Before these, the Gloss on the Canon Maximianus, dist. 81. tells us, (k)it is the common opinion that no Priest should be deposed for simple Fornication, because there are but few Priests free from it. If all Fornicators had been deprived, their Church would have been made desolate, and left in a manner Priestless. This was a great reason then, and is, it ⟨p. 357⟩seems, of the same force still; for at this day, a Priest is not to be deprived for simple Incontinency. The Congregation of Cardinals (much concerned for the propagation of the holy Church) declared it to be Law (l)that the penalty of deprivation proceeds not for simple incontinency, as Garzias observes; only they must not keep Whores in the capacity of Concubines. It may be that came too near Marriage, to have so much favour as vagrant Whoredom. Yet if a Priest keep a Whore at Board and Bed, and use her constantly, as if she were his Wife, he is not therefore irregular: Indeed if he Marry her, or an honester Woman, all the world cannot excuse him; for though such Whoredom never disables a Priest, yet chaste Marriage utterly spoils him. Yea, if he keep in that capacity more Whores than one (I know not how many more, for they are not limited to numbers) yet still he is not irregular (as innocent Bigamy would make any one, though he were an Apostle) but the Bishop may dispense with him. So Pope Innocent 3. determined, and it is now as good Law as their Church has any; and the more remarkable, because the Doctors Gloss on it, would have it noted as admirable, (m)that Whoredom has, with them, more privilege than Chastity. Where we may suppose the Gloss speaks the sense of such as are Strangers to Rome; for that Uncleanness should be preferred before Chastity, is in that Church nothing wonderful nor strange at all, but ordinary and obvious. That Pope (whom they magnify as the singular glory of their Law), decrees (n)that the Bishop may dispense with Priests who keep many Concubines, to exercise their Office, as he doth also with those who are noted for simple Fornication. And how the Bishops were wont to dispense with them, is known, their own Writers declaring, it the custom, as before, to let out those Women to them at a yearly rent; and that they were so hard—Lords, that if a ⟨p. 358⟩Priest had no mind to the Bishops Tenement, and did not take it, yet he must pay for it no less than the forwardest Farmer.
Before these, the Gloss on the Canon Maximianus, dist. 81. tells us, (k)it is the common opinion that no Priest should be deposed for simple Fornication, because there are but few Priests free from it. If all Fornicators had been deprived, their Church would have been made desolate, and left in a manner Priestless. This was a great reason then, and is, it ⟨p. 357⟩seems, of the same force still; for at this day, a Priest is not to be deprived for simple Incontinency. The Congregation of Cardinals (much concerned for the propagation of the holy Church) declared it to be Law (l)that the paenalty of deprivation proceeds not for simple incontinency, as Garzias observes; only they must not keep Whores in the capacity of Concubines. It may be that came too near Marriage, to have so much favour as vagrant Whoredom. Yet if a Priest keep a Whore at Bord and Bed, and use her constantly, as if she were his Wife, he is not therefore irregular: Indeed if he Marry her, or an honester Woman, all the world cannot excuse him; for though such Whoredom never disables a Priest, yet chast Marriage utterly spoils him. Yea, if he keep in that capacity more Whores than one (I know not how many more, for they are not limitted to numbers) yet still he is not irregular (as innocent Bigamy would make any one, though he were an Apostle) but the Bishop may dispense with him. So Pope Innocent 3. determined, and it is now as good Law as their Church has any; and the more remarkable, because the Doctors Gloss on it, would have it noted as admirable, (m)that Whoredom has, with them, more priviledge than Chastity. Where we may suppose the Gloss speaks the sense of such as are Strangers to Rome; for that Uncleanness should be preferred before Chastity, is in that Church nothing wonderful nor strange at all, but ordinary and obvious. That Pope (whom they magnifie as the singular glory of their Law), decrees (n)that the Bishop may dispense with Priests who keep many Concubines, to exercise their Office, as he doth also with those who are noted for simple Fornication. And how the Bishops were wont to dispense with them, is known, their own Writers declaring, it the custom, as before, to let out those Women to them at a yearly rent; and that they were so hard—Lords, that if a ⟨p. 358⟩Priest had no mind to the Bishops Tenement, and did not take it, yet he must pay for it no less than the forwardest Farmer.
- (k)Communiter dicitur quod pro simplici fornicatione quis deponi non debet, cum pauci sine illo vi•io inveniantur. dist. 81.
- (l)Quae tamen paena privationis beneficij non procedit in simplici incontinentia, absque qualitate concubinatus, ut constat ex declarat. adducta a Garcia. Jo Sauc. disp. 50. n. 10.
- (m)Si presbytery plures concubinas habentes—poteris cum els tanquam simplici fornicatione notatis, quod ad executionem sacerdotalis officij, dispenfare, Extra. de Bigam. tit. 22. c. quia circa.Si presbyteri plures concubinas habentes—poteris cum els tanquam simplici fornicatione notatis, quod ad executionem sacerdotalis officij, dispenfare, Extra. de Bigam. tit. 22. c. quia circa.
- (n)Notandum mirabile quod plus hic habet luxuria quam castitas.
