To All the Bishops of Mauretania Caesariensis

Leo, bishop of the city of Rome, to all the bishops of Mauretania Caesariensis in Africa, greeting in the Lord. [a]

Frequent reports from those who visited us mentioned certain unlawful practices among you in the ordination of priests. So the demands of religion required us to try to find out the exact state of the case, in keeping with the concern that by God’s command we give to the whole church. We therefore entrusted this to our brother and fellow priest Potentius, who was setting out from us. According to what we wrote and sent to you by him, he was to inquire into the facts about the bishops whose election was said to be faulty, and to report everything to us faithfully. Now the same Potentius has disclosed everything to us most fully, and by his truthful account has made clear to us under what governors, and what kind of governors, some of Christ’s congregations are placed in certain parts of the province of Mauretania Caesariensis. So we have found it necessary to lay open the grief that troubles our hearts over the dangers to the Lord’s flocks, by sending this letter also to you, beloved. For we are surprised that either the overbearing conduct of schemers or the rioting of the people had so much weight with you in a time of disorder that the chief pastoral office and the governing of the church were handed over to the most unworthy people, and to those farthest removed from the standard of a priest. This is not to serve the people’s interests but to harm them; not to enforce discipline but to increase dissension. For the integrity of those who rule is the safeguard of those under them, and where there is complete obedience, there the form of doctrine is sound. But an appointment that has been made by sedition or seized by scheming, even if it does no wrong in morals or in conduct, is still harmful from the mere example of its beginning. And it is hard for things that started badly to be brought to a good end.

If great forethought and knowledge must be used in every grade of the church, so that nothing in the house of the Lord is out of order or out of place, how much more carefully must we try to avoid mistakes in electing the one who is set over all the grades? For the peace and order of the Lord’s whole household will be shaken if what is required in the body is not found in the head. Where is that command of the blessed apostle Paul, spoken through the Spirit of God, by which the whole number of Christ’s priests are instructed in the person of Timothy, and it is said to each one of us: “Do not lay hands hastily on anyone, and do not share in other people’s sins”? What is it to lay on hands hastily, but to confer the dignity of a priest on untested men before the age of maturity, before there has been time to test them, before they have earned it by their obedience, before they have been tried by discipline? And what is it to share in other people’s sins, but for the one who ordains to become like the man who ought not to have been ordained by him? For just as a man stores up for himself the fruit of his good work if he keeps a right judgment in choosing a priest, so one who receives an unworthy priest into the number of his colleagues inflicts serious loss on himself. So we must not pass over, in anyone’s case, what is laid down in the general ordinances; nor is any promotion to be counted lawful that has been made against the commands of God’s law. [b]

For the apostle says that, among the other rules for election, the man to be ordained bishop is one known to have been, or to be, “the husband of one wife.” This command has always been held so sacred that the same condition was understood to apply to the wife of the priest-elect as well: she must not have been married to another man before she married him, even if he himself had had no other wife. Who then would dare to allow this injury to be done to so great a sacrament? For this great and venerable mystery is supported by the statutes of God’s law as well, in which it is plainly laid down that a priest is to marry a virgin, and that the woman who is to be a priest’s wife is not to know another husband. For even then the spiritual marriage of Christ and his church was prefigured in the priests, so that, since “the man is the head of the woman,” the bride of the Word may learn to know no other man but Christ, who rightly chose her alone, loves her alone, and takes no one but her into his union. If, then, even in the Old Testament this kind of marriage is kept among priests, how much more ought we, who are placed under the grace of the gospel, to conform to the apostle’s commands. So even if a man is found to have a good character and to be furnished with holy works, he may still by no means rise to the grade of deacon, or to the dignity of a presbyter, or to the highest rank, that of bishop, if it has become known either that he himself is not the husband of one wife or that his wife is not the wife of one husband. [d]

But when the apostle warns, “And let these also first be tested, and then let them serve,” what else do we think must be understood but that in these promotions we should consider not only the chastity of their marriages but also the merit of their labors? Otherwise the pastoral office may be entrusted to men who are either fresh from baptism or suddenly turned aside from worldly pursuits. For through all the ranks of the Christian army, in the matter of promotion, it ought to be considered whether a man can manage a greater charge. Rightly did the venerable judgments of the blessed fathers, in speaking of the election of priests, reckon those men fit for the administration of sacred things who had been advanced slowly through the various grades of office, and had given such good proof of themselves in them that in each one the character of their conduct bore witness to their lives. For if it is improper to reach the world’s honors without the help of time and the merit of hard work, and if seeking office is condemned unless it is supported by proofs of uprightness, how diligently and how carefully ought divine duties and heavenly honors to be handed out! Otherwise the apostolic and canonical decrees may be broken in some respect, and the ruling of the Lord’s church may be entrusted to men who, ignorant of the lawful constitutions and lacking all humility, wish not to rise from the lowest grade but to begin with the highest. For it is extremely unfair and absurd that the inexperienced should be preferred to the experienced, the young to the old, raw recruits to those who have seen much service. In a great house, indeed, as the apostle explains, there must be various vessels, some of gold and of silver, and some of wood and of clay. But their purpose varies with the quality of their material, and the precious and the cheap kinds are not put to the same use. For everything will be in disorder if the clay is preferred to the gold, or the wood to the silver. And as the wooden or clay vessels are a figure of those who are not yet known for any virtues, so the gold or silver vessels no doubt stand for those who have passed through the fire of long experience and the furnace of long labor, and have deserved to be tested gold and pure silver. And if such men get no reward for their devotion, all the discipline of the church is loosened and all order is upset, while men who have done no service obtain undeserved promotion by the wrongful choice of the electors. [f]

Either the eager wishes of the people or the scheming of the ambitious have had so much weight among you that, as we understand, not only laymen but even men married a second time, or married to widows, have been promoted to the pastoral office. Are there not, then, the clearest reasons for requiring that the churches where such things have been done be cleansed by a sterner judgment than usual, and that not only the rulers themselves but also those who ordained them receive the punishment they deserve? But on one side of us stands the gentleness of mercy, on the other the strictness of justice. And because “all the paths of the Lord are loving-kindness and truth,” we are compelled, in keeping with our loyalty to the Apostolic See, so to temper our judgment as to weigh people’s misdeeds in the balance (for of course they are not all of one measure), and to count some as pardonable after a fashion, but others as to be put down altogether. For those who have either entered a second marriage or married widows are not allowed to hold the priesthood, either by apostolic or by legal authority. Much more is this the case with the man who, as was reported to us, is the husband of two wives at once, or the man who is said to have married another after being divorced by his wife, that is, supposing these charges are proved in your judgment. But as for the rest, whose promotion is open to blame only in that they were chosen for the office of bishop from among the laity, and who are not at fault in the matter of their wives, we allow them to keep the priesthood they have entered. This is without prejudice to the statutes of the Apostolic See, and without breaking the rules of the blessed fathers, whose wholesome ordinance is that no layman, however much support he may receive, is to rise to the first, second or third rank in the church until he reaches that position by the lawful steps. For what we now allow to be pardonable after a fashion cannot go unpunished in the future, if anyone commits what we altogether forbid. The forgiveness of a sin does not grant license to do wrong, and it will not be right to repeat with impunity an offense that has been pardoned in some measure. [h]

Donatus of Salacia, who, as we learn, has been converted from the Novatians together with his people, we wish to preside over the Lord’s flock, on condition that he remember he must send us a written statement of his faith, in which he not only condemns the error of the Novatian teaching but also fully confesses the catholic truth. Maximus too, although he was wrongly ordained while a layman, we do not remove from the dignity of bishop that he obtained irregularly, provided that he is no longer a Donatist and has renounced the spirit of schismatic perversity, and on condition that he declare himself a catholic by drawing up a written statement for us. [i]

But concerning Aggarus and Tyberianus, whose case differs from that of the others ordained from among the laity in that their ordination is reported to have been accompanied by fierce riots and savage disturbances, we have entrusted the whole matter to your judgment, so that, relying on your investigation of the case, we may know what to decide about them.

Those handmaids of God who have lost their chastity through the violence of barbarians will be more praiseworthy in their humility and modesty if they do not venture to compare themselves with undefiled virgins. For although every sin springs from desire, and the will may have remained unconquered and undefiled by the fall of the flesh, it will still do them less harm if they grieve over losing even in the body what they did not lose in spirit. [j]

And so, beloved, you now see yourselves fully instructed, through David, our brother and fellow bishop, whom we approve both for his personal character and for his worth as a priest, on nearly all the points that our brother Potentius’s account contained. It remains, brothers, for you to receive our wholesome exhortations in harmony, doing nothing out of rivalry but acting with one mind and with entire devotion and zeal, to obey the constitution of God and of his apostles, and not to let the well-considered decrees of the canons be broken in anything. For what we have now relaxed for certain reasons must from now on be guarded by the ancient rules. Otherwise what we have on this occasion granted with merciful leniency we may later have to visit with the punishment it deserves, acting with special and direct vigor against those who, in ordaining bishops, have neglected the statutes of the holy fathers and have consecrated men they ought to have rejected. Therefore, if any bishops have consecrated as priest a man who ought not to be one, then even if they have to some degree escaped any loss of their personal dignity, they are to have no further right of ordaining, and are never to be present at that sacrament which, neglecting the judgment of God, they conferred improperly. [k]

What pertains to the dignity of priests we of course wish to be observed together with all the statutes of the canons: namely, that bishops are not to be consecrated in just any place, or in any hamlet, or where they have not been consecrated before. For where the flocks are small and the congregations small, the care of the presbyters may be enough, whereas the authority of a bishop ought to preside only over larger flocks and more crowded cities. Otherwise, contrary to the divinely inspired decrees of the holy fathers, the office of priest may be given over villages and country estates or obscure and thinly peopled towns, and the place of honor, to which only the more important charges should be given, may be cheapened by the very number of those who hold it. Bishop Restitutus has reported that this has been done in his own diocese. He has rightly asked that, when the bishops of those places where they ought not to have been ordained die in the natural course, the places themselves should return to the jurisdiction of the same prelate to whom they formerly belonged and were attached. It is indeed pointless for the dignity of priests to be lessened by needlessly multiplying the office through the thoughtless compliance of the one who ordains.

Now concerning those who made a holy vow of virginity and, as we said above, have suffered the violence of barbarians, losing their spotless purity not in spirit but in body: we consider that such moderation should be observed that they are neither lowered to the rank of widows nor counted among the holy and undefiled virgins. Yet if they persevere in the virgin life, and in heart and mind guard the reality of chastity, they are not to be refused a share in the sacraments. For it is unfair that they should be accused or branded for what their wills did not surrender, but what was stolen from them by the violence of enemies. [l]

We order the case of Bishop Lupicinus also to be heard there. But at his urgent and repeated pleading we have restored him to communion, for this reason: since he had appealed to our judgment, we saw that he had been undeservedly suspended from communion while the matter was pending. There is this further point too: it was plainly rash to ordain another over his head, who ought not to have been ordained until Lupicinus had been brought before you and either convicted or at least had confessed, and so had the chance to submit to a just sentence, so that, as church discipline requires, the man consecrated might then receive his vacant place.

But whenever other cases arise that concern the state of the church and the harmony of the priests, we wish them first to be examined by you in the fear of the Lord, and a full account of all matters, settled or still to be settled, to be sent to us, so that what has been decided properly and reasonably, according to the custom of the church, may also receive our confirming approval. Dated the 10th of August.