De locis theologicis

ON THE AUTHORITY OF EXPERTS IN PONTIFICAL LAW

This book could now close, except that theology is joined with expertise in pontifical law, so we must explain how much experts in this law help a theologian’s arguments. Some are so hostile to learned men in this field that they exclude their authority from theology. We shall briefly show how much a theologian should value these teachers, beginning with this principle: theologians who do not know the Pontiffs’ canons lack too much of what theology needs. If care of souls is not foreign to theologians, but rather governing souls is their special task, knowledge of canon law is necessary. Just as no one should be chosen as abbot unless competently instructed in the rule, so governing a church should not be entrusted to someone ignorant of its rules. A theologian who is to become a bishop or parish priest, if he has not first learned the canons by which the faithful are instructed in the Christian religion and the Church’s ceremonies, will not have a sufficiently equipped workshop of theology for this public task.

This same rule appears in the passages from Caelestinus, Leo, Augustinus, the seventh synod, the Council of Carthage, the fourth Council of Toledo, and the fourth Council of Orléans, cited in part by Gratianus and in part by Burchardus: priests should know the ecclesiastical canons. Bishops’ need for canon-law knowledge is clear from c. Accedentibus, de excelsi. praelat., where the Pontiff defines that it belongs to a bishop to judge matrimonial cases, impose or remove public penances, and grant indulgences. Unless he knows whether and to what extent the law permits these acts, he cannot perform them rightly. Innocentius, Hostiensis, Antonius de Butrio, Cardinalis, Abbas, and other jurists discuss this at length in c. Cum in cunctis, de electio.; cap. Nisi cum pridem, de renun.; and cap. 1, de consanguini. et affini.; as do Gratianus, 21 dist.; Cosmus, in pragma. sanctione Gallicana, titu. de collatio., Taliter; Ioannes de Anania, in cap. quia nonnullis, de magistris; Augustinus de Ancona, lib. de potestate eccles., quaest. 108, art. 3; and Antonius, 3 part., titu. 5, cap. 2. We add nothing more here, but argue that canon-law knowledge is absolutely necessary for theologians. Since their proper task is to exhort the faithful in sound doctrine, and they are called teachers of souls, it is absurd to remove the canons from their charge: the Church’s teacher must instruct the people in ecclesiastical as well as divine laws. Although most precepts for living are taught in Scripture, as Cardinal Turrecremata says in the preface to the Decretum, particular instruction about conduct according to each rank and Church office requires knowledge of ecclesiastical law. Moral sermons cannot be complete if they are general rather than particular, as Aristoteles warns in his Ethics. To complete ecclesiastical discipline, theologians must learn the Church’s sacred laws. This is strongly confirmed by the Lateran Council under Innocentius III, cap. Quia nonnullis, de Magistris. It commands a cathedral theologian to teach priests sacred Scripture and especially to form them in matters concerning care of souls. The canons contain many such rules, and theologians must know them. All doctrine inspired by God is useful for teaching, refuting, and correcting, so the man of God may be perfect and equipped for good work. Ecclesiastical canons were issued by the Holy Spirit’s prompting, as Damasus says in 25 quaestione prima, cap. Violatores. Supreme Pontiffs and bishops also enlist theologians as assistants in preaching, hearing confessions, imposing penances, and related duties concerning salvation, as cap. Inter caetera, de offi. iudi. ordina., and experience show. Hardly anyone can hear confessions and impose penances without legal expertise. As for Caietanus’s claim that penitents under excommunication, suspension, irregularity, and similar penalties should be referred to jurists so the confessor is not overburdened with another discipline, I do not see how this can be done without great inconvenience.

First, women sometimes incur legal penalties. It would be absurd for them to visit jurists’ homes as a remedy for conscience, and scarcely consistent with feminine modesty. Second, since jurists usually sell their knowledge and words, one could not approach confession without first paying. People are sometimes afraid to disclose sins even to a priest; sending them also to jurists would make this sacrament’s burden too heavy for the weak. Why list the difficulties confessors, and therefore penitents, must encounter if confessors are ignorant of the canons? They are too obvious to need explanation. Legal expertise must be very useful to theologians. No need to seek distant arguments: we see how many canons fill theologians’ volumes, especially those who wrote indexes of questions, which we call summaries. Their readers, even judges of outstanding learning, can judge how much canon law helps theologians. If the materials drawn from canon law were removed, Caietanus’s own Summa would be largely incomplete. Matrimonial cases are referred to theologians more often than any others. If a theologian does not answer, he will be considered unlearned; if he answers without legal expertise, he is imprudent, not to say shameless. As Alexander teaches, such cases are not for just anyone but for discreet men who know the canons. Decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs are also believed to flow from divine law, from both Testaments. Since theology draws from the same sources, a theologian would act foolishly if he refused the Pontiffs’ works: after seeking counsel and with the Holy Spirit’s prompting, they gathered from divine oracles dogmas and laws about faith, Christian conduct, and ecclesiastical rites. Theology does not only contemplate; it also acts. In school terminology, it is partly speculative and partly practical, as Divus Thomas shows. Canon law is a practical theology, as Alvarus Pelagius teaches: its end is to direct souls to eternal salvation by canonical laws, and the Decretals contain many cases useful for counseling souls, the tribunal of penance, and governing churches. That book treats baptism, sacred unction, Mass, marriage, orders and other sacraments; monastic life, clerical conduct, vows and oaths; simony, perjury, usury, theft and other crimes; irregularity, suspension, excommunication, interdict and similar penalties. Ignorant of these, a theologian will not only be an ignoramus, as Innocentius calls him in cap. Ex multa, de voto, but will err in many matters, especially Christian conduct. Would that theologians wholly ignorant of canon law refrained from deciding cases of conscience, instead of being laughed at when they answer as teachers matters they never learned as students; or at least consulted jurists instead of guessing.

It would be easy to show how many errors some theologians have made through ignorance of pontifical law, were it not a long task and our discussion were not moving on. Let us accept the point established: canon-law knowledge is very necessary for a theologian, especially because the authority of the Supreme Pontiff and councils, contained in this discipline’s volumes, supplies arguments proper to theology, as we showed in the two preceding books.