
been most intimately connected with Rome, and the Churches of which were bound
by special ties to the Roman See. Here were some thirteen dioceses,
considerably larger than the majority of those in Italy. The principal one was
that of Syracuse, a place which, though sadly declined from its former
greatness, was nevertheless still important as the residence of the Praetor,
the seat of a bishop, and the head-quarters of the Rector of the Sicilian
Patrimony. Of the other bishoprics the most notable were those of Catania,
Taormina, Messina, Palermo (also at times the head-quarters of an agent of the
Patrimony), Girgenti, and Camerana. All these
Sicilian Churches were in close touch with Borne. Gregory watched over their
welfare with constant solicitude, and through his agents kept himself
accurately informed of all their affairs. The quantity of letters relating to
them is evidence of the minuteness of his knowledge and of the interest he took
in the diocesan matters.
The very first letter which Gregory wrote after his
election to the pontificate was directed to the bishops of Sicily. As there was
no metropolitan in the island, Gregory thought good to commit to a Vicar the
general supervision of the Sicilian Church. Curiously enough, instead of
conferring this honor on one of the bishops, Gregory, in the first instance,
gave the vicariate to the subdeacon Peter, the rector of the Papal estates. The
appointment was notified to the bishops in a letter which runs as follows:
"We have thought it necessary, in accordance with the judgment of our
predecessors, to commit all your affairs to one and the same man, that where we
cannot be ourselves in person we may be represented by one who has received our
instructions. Wherefore, by God's help, we have appointed Peter, a subdeacon of
our Church, to be our Vicar in the province of Sicily. Nor can we doubt what
the character of his actions will be, seeing that, by God's grace, we have
committed to him the whole Patrimony of our Church (in Sicily). Further, we
have thought it right that your Fraternity should with due honor meet together
once a year, either at Syracuse or at Catania, so that all that concerns the
interest of your Churches, the relieving of the poor and afflicted, the
admonition of all men, and the correction of offenders, may be duly settled by
you in conjunction with the aforesaid Peter, our subdeacon. Let all hatred
which fosters wickedness be far from your council. Let all envy and execrable
discord die away amongst you. Let your charity and God-pleasing peace prove
that you are God's bishops. Let all things be done with propriety and
quietness, that you may have the right to be called a council of bishops."
I may here remark that Gregory was a firm believer in
the utility of local synods, for the safeguarding of true doctrine, the
composition of quarrels, and the correction of manners. The Council of Nicaea
had directed that such synods should be held twice in the year—before Lent and
in the autumn—and this wise provision was renewed by several other Councils.
Nevertheless, the bishops of the sixth century seem to have been strongly
averse to holding these meetings, and Gregory found it necessary to remind those
of Sicily and Sardinia, and particularly of Gaul, of their obligation in this
matter. It may cause surprise that in the letter just quoted Gregory orders the
Sicilian bishops to meet only once in the year, whereas he directs the
metropolitan of Sardinia to summon a council twice annually, according to the
strict provision of the canons. But the case of the Sicilian bishops was
peculiar. For being directly subject to the Pope, they were in the habit of
assembling at Rome at stated periods, to discuss their affairs in his presence,
and to get his advice. Originally the bishops gathered in Rome every year at
the time of the anniversary of the Pope's consecration; since the days of Leo,
however, they came each only once in three years. Gregory now made two more
changes. First, he ordered that the bishops should meet, not on the anniversary
of his own consecration—a mark of honor which seemed to him "foolish and
superfluous"—but on June 29, the festival of the Apostle. And secondly, he
directed that, whereas the triennial journey had been attended with
difficulty—the civil authorities on the island being opposed to it, and on one
occasion at least, in 591, actually preventing the delegates setting out—the
bishops should in future assemble in Rome once in five years, instead of once
in three, and that they should take care not to arouse the Praetor's
suspicions. Gregory further enjoined that the bishops of Lipari and Reggio
should attend the quinquennial synod.
The most prominent of the Sicilian bishops during
Gregory's pontificate was Maximianus, formerly Abbat of St. Andrew's in Rome,
and one of the most intimate of Gregory's friends. He was appointed to the
bishopric of Syracuse in 591, and he retained it till his death in 594. Soon
after his appointment Gregory made him his Vicar in Sicily, with power to
determine all smaller and less important causes, those involving any special
difficulty being reserved for the decision of the Pope himself. In conferring
this honor on Maximianus, Gregory was careful to explain that the vicariate was
bestowed upon him personally as a mark of esteem, and not in virtue of his
official position as bishop of Syracuse, and therefore that the Church of
Syracuse could not on this account claim any superiority over the other
Churches of Sicily. This last provision is characteristic. In his government of
the Churches of his metropolitanate, Gregory was
always particularly anxious to keep all in a state of equal subordination, and
to repress any usurpation of rights or privileges on the part of any individual
Church. Thus, to quote one other small example, the Pope was informed in 598
that the deacons of Catania were in the habit of wearing "campagi" at religious ceremonies. Now, these campagi were a kind of slipper, covering only the
heel and toes, and they were worn as part of their ceremonial dress by the
higher clergy of Rome and Ravenna. As a special privilege the use of the campagi had been granted to the clergy of Messina;
the clergy of Catania, however, had no such right. Gregory accordingly issued a
peremptory order, forbidding them ever to wear this article of dress in future.
For his old friend Maximianus Gregory entertained a
high regard, and was generally satisfied with his conduct both as Bishop and as
Apostolic Vicar. It appears, however, that this prelate was of somewhat hasty
and quarrelsome temper, and on one occasion the Pope felt it his duty to write
him a sharp reproof. "I remember that I have often warned you not to be
hasty in passing judgment. And yet I have now learnt that in a fit of rage you
have excommunicated the Very Reverend Abbat Eusebius. I am indeed astonished
that neither his past life, nor his great age, nor his long illness can turn
away your anger. Whatever may have been his fault, his sufferings from ill
health should have been a sufficient punishment. When God scourges a man there
is no need for men to lay on the stripes." But although he could utter a
rebuke when necessary, Gregory invariably showed the most kindly consideration
for Maximianus in his difficult position. The following extract from a letter
to Peter the Subdeacon illustrates his anxiety to protect his old friend from
even trifling worries: "I am greatly grieved because I severely rebuked Pretiosus, the servant of God, for a slight fault, and so
sent him away in bitterness and sorrow. I wrote to my Lord Bishop Maximianus to
send Pretiosus back to me, but he was very unwilling
to do so. Now, I neither can nor ought to do anything to annoy the Bishop, for,
occupied as he is in the work of God, he ought to be comforted and
strengthened, not troubled and annoyed. And yet I am told that Pretiosus is very sad because he cannot return to me.
However, as I said before, I cannot bear to annoy my Lord the Bishop, who is
unwilling to let him go. And so, between the two, I remain undecided. If you
have more wisdom in your little body than I have in mine, arrange the matter so
that my wishes may be accomplished without inconvenience to my Lord Bishop.
Indeed, if you see that he is at all annoyed, you had better say nothing to him
about the matter."
In Sardinia the state of the Church was unsatisfactory
in the extreme. The metropolitan see of Cagliari was at this time occupied by a
very singular character, a certain Januarius, to whose folly, frivolity, and
incapacity must be attributed the lamentable condition of the Church in the
island. This Januarius was a silly, half-witted old man, who shamefully
neglected all his duties, and scandalized every one by his egregiously
eccentric conduct. At the same time, he perpetrated the most outrageous actions
with an appearance of such guileless innocence and simplicity, that Gregory
himself seems to have been at a loss how to deal with him. Complaints of him,
however, poured into Rome from all sides. It was said that the bishops and
priests of Sardinia were ill-treated by the Imperial officials, yet Januarius
made no effort to protect them; that the clergy despised him and set at naught
his authority, resorting to the patronage of laymen; that his very archdeacon
lived openly with women. His suffragan bishops were slack in their duties, had
ceased to assemble in synods, neglected to apply to their metropolitan for the
date of Easter, and ventured to travel abroad without asking his permission.
Vacancies in churches were not filled up, and lapsed clerics were reinstated in
their offices. The nunneries were grossly neglected; in the monasteries men who
had fallen as monks were created abbats; the
hospitals were fearfully mismanaged, and no one took the trouble to inspect the
accounts. On the estates belonging to the Church of Cagliari the peasants were
permitted to practice idolatry, and no attempt was made to convert the pagan
islanders, though their numbers were considerable. The slaves of Jews who took
asylum in the churches were either given back to their masters, or paid for
contrary to the law. In short, the Church of Sardinia was the scandal of the
time. The utter confusion and mismanagement of affairs there was unique even in
an age when confusion and mismanagement were not uncommon.
This disorder Gregory did all in his power to remedy.
He sternly rebuked the clergy for their disobedience, and ordered the bishops
to resume the custom of assembling in synod twice a year, and of applying for
the date of Easter. The abuses concerning the vacancies and the restitution of
lapsed clergy were to be remedied; and for the future no one was to receive
ordination who was illiterate, or a member of a curia, or twice married, or had
not for several years lived a continent life, or was not a zealous student of
the Scriptures, and really charitable. He ordered that a man of high character
should be appointed to transact the secular business of the nunneries, that the
nuns might no longer be obliged to collect their rents in person or appear in
the public offices to pay the taxes. All nuns guilty of "adultery"
were to be severely punished and confined in stricter houses; their
accomplices, if laymen, were to be excommunicated, if ecclesiastics, to be
degraded and confined in monasteries for penance. The old custom of inspecting
the accounts of the xenodochia at Cagliari was to be resumed, and the
management of these institutions was to be confided to men of probity and
diligence, who must be either monks or ecclesiastics, that they might not be
subject to the jurisdiction of the civil officials. For the conversion of the
pagans two missionaries were sent from Rome, Felix a bishop, and Cyriacus the
monk, and the bishopric of Phausiana (Terranova) was
re-established. Januarius himself was rebuked for his avarice, and forbidden to
receive money for the ordination of clergy, the veiling of virgins, or the
marriage of clerics. Finally, the old Archbishop was encouraged to communicate
freely with Gregory, and two responsales at
Rome were appointed to bring his communications to the notice of the Pope.
These vigorous measures seem to have effected some
sort of reformation in the Church of Sardinia. But neither threats nor
remonstrances availed to amend the conduct of the erratic Archbishop himself. A
prodigious mass of complaints were filed against him. Not only was he
avaricious and violent, but he was entirely reckless in his disregard of
justice and fair dealing. Among other offences he had actually, in open
defiance of the canons, excommunicated a nobleman merely for a private grudge.
In 592 the charges brought against him had grown so numerous that Gregory sent
a commissioner to Sardinia to hold an inquiry and, if necessary, to compel the
Archbishop to submit to arbitration. At the same time, he wrote privately to
Januarius, urging him to avoid a scandal, "and if you find that you have
taken or hold anything unjustly, restore it before the trial commences."
This investigation, however, was apparently
unsatisfactory, for in the following year Januarius received a summons to come
to Rome and answer in person the charges brought against him. But it is
doubtful whether the trial took place. At any rate, the irrepressible old man
did not see fit to make any alteration in his behavior. In 594 he went to
consecrate a monastery, where he shocked everybody by a most unseemly display
of violence and rapacity. But, disgraceful as his conduct was on this occasion,
it was nothing in comparison with an outrage which he perpetrated a few years
later, and which drew even from the long-suffering Pope a vehement
remonstrance: "Paul the Apostle says, rebuke not an elder. But the rule is
only to be observed when the elder's bad example does not drag down to ruin the
souls of the younger. When an elder sets a fatal example, he is to be rebuked
most sharply. Now, such wickedness has been reported to us of your old age,
that were we not inclined to be merciful, we should smite you with an anathema.
For it is said that on the Lord's Day, before saying mass, you went and
ploughed up your neighbor’s corn-field, and afterwards celebrated mass; and
further, when mass was over, that you actually dared to remove your neighbor’s
boundary-stones. Everyone knows what punishment such a deed deserves. But we
could not believe that you were so wicked as this, until we had questioned our
son, the Abbat Cyriacus, who was in Cagliari at the time, and who affirmed that
it was true. Even yet, however, we spare your grey hairs. Nevertheless, old
man, be advised: be wise at last, and restrain your scandalous levity and
wickedness. The nearer you are to death the more careful and fearful you ought
to be. A sentence of punishment has indeed been drawn up against you, but,
knowing your simplicity and age, we keep it in reserve for this once. Those,
however, who advised you t o do this thing we decree excommunicate for two
months, permitting them, if any human chance befall them within that time, to
receive the Viaticum. But do you henceforth be cautious and hold aloof from
their counsels. And look well to yourself, for if you learn evil of those to
whom you ought to teach good, we will spare you no longer."
This epistle is certainly not wanting in severity, but
Gregory found it impossible to be angry for long with this irresponsible old
dotard. "That I chide and rebuke you," he wrote a month later,
"comes not from harshness, but from brotherly love, because I desire that
you may be found before Almighty God a bishop, not in name only—which brings
punishment—but in merit—which brings reward. For since we are one member in the
Body of our Redeemer, I am both wounded by your transgression and also
gladdened by your good conduct." Gregory's kindness towards this
extraordinary prelate is strikingly manifested in one of the last letters which
he wrote, in which also we get a parting glimpse of Archbishop Januarius.
"You tell us that our brother and fellow-bishop Januarius, when saying
mass, frequently suffers from such physical distress, that he can scarcely
after long intervals resume at the place where he broke off; and you say that
for this reason many are in doubt whether they ought to receive the communion
when he has consecrated. Let them be told, then, to have no fear, but to
communicate with perfect faith and security. For the sickness of the
consecrator neither changes nor defiles the blessing of the sacred mystery.
Still, our brother ought certainly to be advised in private that when he feels
an attack coming on, he should refrain from celebrating, lest he expose himself
to contempt and cause offence to weak minds." The picture of this
petulant, unprincipled grey-headed child, overcome with infirmities both of
mind and body, and exposed to the scorn and disgust of his clergy and people,
is not an agreeable one to contemplate.
One direction to the clergy of Sardinia in reference
to the confirmation of the baptized ought here to be mentioned. In the
baptismal ceremony according to the Roman ritual there were three unctions. The first, before immersion, was administered by
presbyters with simple oil on the breast and other parts of the body. The
second, after immersion, was administered by presbyters with chrism. In later
times it was on the top of the head, but in Gregory's time it seems to have
been on the breast. The third unction was administered with chrism on the
forehead by the bishop in confirmation. This unction with chrism on the
forehead, according to the Roman ritual, was reserved for the bishop, though in
the East it was administered by presbyters. The clergy of Sardinia had combined
the Eastern and Western usages—the baptizing presbyter anointing the child not
only on the breast, but also on the forehead, and the bishop subsequently in
confirmation repeating the unction on the forehead. Of this mixed usage Gregory
disapproved. He wrote to Januarius: "Let not the bishops presume to sign
infants, who are being baptized, a second time on the forehead with chrism; but
let the presbyters anoint those who are being baptized on the breast, so that
the bishops may afterwards have to anoint them on the forehead." That is,
Gregory ordered that the Roman usage should be strictly followed, the presbyter
anointing the breast with chrism, and the bishop alone anointing the forehead
in confirmation. This order, however, gave great offence in Sardinia. "It
has come to our ears," wrote Gregory soon afterwards, "that some have
been offended by our having forbidden presbyters to touch those who are being
baptized with chrism. In issuing our order we acted in accordance with the
ancient use of the Roman Church. But if any are in fact distressed thereby, we
grant that where there are no bishops, presbyters are also to touch those who
are being baptized on their foreheads with chrism." In other words, in the
absence of the bishop, Gregory permitted a presbyter to confirm with chrism,
according to the Eastern usage. We shall meet later on with other examples of
Gregory’s wise toleration of local deviations from the established Roman
ritual.
With the dioceses in the other islands Gregory had not
much to do. He established a new bishop at Malta, and again at Lipari, the
chief of the Aeolian groups. In Corsica matters were in great confusion.
Ecclesiastical discipline had become relaxed, paganism was rife, and the
tyranny of the Government officials was so cruel that the inhabitants sold
their children to pay the taxes, and even deserted in numbers to the Lombards
to escape from the intolerable burden. Gregory did what he could to remedy these
abuses. The bishopric of Aleria, which had long been left vacant, was filled
up. The Pope espoused the cause of the islanders, and sent formal complaints of
the officials to the court at Constantinople. He also encouraged the bishops to
win back the idolaters, and, to second their efforts, he sent a body of monks
under Orosius, who were ordered to establish their
monastery in some strong place which might easily be fortified against the
marauding Lombards. But the ties between the Church of Corsica and that of Rome
were somewhat loose, and Gregory does not appear to have been greatly concerned
to strengthen the connection.
We may now consider more in detail the method of
Gregory's government of these provinces of his patriarchate.
In the first place, it was Gregory's policy to watch
with peculiar care over the election of bishops, with a view to securing the
appointment of capable men, qualified to transact the business of their
dioceses without continually appealing to Rome. Accordingly, on the death or
deposition of any bishop, Gregory took the most stringent precautions to
provide for the election of a suitable successor.
On such occasions the usual procedure was as follows:
When a suburbicarian see fell vacant, a notice was sent to the Pope, who, as
metropolitan, was responsible for the administration of the diocese during the
vacancy. Whereupon the Pope appointed a Visitor—generally a neighboring
bishop,—to administer the see, secure its revenues, and provide for the speedy
election of a new bishop. The common formula of the appointment ran as follows:
"We have received official notification of the death of the Bishop of X.
We therefore solemnly commit to your Fraternity the office of Visitor to the
bereaved Church, which office you must so discharge that no one may venture to
meddle wrongfully with the promotions of the clergy, or with the revenues,
ornaments, plate, and other belongings of the aforesaid Church. We accordingly
require your Fraternity to hasten to the aforesaid Church, and zealously to
charge the clergy and the people to lay aside all party spirit, and to select
as bishop someone who is both worthy of so high an office and is not ineligible
according to canon law. And, when he is elected, let him come to us for
consecration, bringing with him the formal document of his election, confirmed
by the signatures of the electors, and an attesting letter from your Love. We
charge your Fraternity not to permit any one belonging to another Church to be
chosen, unless, perchance, no one of the clergy of X be found to be deserving
of the episcopate. Above all, take care that no layman presume to aspire to
this office, whatever be his merits or manner of life. Otherwise, you yourself
will incur the danger of being degraded from your office—which may God
forbid!" At the same time, a circular was dispatched from Rome to the
clergy, nobles, and people of the vacant see, notifying the appointment of the
Visitor, and repeating the directions concerning the election of the new
bishop.
When the Visitor arrived, he took over the management
of the diocese, acting in most respects as though he were the proper bishop,
but ordaining no clergy unless he had received an express commission from Rome
to do so. One of his first duties was to assemble the principal clergy of the
Church, and in their presence make an inventory of the property of the Church
and of the deceased bishop. Gregory was very particular that no portion of
these properties should unlawfully be abstracted. The Visitor was allowed no
perquisites beyond his pay, and it was not permitted that even the cost of the
inventory should be taken from the estate. It seems, however, that the practice
of openly plundering the goods of a deceased bishop, though not unusual in
Spain and France, did not as yet obtain in Italy. At any rate, there is no
allusion to it in the letters of Gregory.
The most urgent matter was, of course, the election of
a new bishop. According to a canon of the Council of Chalcedon, a see might not
remain vacant for more than three months; but, just as in ancient times, this
period had frequently been exceeded by reason of the persecutions, so, in the
sixth century, it was often prolonged by the feuds and cabals of the electors.
These electors were still the clergy, nobles, and people of the diocese; for
Leo's maxim yet held good in fact: "He that is to preside over all must be
chosen by all." They were assisted in their choice by the Visitor, and
sometimes by the chief magistrate or military governor of the district. The
mode of election was usually by scrutiny of votes, though it was sometimes by
acclamation, and sometimes through delegates by whose act the body of electors
agreed to abide. The confirmation of the election rested with the metropolitan,
who, in the sixth century at least, had also the right of veto. If the votes of
the electors happened to be divided, it was the privilege of the metropolitan
to choose the candidate whom he considered most fit, and under these
circumstances Gregory was accustomed either to summon the rival candidates to
Rome, and there personally examine them, or to commit the examination to one of
his own agents, or else to a neighboring bishop on whose judgment he could
rely. Thus on one occasion Gregory requested the Archbishop of Ravenna to
summon the bishop-elect of Rimini, and examine him, and if he approved of him,
to send him to Rome for consecration. The metropolitan, however, great as his
powers were, was not permitted to obtrude a nominee of his own into a bishopric
against the will of the clergy and people. But in some cases, where the
electors were culpably neglectful, Gregory, on his own responsibility,
appointed as bishops such persons as he thought would be both efficient and
acceptable. The consecration of the new bishop was generally performed in Rome.
Beside the ordinary disqualifications for the clerical
office—e.g. immorality, bigamy, marriage with a widow or divorcée, liability to
civil or military service, self-mutilation, ignorance of letters, having done
public penance or taken usury, or having endeavored to secure ordination by
simony or secular influence, and the like—there were certain special conditions
which rendered a man ineligible for the episcopate. Gregory was extremely
unwilling to consecrate strangers, except in cases of necessity, when none of
the clergy of the vacant diocese were eligible. Moreover, he utterly forbade
laymen to be consecrated, though he was willing to promote monks, or
ecclesiastics in minor orders. He was anxious also that a candidate should have
some literary qualifications. For instance, he objected against Rusticus, a
deacon who was nominated for the bishopric of Ancona, that he was reported not
to know the Psalter, and requested the Bishop of Rimini to find out how many of
the Psalms he was unable to repeat.
The difficulties and intrigues of an episcopal
election in the latter end of the sixth century may be illustrated by an
account of the transactions which befell at Naples in 591 and the years
following.
In 591 Demetrius bishop of Naples was found guilty on
scandalous charges and deposed. So in September, Gregory, in accordance with
the usual custom, appointed as Visitor Paul bishop of the little Tuscan town of Nepi, and wrote to the clergy and people of Naples to
choose a new bishop without delay. But the hot-headed, contentious Neapolitans
were indisposed to come to a speedy agreement. The city was torn with rival
factions. Almost immediately after Bishop Paul's arrival, one party attached
itself to him, and importuned Gregory to ordain him to the vacant see. But the
Pope, who had already had some experience of the fickle and factious spirit of
the Neapolitans, distrusted this sudden enthusiasm, and refused to sanction
Paul's translation until sufficient time should have elapsed to make him and
his supporters better acquainted. The wisdom of this proceeding soon became
manifest. For the warm championship of one party provoked the violent animosity
of the other. Tumults and faction fights were of daily occurrence in the
streets of Naples, and the unfortunate Visitor began to lead a most
uncomfortable life. The dignity of the bishopric no longer attracted him, and
his sole wish was to escape as soon as possible to his own quiet diocese. This,
however, Gregory would not permit. He was determined to "fortify with
every device of security" the troubled Church of Naples, and he answered
Paul's eager entreaties for release only by appointing a Visitor at Nepi to celebrate in Paul's place the approaching Easter
festival.
During the summer of 592 matters grew steadily worse.
The riots in Naples increased in violence, and Paul began even to be
apprehensive about his safety. At last, in the early autumn, a climax was
reached. Belonging to the clique hostile to Paul was a certain rich and
aristocratic lady named Clementina, who, like many of the grandes dames of the period, took an active interest
in ecclesiastical affairs. Although Clementina herself preferred to keep in the
background, she was willing to co-operate with her faction in plotting against
the Visitor. At any rate, her slaves, who presumably acted upon instructions,
together with some of the citizens, waylaid Paul in a lonely spot between
Naples and Pozzuoli called the Camp of Lucullus, and there subjected him to
gross personal outrage. The sensation caused by this affair was immense.
Gregory wrote from Rome in furious indignation, urging the authorities to
search for the offenders and punish them with all possible severity. Even the
Neapolitans were ashamed of their disgraceful violence, and from this time the
party passions cooled down a little and the rioting ceased.
In October or November the leaders of the factions
came to an understanding, on the basis of an agreement to elect someone equally
inoffensive to both sides. Their choice fell on a subdeacon of the Roman Church
named Florentius—a man of excellent character and highly approved by Gregory.
It seemed at last as though the struggle were about to end to the satisfaction
of everybody; but an unexpected obstacle to the settlement presented itself.
The subdeacon Florentius, who had heard all about the affair of Paulus, and had
doubtless drawn his conclusions as to the prospects of a happy life at Naples,
absolutely refused to accept the proffered dignity, and, in his fear lest the
Pope might insist on consecrating him against his will, fled from Rome, and
remained in hiding. And Gregory had too much sympathy with his aversion to the
episcopate to order him to be sought for.
Thus, Florentius having vanished and Paul being now
universally regarded as ineligible, the whole tedious business of the
Neapolitan election had to be commenced afresh. Once more the Pope wrote
letters to the clergy and people of Naples, urging them to agree without loss
of time on some fit person, and to get him consecrated by the provincial
bishops on the spot, or else to send delegates to Rome with full powers to make
an election. And once more the old feuds broke out with such violence that the
prospect of an amicable arrangement seemed further off than ever. The clergy
and the people held irreconcilable views, and neither were willing to make
concessions. Of the two parties, however, the laymen were the most tractable.
At any rate, they so far obeyed the Pope's injunctions as to send to Rome
qualified representatives. But though these delegates waited long about the
Lateran, none came to meet them from the clerical side. It seems that the
policy of the clergy was to get the election postponed as long as possible, and
therefore, instead of appointing deputies, they endeavored to amuse the Pope
with long letters full of ingenious excuses and evasions. Thus matters
continued at a deadlock. But it was now the May of 593, and Gregory's fund of
patience was entirely exhausted. He was determined to be trifled with no
longer, and ordered his agent in Campania to bring strong pressure to bear on
the refractory clergy. "If, by chance, any try in any way to set aside
your admonition, let them be subjected to ecclesiastical discipline. For
whoever is not willing to consent to my plan will give evident proof of his own
wickedness." At the same time, foreseeing that an election must inevitably
be made shortly, Gregory allowed Paul to return to Nepi,
giving him, as recompense for his labor, a hundred solidi and a little orphan
boy.
The Pope's firmness at length produced an effect. The
tardy delegates of the clergy arrived in Rome, and in concert with the lay
representatives chose as bishop one Fortunatus, who was consecrated by Gregory
in the summer of 593, after the see had been vacant for two years. The end of
the whole affair is marked by an earnest letter from the Pope to the newly
consecrated prelate. "We have received the letter of your Love, in which
you informed us that, by the goodness of God, you have been well received by your
sons the citizens of Naples. For this we render thanks to Almighty God. It is
your duty now to repay their affection by your good conduct, to restrain the
wicked, to unbend with all kindness and discretion to the good, to admonish the
people frequently to choose the better part, that so they may rejoice to find
in you the character of a father, and you, by God's help, may fulfill with more
than ordinary zeal the duties of the office entrusted to you."
It was not in Naples only that Gregory overlooked the
episcopal elections. In some places, owing to the discord or negligence of the
electors, he found that vacant sees were not filled up, and he used all his
influence to hasten an election. Thus the clergy and people of Perugia were
rebuked for their apathy: "We wonder, brethren beloved in Christ, why you
see with indifference the Church of God so long without a ruler, and why you
think so lightly of the rule which should be over you and all the people. It is
well known that the flock, left without a shepherd's care, wanders from the
right way and falls more easily into the snares of the enemy. It is therefore
necessary that, with the fear of God before your eyes, you should choose from
among the soldiers of your Church one who can worthily receive the office of
pastor, who can, by God's help, stand among you as the steward of the divine
mysteries, and offer every day for the children of your Church the sacrifice of
a pure mind, and show to his flock the path by which they may reach the
heavenly fatherland." The electors of Aleria in Corsica were yet more
slack than those of Perugia, having allowed the see to remain void for several
years. In this case Gregory took the matter into his own hands, and on his own
responsibility appointed as bishop Martin, who had hitherto presided over the
unknown devastated see of Tainatis. In Sicily, again,
there were some bishoprics left vacant from a different cause. It had become
customary, when a prelate was deposed for an offence, to keep his see open, in
case he might at any future time be permitted to return to it. This practice
Gregory determined to put down, believing that it lowered the character of the
episcopate, and also that it encouraged the criminal to indulge in hopes of
restoration and so distracted his thoughts from his penitential duties. He
therefore charged his representatives in Sicily to select in all such cases fit
persons from the clergy or monks of the diocese, and to send them to Rome to be
consecrated. If no fit persons could be found, the Pope took upon himself to
nominate to the vacant see.
Once more, it sometimes happened that the suffrages of
the electors were given to someone who was incompetent for the position. In
such cases Gregory had no scruple in rejecting the elected candidate and
ordering the clergy and people to make another choice. Thus he refused to
accept the favorite candidates for the bishoprics of Locri and Sorrento. In 591, again, when the see of Rimini fell vacant, and the people
chose a certain Ocleatinus, Gregory wrote: "We
do not accept Ocleatinus, and the people must not
think of him anymore. Inform the citizens that if they can find anyone in the
Church who is fit for the office, they ought to elect him by common consent; if
not, the bearer of this letter, to whom I have spoken on the subject, will
suggest the name of an acceptable candidate." The men of Rimini, in this
instance, preferred to act independently, and chose, in the place of Ocleatinus, a subdeacon of the Roman Church named
Castorius, who was also a friend and protégé of the Archbishop of Ravenna.
Gregory was not pleased with the choice, but he found himself unable to resist
the importunities of the electors, backed by a strongly worded recommendation
from the archbishop. So Castorius was consecrated bishop. But, as the Pope had
feared, the election was not a success. For scarcely had Castorius been
ordained, than the people of Rimini repented of their choice; and when the new
bishop arrived in his diocese he met with an extremely rude reception. The
hostility and insubordination of his flock so preyed upon his mind, that in a
little while his health broke down completely. On the plea of illness he
quitted his city, and afterwards nothing could induce him to return. Submissive
deputations from the citizens and strong pressure from the Pope were equally
unavailing to overcome his dread of the place where he had suffered so much,
and at length, after an absence of four years, he resigned his charge.
Although Gregory had no hesitation in rejecting a
candidate when fully convinced of his unworthiness, yet he was very careful to
institute the most searching inquiries before proceeding to so extreme a
measure, and we have many letters of his, instructing the Roman agents or
neighboring bishops to investigate the character and attainments of such
persons. Except when it was absolutely necessary, the Pope was unwilling to
interfere in the elections, or in any way infringe upon the freedom of the
electors. Such influence as he chose to exert was always secret and indirect.
For example, when Maximianus of Syracuse died in 594, Gregory learned that the
majority of the voters were in favor of a presbyter named Trajan, whom be
believed to be unfitted for the post. He was not prepared, indeed, to veto his
election provided that no better candidate was forthcoming; but he privately
confided to Cyprian, his agent in Syracuse, his desire that John archdeacon of
Catania should be chosen for the office. Cyprian seems to have won over the
nobility of the island to Gregory's view, but the clergy and people favoured one Agatho, and the election was accordingly
contested. In the end Gregory summoned the rival candidates to Rome, and, after
examining each separately, declared himself in favour of John.
Anxious as Gregory was to secure the election of
suitable persons to the vacant bishoprics, he was no less careful for the
maintenance of discipline among those elected. He kept a sharp watch upon their
conduct, and was unsparing in his censure when anything displeased him. In some
of his letters we get some odd portraits of sixth-century prelates. The
following, for instance, is a sketch of Paschasius, who was elected bishop of
Naples in the year 600, and of whose dilatory and negligent conduct the Pope had
already had occasion to complain. "We have learnt that our brother, Bishop
Paschasius, is so indolent and neglectful of everything, that no one would
suppose from his conduct that he was a bishop at all. He bestows no love or
care on his Church, or on the monasteries in his diocese, or on the people in
general, or on the poor who are oppressed. He gives no help to those who
implore his protection in a just cause; and, what is even worse, he utterly
refuses to listen to the advice of wise men, from whom he might at least learn
what he cannot discover for himself. The cares of his pastoral office are
thrown aside, and he unprofitably devotes his whole attention to shipbuilding,
by which, it is reported, he has already lost 400 solidi or more. In addition to
his other faults, it is said that, in the company of two or three
ecclesiastics, he goes down daily to the sea-shore in so mean a guise, that he
is the laughing-stock of his own people, and appears to strangers so mean and
contemptible that they consider him entirely destitute of the qualities which
befit the dignity and character of a bishop." Gregory ordered that the
unsatisfactory prelate should be publicly rebuked by the Roman agent in the
presence of some of the priests and nobles of the diocese, and that, if he made
no change in his behavior, he should be sent to Rome, "to learn what a
bishop ought to do and how he ought to do it."
Andrew bishop of Taranto, again, ill-treated his
clergy, and caused a poor woman on the role of those supported by his Church to
be cruelly beaten with rods. For this offence Gregory directed him to abstain
from celebrating mass for two months. But a still graver crime was laid to his
charge. "We know for a fact," writes Gregory, "that you once had
a concubine. And with regard to her, certain people still suspect you. As,
however, we ought not to pronounce judgment in a doubtful case, we choose to
leave this matter to your own conscience. If, after taking Holy Orders, you
have had intercourse with her, you must resign your office and on no account
presume to minister as a bishop. On your own soul be the peril if, having
committed this crime, you conceal it and retain your office. You will certainly
have to render an account to God. And we exhort you, if you have been entrapped
by the devil's wile, to overcome him while you may with fitting penitence, and
so avoid being made a partner in his lot at the judgment day."
A gentle reproof was administered to the well-meaning
but vain and talkative Bishop of Reggio: "I have learnt, my brother, from
some persons who come to Rome, that you are very earnest in works of charity,
and I thanked God for it. But I must own that I was not a little troubled by
the circumstance that you yourself have mentioned your good deeds to many; for
this has shown me that your object was to please, not God, but man. Wherefore,
my dear brother, when your outward actions are good, you should guard with
special care the goodness of the heart, lest the desire of pleasing men creep
in, and all your labor in well-doing become of no avail. For what are we, if we
seek to please men—what but dust and ashes? Seek rather, my brother, to please
Him whose advent is close at hand, and of whose recompense there can be no
end."
The above extracts, perhaps, leave us with a not
altogether favorable impression of the clergy of the sixth century. But before
we form any definite judgment respecting their morals and manners in this
period, it will be well to collect some additional evidence, and to cite
briefly a few more instances of ecclesiastical failings and misdemeanours.
To begin with the bishops. Festus of Capua was a weak prelate, universally
despised, who, moreover, was so avaricious that he defrauded his own
archdeacon, though a poor man, of ten solidi. Pimenius of Amalfi, instead of residing in his episcopal city and attending to its
defense against the Lombards, went gadding about to foreign places, setting a
bad example to his people, who also preferred to live away and leave their old
homes to be spoiled by the enemy. Benenatus of
Misenum fraudulently diverted to his own use moneys provided for building
fortifications. A bishop of Sipontum allowed his
nephew, who was guilty of rape, to go unpunished. Basilius of Capua spent his
whole time in carrying on legal suits, "as though he were one of the dregs
of the people." Palumbus of Cosenza grossly
neglected the interests of his Church, allowing its property and plate to be
plundered, and even permitting one of the serfs belonging to it to be seized in
his presence and carried off into slavery. The clergy of Reggio made a formal
complaint against their bishop, requesting that he might be summoned to stand
his trial in Rome. The Bishop of Nicotera was condemned to several years' penance
for his offences; so also was Exhilaratus bishop of
Palermo. Demetrius of Naples, Lucillus of Malta, and Agatho of Lipari were
deposed for their crimes. Of the bishops of Campania Gregory writes: "They
are so negligent and unmindful of the dignity and character of their office,
that they have no care for their churches or their people. They do not concern
themselves about the monasteries, and give no protection to the poor and
oppressed." Nor were the lower ranks of the clergy much better than their superiors.
The clergy of Reggio were shamefully neglectful of their duties; those of
Cagliari despised and disobeyed their bishop; those of Luna were guilty of
grave irregularities; those of Ravenna, relying on the Exarch's protection,
involved themselves in serious crimes; those of Malta tried to cheat the
African Church of the rent of lands which they held; those of Naples were
arrogant, factious, and disobedient; those of Norcia had women living with
them; those of Venafro sold their Church plate to a
Jew. So again, to quote a few individual instances, a deacon of Ancona received
a deposit of money which he refused to restore; a cleric of Cagliari
fraudulently seized on a widow's property which had been left to a monastery;
the archdeacon of the same place lived openly with women; a deacon of Naples
was proved to have lent money upon usury; a cleric named Paul, detected in
malpractices, fled to Africa and lived as a layman; a subdeacon, Hilarus, was guilty of bringing false accusations; a
presbyter of Norcia was condemned for scandalous violence.
It seems clear from the above that the general
behavior of the Italian clergy at this time was far from satisfactory. On the
other hand, we must take care not to exaggerate the corruption. The offences
with which the Italians are charged are often little more than breaches of
decorum and ecclesiastical etiquette, and even the worst cases cannot for a
moment be compared with the flagrant crimes which are attributed to the French
clergy of this period, or to the Italian clergy of the Middle Ages. A comparison
of clerical manners, as represented by Gregory of Tours and Gregory of Rome,
would result in a verdict distinctly favorable to the ecclesiastics of Italy.
Nevertheless, it seems clear that, in the sixth century, we may observe the
beginning of that corruption in Italian ecclesiastical circles, which
culminated in the scandalous license of the tenth and eleventh centuries. The
levity and neglect of duty which were found to be so widespread in the
suburbicarian provinces were significant signs of a degeneracy, which already,
like a disease, had fastened upon the Italian priesthood, and which even the
genius of Gregory was unable to cure. For the moment, indeed, by his vigorous
action, the decline was arrested ; but it was beyond the power of any single
man to avert it altogether.
While the Pope himself superintended the conduct of
the bishops, summoning those accused of misdemeanours to appear before him at Rome, or, in less serious cases, before his agent or
other bishops specially commissioned to act as judges, he was generally content
to leave in the hands of the bishops both the election and the government of
the rest of the clergy. At the same time, he constantly urged upon the bishops
the duty of maintaining strict discipline in their dioceses, and specially
commended those who, like Theodore of Lilybaeum (Marsala), were diligent in so
doing. Sometimes, however, whether in response to an appeal or in consequence
of information received, Gregory felt bound to interfere in the interests of
order. Thus, to take a single example, it was reported to him that a certain
deacon of Cagliari named Liberatus, was accustomed wrongfully to take
precedence of the other deacons, thereby causing much jealousy and
heart-burning among the clerics of Cagliari. Gregory, hearing this, wrote at once
to Januarius, ordering that Liberatus, unless he had been made cardinal-deacon
by the last archbishop, should no longer presume to take the foremost place,
but, in punishment of his presumption, should be made to stand last of all the
deacons. That the overworked Pope, in the midst of his multitudinous
occupations, should have made time to adjudicate on a small matter of clerical
etiquette, is a remarkable proof of the thoroughness with which Gregory
discharged what he conceived to be his duty. Nothing connected with the
maintenance of discipline was considered by him to be too small or trifling to
merit his attention.
While Gregory was principally concerned with the
spiritual interests of the clergy under his charge, he did not neglect their
temporal welfare. His thoughtfulness and kind consideration may be illustrated
by one or two examples. When Capua was in the hands of the Lombards, and the
revenues of the Church were plundered, the Pope ordered that the Capuan clergy,
who had fled to Naples, should still be paid their accustomed stipends,
presumably from the treasury of the Church of Rome. "Those who serve the
Church," he wrote, "should, when possible, be helped by the
Church." Again, hearing that Agatho, the deposed bishop of Lipari, was in
want, Gregory ordered that fifty solidi should be given him from the treasury
of his former Church, that destitution might not be added to his other
punishments. A similar provision was made for a lapsed cleric who was doing
penance at Palermo. Again, when Calumniosus, a cleric
of Orvieto, fell ill, Gregory directed that his salary should be paid him
without diminution . To Ecclesius, bishop of Chiusi,
who suffered from the cold, but was too poor to buy winter clothing, he sent a
warm cloak. In other ways also, Gregory's thoughtful care was manifested. When
Abbat Trajanus was made bishop of Malta, Gregory made
a special arrangement that four or five of his monks should accompany him to
his diocese, that the bishop might have some old friends about him in his new
home. Another abbat, Urbicus, Gregory refused to
consider as a nominee for the vacant bishopric of Palermo, because he was
unwilling to disturb his monastic quiet. Again, being informed that Cosmas, a
Sicilian subdeacon, was unhappy in the parish where he resided, Gregory
directed that he should be removed and made a cardinal-presbyter of the Church
of Syracuse. By such attentions the Pope won the hearts of his clergy. He made
them feel that the interests of all of them were considered at Rome. And his
wise policy did much to strengthen the ties which bound the provincial clergy
to the Papacy.
Much of Gregory's work in connection with the
suburbicarian dioceses consisted, of course, in mere business routine. He was
required to append his signature to innumerable documents authorizing the
consecration of churches and oratories and monasteries, the deposition of
relics, the rebuilding of churches destroyed by fire, the erection of episcopal
residences, the use of baptisteries, the wearing of the pallium, the
unification of churches, and the like. Several examples of these formulae will
be found among Gregory's letters, some of them of considerable interest as
illustrating the ecclesiastical organization of the period. Here, however,
there is only room to quote a single document, and I select as typical one
which authorizes a bishop to consecrate a church. The conditions insisted on
are noticeable. "Januarius, deacon of the Church of Messina, has informed
us in the subjoined petition, that, as a mark of his devotion, he has founded a
basilica in Messina, which he wishes to be consecrated in honor of SS. Stephen,
Pancratius, and Euplus. Therefore, my dear brother,
if this place forms part of your diocese, and it is ascertained that no bodies
are buried there, receive first of all the donation in legal form, that is to
say, ten solidi a year free of tax, and the rest of the property of which only
the income shall be retained by the founder during his lifetime. Inquire
carefully into all this, and if the annual income which is now offered, or
which shall remain after the founder's death, be sufficient for the repair of
the building, for the lights, and for the support of the ministers, let the
deed of gift be duly enrolled in the municipal records. Unless you attend
carefully to these directions, be assured that you or your heirs will have to
provide for the requirements of the church out of your own property. When,
then, the necessary arrangements are made, let the church be consecrated. But
on no account perform the dedication until the deed of gift is completed on the
terms above indicated, with the usual express provision that the founder has no
further right in the church, save the common right of publicly worshipping
therein. You will further receive from him the relics and with due reverence
place them in the basilica.
It remains now to speak of certain regulations of
Gregory affecting particular points of Church life and discipline.
Church life and discipline
(a) The relation of the clergy to women.
In the last year of the sixth century, Gregory
addressed himself to putting an end to a scandal which had become widespread in
the Church. It was notorious that many of the clergy, "under pretext, as
it were, of help and comfort," had taken women to live under their roof;
by which practice, even though no sin were incurred, yet their reputation
suffered, and "an occasion for detraction was given to scoffers."
This custom Gregory determined to put down, and in February, 599, he sent a
circular order to the defensors of
the Papal Patrimonies, instructing them to take instant measures for its
suppression. In future no bishop was to be allowed to have women living in his
house, save such as were permitted by the canons, namely, a mother, sister,
aunt, or others of whom there could be no suspicion. "Yet the bishops will
do better if they refrain from living even with such as these. For we read that
the blessed Augustine refused to live even with his sister, saying, Those who
are with my sister are not my sisters." Such a precept, however, was
admittedly a counsel of perfection, and Gregory says: "We bind, indeed, no
one in this matter against his will, but like a doctor we prescribe great
carefulness for the sake of salvation, though the measure may be temporally unpleasant.
Therefore we lay down no binding rule, but if any choose to follow the example
of a learned and holy man, we leave it to their own free will." For the
rest, the bishops in their turn were ordered to admonish those in Holy Orders
in their dioceses to observe the same rule, "this only being added, that
these, as the canons decree, abandon not their wives, whom they ought to govern
in chastity."
This last clause raises the question of clerical
marriage. Since the time of Pope Siricius it had been
unlawful for bishops, priests, and deacons of the Roman Church to marry after
their ordination. But the question early arose—What was to be the relation of
these clergy to the wives whom they had lawfully married previous to their
ordination? Now, the Fathers of Nicaea had refused to direct that they should
cease cohabitation. Nevertheless, as early as 305, the Council of Elvira
decreed that cohabitation was unlawful, and in the Roman Church abstinence was,
it seems, made binding by Pope Siricius at the end of
the fourth century. Still, even in the sixth century, such a rule was not
enforced in the case of presbyters and deacons either in the East or in Africa;
and, if we may judge from the series of conciliar decrees, as well as from the
incidental references of Gregory of Tours, it was very laxly kept in Gaul. Even
in Italy it was sometimes broken. We read, for instance, of a deacon of Naples
who was a candidate for the bishopric, and was rejected by Gregory because he
had a daughter. "What presumption" exclaims the Pope. "How dare
he aspire to the episcopate, when his little daughter proves that he was but
recently overcome by incontinence?" But in Italy, though instances of its
infringement are not wanting, the regulation was on the whole observed that
bishops, priests, and deacons, after their ordination, should have no further
intercourse with their wives. In the Dialogues there is a curious story of a presbyter
who for forty years, from the time of taking Orders, lived separate from his
wife, "loving her as a sister, but avoiding her as an enemy," and who
even forbade her to approach him on his death-bed. "Holy men,"
comments Gregory, "have this characteristic, that in order to avoid what
is unlawful, they cut themselves off even from what is lawful."
The Roman regulation about cohabitation Gregory
enforced in the case of the three higher orders of the ministry, and he further
endeavored to make it binding upon all subdeacons, though in their case he was
willing to proceed gradually. It is true that in enjoining abstinence on
subdeacons Gregory made no innovation. Already for some time the subdeacons of
the Roman Church had been forbidden to cohabit with their wives ; and in 589
Pope Pelagius the Second, desiring to secure uniformity of practice, had peremptorily
ordered the Sicilian subdeacons to follow the same rule, giving those who were
married the choice, either of abstaining from intercourse with their wives, or
of refraining from the exercise of their official duties. This decree had
apparently caused much dissatisfaction in Sicily, and even to Gregory it seemed
to be hard and improper, inasmuch as it enforced an obligation which had not
been undertaken at the time of ordination, and so, perhaps, led to the
commission of a greater sin. He therefore modified the order, prescribing that
for the future no one should be ordained subdeacon who would not engage to live
in chastity: of those already ordained, such as had obeyed the injunction were
to be praised and rewarded, but such as had disobeyed were not to be deprived
of their office. Nevertheless, the latter were to forfeit all hope of
promotion; "for no one ought to approach the ministry of the altar whose
chastity has not been proved before he is admitted to that ministry." The
same rule was also enforced by Gregory on the clergy of Reggio, and, we may
conjecture, throughout all the suburbicarian dioceses. Clerics not in Holy
Orders, however, were permitted to marry and live with their wives. Indeed, in
a certain case Gregory even forced one such cleric to take back a wife whom he
had deserted on the pretext that she was of servile condition.
It may be added that, in accordance with the ancient
practice of the Church, Gregory strictly forbade the ordination of anyone who
had been married twice, or who had married a widow or a divorced woman. Widows
of clerics, moreover, were not permitted to take a second husband.
(b) The relation of the clergy to the lay
tribunals.
Gregory was strongly averse to the clergy being mixed
up in secular concerns. He desired as far as possible to keep Church and State
apart, to let the ecclesiastical organization and the secular organization
subsist side by side, neither infringing upon the province of the other. Hence
he took up a very decided attitude on the question of ecclesiastical courts.
Now, by the law of Justinian, bishops could not be brought before the civil
magistrates for any cause, pecuniary or criminal, without the Emperor's special
order; the rest of the clergy were exempted from the jurisdiction of the
secular courts in respect of ecclesiastical and lesser criminal charges, but
were not exempted in respect of greater criminal charges (such as murder,
rebellion, and the like), nor yet in the case of civil pecuniary suits with
laymen, when the latter were unwilling to go into the bishop's court. Thus when
a presbyter or deacon was defendant in a lesser criminal suit, he was judged by
the bishop or the bishop's representatives, but when defendant on a grave
criminal charge, or in a civil controversy with a layman, he could be forced to
appear in the secular courts. It seems, however, that even the legal exemption
of the clergy from the jurisdiction of the secular courts was not always
respected. At any rate, we find Gregory frequently insisting that accusations
against clerics must be heard only in the bishop's court, when the bishop
should either deliver judgment himself, or, if suspected of bias, should
appoint a commissioner to see that the litigants chose referees, and that the
case was thus properly settled by arbitration. While, however, Gregory fought
for the right of the bishop to preside at the trials of his clergy, he at the
same time urged the episcopal judges to abstain from provoking the litigants by
distressing delays and remands, and to arrange that judgment, when given,
should be promptly executed. If a bishop was himself the defendant, the case
was to be heard by his metropolitan or patriarch, or, in default of these, it
was to be referred to "the Apostolic See, which is the Head of all the
Churches."
Besides the right of presiding at trials in which
their own clergy were defendants, the bishops had by Imperial law further
powers in determining causes. If two parties in a civil suit agreed to go into
an ecclesiastical instead of a secular court, the bishop had power to
adjudicate, and his decision was final and was duly executed by the secular
authorities. Moreover, even in criminal cases, though the bishops could not
themselves act as magistrates, they had nevertheless the right of interceding
for accused persons, and such intercession was rarely rejected. Gregory
entirely approved of this practice, and often, through his agents, made use of
it himself; yet he was anxious that it should not be abused. "It has come
to our ears," he wrote to one of his agents, "that certain men of
little discernment desire to implicate us in their risks, and wish to be
defended by ecclesiastical persons in such a way that the ecclesiastical
persons themselves may be bound by their guilt. Wherefore, I admonish you by
this present injunction, and through you our brother and fellow-bishop the Lord
John, or others whom it may concern, that (whether you receive letters from me
or not) you exercise the patronage of the Church with such moderation, that if
any be implicated in public peculations, they may not appear to be unjustly
defended by us, lest by our indiscreet defense we transfer to ourselves the bad
name of evil-doers. But so far as becomes the Church, by admonitions and by
speaking words of intercession, succor whom you can, so that you may give them
assistance without staining the repute of the Holy Church." Gregory's
general rule was that the bishops should refrain from mixing themselves up in
secular causes, " except in so far as the necessity of defending the poor
compels them to do so."
Closely connected with the right of intercession were
the further privileges of protecting the weak and oppressed, and of providing
asylum. In the Letters there are several instances of the sacerdotalis tuitio.
Thus one bishop was ordered by Gregory to protect a certain Sinceris,
who, having abstained from touching his late father-in-law's effects, refused
to be responsible for his debts, and was in consequence molested by the
creditors; another bishop was commanded to arrange a dispute about the servile
status of a woman; the bishop of Syracuse was ordered to punish a man who had
violently separated one of his female slaves from her husband, and sold her;
the bishop of Civitavecchia was directed to protect Luminosa, widow of a Tribunus, and see that she was not disturbed for the rest
of the year in the exercise of the cometiva held
by her late husband.
The following letter to Peter, Rector of the Sicilian
Patrimony, is typical: "As we have no desire to infringe the privileges of
laymen in their judgments, so, when these judgments are iniquitous, it is our
desire that you resist them with moderate authority. For to restrain the
violence of laymen is not to act against the law, but to support the law. Since
then Deusdedit, the son-in-law of Felix of Orticellum,
is said to have done violent wrong to the bearer of these presents and to be
still unlawfully detaining her property (the dejection of her widowhood not
moving his compassion, but confirming his malice), we charge your Experience to
give her protection against the aforesaid man and in all other matters in
which she suffers wrong. Let no one oppress her. Do not neglect this which,
without prejudice to equity, we have commanded you, or compel widows and other
poor persons, who can get no assistance with you, to undergo the expense of
making the long journey hither to us."
In respect of the privilege of asylum, Gregory's
intentions are quite clear. Asylum was to be used to further the interests of
equity and justice, and not to screen malefactors from punishment. If the
refugees were slaves, Gregory directed that, in case they had any just cause of
complaint against their masters, a proper arrangement was to be made for them
before they left the sanctuary. In case they had committed a venial fault, they
were to be given up to their masters after receiving a solemn promise of pardon.
The breaking of such a promise was punished with excommunication. If the
refugees were free men, they were persuaded to leave the sanctuary by the
pledge of a fair trial, and it was the bishop's duty to see that those who so
left it suffered no unjust treatment. In Gregory's day it was not unusual for
Government officials to take sanctuary when the time came for them to hand in
their accounts. Gregory's desire in all such cases was to give the suppliants
the opportunity of standing their trial "without apprehension of being
oppressed." As he constantly reminds his correspondents, the sanctuary is
not a protection for the guilty, but only a guarantee of fair and just
treatment.
(c) The position of lapsed clergy.
Such clerics as were proved guilty of criminal or
scandalous offences were punished by being deprived of their Orders and reduced
to the status of laymen. Deprivation was regarded as the clerical equivalent of
lay excommunication, clerics being punished thus for the offences which in a
layman would be punished by excommunication. In aggravated cases, however, the
penalty of excommunication was sometimes imposed in addition to the
deprivation. But whether deprived merely, or deprived and excommunicated also,
the lapsed cleric was never permitted by ecclesiastical law to resume his
clerical office and functions, but was obliged to continue as a layman to the
end of his life. In the early centuries, it is true, we meet with a few cases
in which the severity of this rule was mitigated. But these were instances of
peculiar privilege and dispensation. The general rule of the Church made
degradation (as distinct from suspension) absolute and final.
Against any modification of ecclesiastical law in this
matter Gregory resolutely set his face. He believed that the restoration of
lapsed clergy would be subversive of discipline and dangerous for morals, and
he therefore insisted on carrying out the law in all its stringency. "If licence of restoration be granted to the lapsed," he
wrote to the Archbishop of Milan, "the force of ecclesiastical discipline
is undoubtedly broken, and in their hopes of restoration ill-disposed persons
have no scruples in giving rein to their wicked inclinations. Your Fraternity
has consulted us on the question whether Amandinus,
ex-presbyter and ex-abbat, who for his faults was
degraded by your predecessor, should be restored to his rank. This thing is not
allowable, and we decree that it cannot be done on any account. Nevertheless,
though he is altogether deprived of his sacred office, yet, if his manner of
life deserves such favor, you may assign him a place in the monastery above the
other monks, as you may see fit. But above all things take care that no man's
supplication persuade you in any way to restore the lapsed to their Sacred
Orders, lest they come to regard the punishment of degradation, not as an
absolute penalty, but as a mere temporary expedient." So again Gregory
wrote to the Archbishop of Cagliari: "It has come to our knowledge that
some in Sacred Orders who have lapsed are recalled to their ministerial office,
after doing penance, or even before. This thing we have altogether forbidden,
and the most sacred canons also declare against it. Whosoever, then, after
having received any Sacred Order has lapsed into sin of the flesh, must utterly
forfeit his Order and never again approach the ministry of the altar."
This, then, was Gregory's invariable rule, applied by him equally to bishops,'
presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons. In one case it was reported to him that a
deprived presbyter had ventured to officiate and to offer the Holy Sacrifice.
Gregory decreed, that if this was true, the presbyter in question should remain
excommunicate to the day of his death, unless his behavior as penitent was
exceptionally good, when he might be restored to lay communion at the
discretion of his bishop.
Two further points in connection with Gregory's
treatment of the lapsed are to be noticed. The first is, that he drew a very
sharp distinction between lapsed clergymen and lapsed monks. A presbyter or
deacon who was deprived of his Orders forfeited them irrevocably; an abbat who was degraded for the same sin might, after
fitting penance, be restored to his rank. Thus again a single person, who was
both presbyter and abbat, and who had been degraded,
could never again exercise the priestly office, though he might resume his
monastic dignity. The reason of this distinction is, of course, the idea that
only those of unsullied character should be allowed to approach the altar for
the celebration of the Holy Mysteries.
The second point is that Gregory usually insisted that
degradation should be followed by confinement in a monastery and rigorous
penance. Thus he wrote to his agent in Sicily: "In respect of lapsed
priests or any of the other clergy, we desire you to keep yourself free from
fault in dealing with their property. Seek out the poorest regular monasteries
which you know to be well conducted, and there consign the lapsed to penance,
and let the property of the lapsed go to the benefit of the place where they
are confined, to the end that those who have the charge of their correction may
themselves get some good by their means. But if the lapsed have relations, let
their property go to their relations, after deducting an allowance for the
monasteries where the lapsed are consigned for penance. If, however, any of the
family of the Church shall have lapsed, whether priests, levites,
monks, clerics, or any other, it is our will that they be consigned to penance,
but that the Church retain its claim on their property. Yet let them be given
for their use sufficient to maintain them during their penance, lest, if they
be left destitute, they be a burden to the monasteries to which they are
consigned. If any have relations on the estates of the Church, let the property
be delivered to them to hold subject to the Church's claim”.
(d) The revenues of churches.
The revenues of each Church were in the first instance
under the disposition of the Bishop, who, however, in the sixth century usually
administered them through agents. In the Letters of Gregory we find that the
general charge of the property fell to the Archdeacon, who was responsible for
all losses to the treasury of his Church, and was obliged to make them good out
of his private estate. Hence he had power to interfere even with the action of
the bishop, if the latter was bent on turning the revenues to improper uses.
Again, in order to relieve the overtaxed archdeacon, the details of the
administration of the ecclesiastical property were committed to an officer who
bore the title of Oeconomus, or Church Steward, whose duties were to see to the
building and repair of churches, to provide for the proper cultivation of
Church lands, to pay the stipends of the clergy, to distribute alms, conduct
law-suits, and take charge of the property and revenues of the Church during a
vacancy. The Council of Chalcedon had decreed that every Church should maintain
one of these officials, but in Gregory's Letters they are not often referred
to. An oeconomus was directed by Gregory to manage the funds of the see of
Salona during a vacancy; and the oeconomus of Cagliari, together with the archpresbyter of the church, was warned to look after the
hospitals .
In respect of the distribution of the revenues, it had
long been the rule in the Roman Church to divide them into four parts—one for
the bishop, a second for the clergy, a third for the poor, and the fourth for
the repair of the fabric of the church. This fourfold mode of distribution had
been decreed by Gelasius, and was recognized and enforced as law by Gregory.
Thus he ordered Felix of Messina to give his clergy the customary payments, and
the bishop of Palermo to allow his clergy their fourth part. Again, when
Augustine wrote from England to ask how the Church funds were to be
distributed, Gregory replied that it was the custom of the Roman Church to
divide them into four portions—for the bishop, the clergy, the poor, and the
fabric; since, however, Augustine was a monk, he was not to subtract a portion
for himself, but was to live in common with his clergy. But though Gregory
insisted on the fourfold distribution as the general rule, still questions
respecting the application of the rule arose from time to time, on which the
Pope was required to pronounce judgment. For instance, he learned that in
certain churches in Sicily a custom had grown up, which was really an
infringement of the "canonical distribution in four parts." For the
bishops, while distributing in the legal fashion all the old revenues of their
Churches, retained for their own use all revenues recently acquired. This
practice Gregory ordered to be discontinued, and all revenues—whether old or
newly acquired—to be divided in the authorized fashion. Again, a question arose
whether a Visitor during a vacancy ought to receive the episcopal fourth or
not. Gregory laid down the principle that a Visitor ought to receive payment
for his services; and in one case ordered the whole of the episcopal fourth
part to be given him. As a rule, however, the remuneration was not so great,
but was fixed according to circumstances.
The bishops, then, were obliged to adhere to the
"canonical disposition" in paying out their funds; nevertheless, they
still retained considerable discretionary powers in respect of the details of
the distribution. For though each bishop was compelled to divide the total
revenues into four equal parts, he could subdivide as he pleased, and could
distribute the fourth part allotted to the clergy according to his private
judgment of the claims and merits of each individual. The clergy of Catania
once complained to Gregory of their bishop's method in doing this. It had been
the custom in this Church to assign two-thirds of the clerical fourth to the
clergy in Sacred Orders, and one-third to the rest of the clerics. But Bishop
Leo did exactly the opposite, apportioning one-third to the higher clergy, and
two-thirds to those in Minor Orders. The case seemed a hard one, yet Gregory
refused to interfere. All such administrative details, he believed, were best
left to the discretion of the bishop. Such a power, however, was of course
liable to abuse, and in some cases the clergy endeavored to secure their own
interests by compelling their bishops to sign charters of rights, which were
afterwards confirmed by the Pope. The clergy of Palermo, for example, extracted
from their bishop an agreement, in which he engaged to give them their full
fourth part without unnecessary delay, and to distribute it among them, not by
favor, but "according to the merits, the official standing, or the good
work of each." The bishop further contracted to surrender to the clergy a
full fourth, not only of the revenues, but also of the offerings of the
faithful, whether in money or in kind, to have his accounts published annually,
to permit clerics to buy wine from the Church estates at market price, to
reclaim all possessions of the Church which were wrongfully retained by
strangers, and to be slow in believing evil of his clergy and in punishing
them. In a letter from Gregory to Paschasius of Naples, we have an interesting
indication of the proportion it was thought right to observe in distributing a
sum of money among the clergy and the poor. The amount was divided as follows:
100 solidi to the clerics of the Church, half a solidus apiece to 126 praeiacentes, 50 solidi to the foreign clergy, 150
solidi to poor men ashamed to beg, 36 solidi to public beggars. Gregory
himself, we may note, was in the habit of making distributions of revenue four
times a year.
The bishop had no power to alienate any property
belonging to his Church without the consent of his clergy and also of the Pope.
The privilege was rarely conceded by Gregory, and, when it was, great
precautions were taken to guard against irregularity. Thus Gregory permitted
Fortunatus of Fano to sell his Church plate for the redemption of captives, but
he ordered that the sale and the payment of the money should be made in the
presence of the Roman agent.
The private property of a bishop who died intestate
went to his Church; so also did all property acquired by him after his
elevation to the episcopate, whether he left a will or not. A bishop had power
to bequeath only such private property as he had acquired before he became
bishop or inherited from relatives. All the rest belonged of right to his
Church. Such was the rule enforced by Gregory.
Closely connected with the question of Church revenues
is the subject of clerical fees. Gregory was anxious to cut these off as far as
possible. Already, according to a decree of Gelasius, it was illegal to exact
fees for baptism or confirmation; and the Third Council of Braga forbade them
to be exacted for the consecration of churches. To these regulations Gregory
adhered; but in respect of confirmation expenses he approved of an arrangement
made by Pelagius the Second, obliging the parochial clergy to contribute a
fixed sum for the remuneration of the attendants of the confirming bishop. Thus
Gregory wrote to the bishops of Sicily: “It has been reported to us that in the
time of our holy predecessor it was arranged that the priests of your dioceses
should not be immoderately burdened when you go forth to seal infants. For a
certain sum had been fixed, and, as I hear, with your consent, to be given by
the same priests to the clerics who attend you. But this arrangement, then
approved of, is not now preserved. Wherefore I admonish your Fraternity to
endeavor not to be burdensome to your subjects, and, if they have any
grievances, to abate them, seeing that you certainly ought not to have departed
from the arrangement that was agreed upon”. Gregory further forbade fees to be
levied for ordinations, marriages of inferior clerics, or the veiling of
virgins, though he permitted the bishops to accept a gift if spontaneously
offered. Moreover, he strongly condemned the exaction of fees for
burying-places. “You know our ordinance”, he wrote to a bishop. “We have
entirely forbidden this old custom in our Church, and no one is permitted to
purchase a burial-place for a price. For if the men of Sichem, who were
Gentiles, offered Abraham without charge a sepulcher for Sarah's body, and were
scarcely prevailed upon by his importunities to receive a price for the
burial-place, ought we who have the name of bishops to make a charge for
burying the bodies of the faithful?”.
Again, he wrote to Januarius of Cagliari yet more
strongly: “It is very wrong and unbecoming your priestly office to ask a price
for earth granted to rottenness, and to wish to profit by another's grief.
Wherefore I admonish you never in future to presume to be so avaricious even in
the case of a stranger. But if at any time you allow anyone to be buried in
your church, and the parents, relatives, or heirs of the deceased should of
their own accord desire to offer something for the lights, we do not forbid you
to accept it. But we do forbid outright any demand or exaction of money—which
is most contrary to religion—lest the Church be called venal (which God forbid
I) and you, by trying to profit by men’s bodies, should seem to take a joy in
their death”.
The general practice of giving presents to bishops
Gregory discouraged, and in this respect he himself set an example by refusing
all such gifts whenever possible. On one occasion a bishop sent him some costly
robes embroidered with palm branches. But Gregory sold them, and sent their
price back to the donor for the poor of his diocese.
Such, then, were the regulations enforced by Gregory
in the Churches of his metropolitanate and of
Sardinia. We have now to consider his relations with some of the other Churches
of the West.
|
