Pastoral Rule, Dialogues & Letters 837

Gregory to John, bishop of Palermo. Since there are faults in which it is itself a fault to relax the punishment, the truth must always be sought, so that it may be inquired whether guilt condemns the accused, or whether innocence, once laid open, withdraws him from the penalty. Now it has come to us that Fantinus the defensor wished to exercise vengeance upon Peter, the bearer of the present letter, on the ground that—so far as is alleged—he, at the time when he was a lessee, handed over in marriage the widow of a certain deacon.

But since this man asserts that she was not the wife of the deacon—saying that she did not come to him as a virgin, and moreover that she did not presume to change into the religious habit after that man had been promoted to sacred orders, adding also that even before he attained to the diaconate, and afterward, she lived with an evil reputation—therefore we exhort Your Fraternity with these words, that with the fear of God, as is fitting, you investigate this cause with an altogether subtle inquiry; and if it be established that the woman was indeed in the marriage of the deacon, then let the aforesaid bearer be handed over in every way to the said defensor and rector of the patrimony for punishment, and let those who have been wickedly joined be separated with fitting amendment.

But if she was not in his marriage, then we wish you to warn the aforesaid Fantinus by our mandate, that he presume not to do anything to them, nor that a false accusation weigh him down before him in any respect. And since the aforesaid Peter reports that his own property is being retained among the coloni of the Church, we wish that he may have it without anyone's hindrance—if, however, there is thus a right of demanding it. For even if he should be found guilty, he ought not to lose his property, but rather to bear in himself a worthy punishment. Gregory to Marinianus, bishop of Ravenna.

Since it is very unfitting that anyone be suspended from an office he has received by mere will alone, when no fault removes him, it must be carefully arranged that neither should the prior ordination be irrationally destroyed, nor should those things which have followed wrongly be left without amendment. Fortunatus therefore, the bearer of the present letter, asserting that in the monastery of Saints Laurence and Zeno, which is established in the fortress of Cesena, the office of abbot had been committed to him by Natalis, once bishop, complains that now he has been removed thence by his successor Concordius, no fault existing, and that another has been ordained in his place.

And this, even before some of our deacons, in the presence of a deacon of the said bishop Concordius who pleaded his side's cause, became partly clear to be so. But since a more certain proof can be had in those regions where the matter was done, let Your Fraternity diligently and carefully strive to investigate this. And if no manifest cause of deposition existed which would remove the aforesaid Fortunatus from his office once stripped of it, then it remains that you restore him to his place, and cease not to rebuke his bishop with a worthy reproof—why, provoked by no excesses, he sought to destroy the ordination of his predecessor. But if the other party should say that the case is otherwise than we have been informed, the truth must be sought by subtle investigation;

and thus let whatever the canonical order shall require be brought to an end, so that no further complaint may remain concerning that matter. Given in the month of October, in the seventh indiction.