Pastoral Rule, Dialogues & Letters 645

Gregory to Constantius, bishop of Milan. Having read your letters, which you sent to us by Marianus the bearer of these presents, we have written back that your solicitude was pleasing to us, in that you by no means allowed yourself to dissemble those things which reached you concerning our brother and fellow-bishop Pompeius, who is still to be named by us in this way. But if there had been such subtlety in the examination as there was care in the inquiry, nothing of what has been said about him would have remained in doubt. But whether what had been laid together was true would have become plain, since long ago a like question against him was set in motion, as we have learned, in Sicily before our brother Maximian, bishop of reverend memory.

But because his case was sought out with a wholly subtle investigation, he who had been accused of the crime was found innocent. Now therefore, since those things which were said against him were not investigated with that strictness which was fitting, and the acts which were drawn up thereupon before your fraternity are proved able to suffice neither for his condemnation nor for his absolution, no light matter is being dealt with, that it should be defined incautiously or in passing. For (Gratian II, q. 5, c. 74) it is grave and unseemly that in a doubtful matter a certain sentence be pronounced. And these acts indeed could have been suitable for reaching a definition, if the confession of the accused had followed;

provided, however, that the subtlety of the examination drew forth that same confession out of hidden things, and that a violent affliction did not wring it out, which frequently brings it about that even innocent men are compelled to confess themselves guilty. For since the aforesaid bishop asserts, as it is said, that he was tortured by confinement and consumed by hunger, you ought to know, if it be so, whether it does harm if a confession has been extorted in such a way. Is it not the case that, when causes of this kind receive a sentence and appeal is made to the Apostolic See, both the person who is judged is present, and the truth is sought most strictly and from every side, so that it may then be decreed whether the sentence ought to stand or not?

Moreover, if the aforesaid bishop should wish to appeal to the Apostolic See, his case must be scrutinized inwardly and with all diligence. And therefore, since the person is absent, and the acts which you transmitted to us do not seem, as we have said before, to have given adequate satisfaction, we neither can nor ought to decree anything rashly concerning the person of a bishop, lest—which God forbid—we be found reprehensible in our own affairs, we to whom it belongs by right to review the sentences of others. But as for what was reported to you concerning the Alamanni, we are placed even farther off than you are. And we do not in the least doubt that it may not be true. Yet your fraternity does well to write for our information what it has heard.