A letter from Gregory I, pope (601, February)

Translated letter:

Pope Gregory I to the patrician Theoctista We must give great thanks to almighty God because our most pious and benign emperor(1) has in his family such relatives near him whose behavior is a great joy for all of us. Whence we must also pray continually for the same lord that his life with all his (people) will be preserved for long and peaceful duration with the protection of heavenly grace. However, I reveal that I have learned from certain messengers that due to the inconstancy of the people an uproar of slander has arisen against you. About this matter I hear that your excellency has been greatly distressed. If this is so, I wonder very much why the words of men on earth distress you, who have fixed your heart on heaven. For the blessed Job, when his friends who had come to console burst out in rebuke, says: “For behold my witness is in heaven and he that knows my conscience is on high” [Job 16:20]. For whoever holds the witness of his life in heaven should not fear the judgments of men on earth. Also Paul, leader of the good, says: “For our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience” [2 Cor. 1:12]. Again he says: “Let each one prove his own work, and thus he will have glory in himself and not in another” [Gal 6:4]. For if we are gladdened by praise (and) broken by censure, we have placed our glory not in ourselves but in the mouth of others. And foolish virgins have not taken oil for their vessels, but the wise have taken oil in vessels with their lamps. To be sure the lamps are our good deeds. About these it is written: “Let your light shine before men so that they see your good deeds and glorify your father who is in heaven” [Matth 5:16]. But then we take oil in vessels with our lamps when from good deeds we seek the splendor of glory not in the praises of neighbors but we protect it in the testimony of conscience. Further, for everything that is said about us on the outside we must run back to the secrets of the mind. Even though all may censure , he is still free whom conscience does not accuse, because even if all praise, he cannot be free if conscience accuses him. About John the truth says: “What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed shaken by the wind?” Specifically he says this for negation, not for confirmation when he adds “But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft garments? Behold those who are dressed in soft garments are in the houses of kings” [Matth. 11:7-8]. Although according to the truth of the gospel John was covered in rough clothing, nonetheless according to the meaning those who are dressed in soft garments delight in adulations and praises. Yet we deny that John was a reed agitated by the wind since no breeze of a human mouth bent the strength of his mind. For if we are raised up by praises, (and) we are humiliated by censures, we are a reed agitated by the wind. But let this be absent, let it be absent from the heart of your excellency. I know that you read zealously the teacher of gentiles/pagans who says: “If I were still pleasing men, I would not be the servant of Christ” [Gal. 1:10]. Nonetheless if any, even minor sadness has arisen in your mind from this matter, I believe that almighty God has benignly allowed this to happen. For he did not promise to his elect the joys of delight in this life, but bitterness, tribulations so that in the manner of medicine they might, through a bitter cup, return to the sweetness of eternal salvation. For what does he say? “The world will rejoice but you will mourn” [John 16:20]. With what hope, with what promise he adds soon after: “I will see you again and your heart will rejoice and no one will take your joy from you” [John 16:22]. Hence he said again to the disciples: “In your patience you will possess your souls” [Luke 21:19]. Consider, I ask, where patience will be if what it should endure were lacking. I suspect that an Abel who did not have Cain would not exist. For if the good are without evils, they cannot be perfectly good because they are expiated very little. Further that association with the wicked is the purgation of the good. There were three sons in the ark; one stood out as the mocker of the father, who, though he was blessed in himself, yet received a judgment of malediction in the son. Abraham, before he took Cethura as wife, had two sons, but nonetheless his son of the flesh persecuted the son of promise. The great teacher explains this, saying: “As he who is according to the flesh persecuted him that is according to spirit, thus it is also now” [Gal. 4:29]. Isaac had two sons, but one, who was spiritual, fled before the threats of the carnal brother. Jacob had twelve sons, but ten sold the one, who lived rightly, into Egypt. For the prophet David, because he had something that had to be purged, it was carried out that he endured a son as persecutor. The blessed Job says about the society of the wicked: “I was the brother of dragons and the companion of ostriches” [Job 30:29]. And the Lord said to Ezekiel: “Sons of man, unbelievers and destroyers are with you and you dwell with scorpions” [Ezek 2:6]. Among twelve apostles was mingled one reprobate so that he would be the one whose persecution tempted the (other) eleven. The prince of the apostles speaks to the disciples, saying: “He snatched away just Lot, oppressed by the unjust behavior of wicked ones. For in appearance and words he was just, dwelling among those who from day to day afflicted the soul of the just with wicked deeds” [2 Pet 2:7]. Also, the apostle Paul writes to the disciples, saying: “In the midst of a depraved and perverse people, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life” [Phil. 2:15]. Therefore, since with scripture as witness we know that in this life the good cannot exist without the wicked, by no means should your excellency be distressed by the voices of the foolish, especially since there is confident trust in almighty God that when for the sake of a good deed we receive something of adversity in this world, the full reward is preserved in eternal retribution. Whence in the holy gospel truth says: “You will be blessed when lying men have spoken every evil against you for the sake of my name” [Matth 5:11]. He, for our consolation, deemed it worthy to point out as an example his own dishonors, saying: “If they have called the father of the family Beelzebub, how much more those of his household?” [Matth 10:25]. Further, there are many who praise the life of the good perhaps more than they should, and so that pride is not snatched from praise, almighty God allows the wicked to burst forth in disparagement and rebuke, so that if any sin arises in the heart from the mouth of those praising, it is stifled by the mouth of those censuring. Hence it is the teacher of gentiles witnesses that in preaching he moves by infamy and good fame [2 Cor. 6:8]. He also says: “As deceivers yet true” [2 Cor. 6:8]. Thus if there were those who imposed evil fame on Paul, who called him a deceiver, therefore what Christian should consider it unworthy to hear injustices for Christ? We know what great virtue the precursor of our redeemer had, he who on account of sacred eloquence is called not only more than prophet, but even an angel, and yet as the history of his death witnesses, after death his body was burned by persecutors. But why do we say these things about holy men? Let us speak about that saint of saints, that is God, who for our sake became a man, who before death heard unjustly that he harbored a demon, and after death was called a deceiver by his persecutors when they said: “We know that the deceiver said: after three days I will rise again” [Matth. 27:63]. Therefore, how much is necessary that we sinners endure from the tongue and hands of wicked men, we who are to be judged at the coming of the eternal judge, if even he himself, who comes as judge, endured so much after death? I have said these things briefly, sweetest and most excellent daughter, so that, however much you know that foolish men disparage, you not be touched by any, even the least sadness of mind. But because this very murmuring of foolish men can be checked by peaceful reason, I believe that a sin, if it is ignored, can become a good thing that may be achieved. For since we can placate unsound minds and lead them back to salvation, we should offend them very little. For there are certain offenses that must be utterly despised, but when certain ones can be evaded without blame, they should not be despised so that they are not preserved with blame. With the holy gospel preaching we knew this, because when truth said: “Not what enters the mouth defiles man but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles man,” and the disciples responded, saying: “Do you know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were offended?” Then he responded: “Every plant that my heavenly father has not planted will be uprooted. Leave them; they are blind, (and) leaders of the blind” [Matth. 15:11-13]. And yet when tribute was sought, first he gave a reason why they should not have to pay tribute, and he added there: “But so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the fish that ascends first; and when you have opened its mouth you will find a stater(2). Take it, give it for me and you” [Matth. 17:26]. Yet what is that which is said about some who have been offended: “Leave them; they are blind (and) leaders of the blind,” while others, so that they not be offended, tribute, even that which is not owed, is paid by the Lord. Why is it that he has allowed one scandal to exist but has prohibited another from coming, except to teach us to condemn those offenses that implicate us in sins and to placate in every way those that we can mitigate without sin? Therefore, with God protecting, your excellency can, with great tranquility, shun the offenses of depraved men. For immediately their priors must be called secretly to you and they must render an account, and certain perverse beliefs that they judge to be held must be anathematized in their presence. But if, even, as said, they suspect that anathema is given falsely, you must also confirm by swearing that you never hold and never have held those same beliefs. Let it not seem unworthy for you to make satisfaction to them in such a way, nor let there be, from (your) royal descent, any contempt in your mind against them. For we are all brothers, created by the power and redeemed by the blood of one emperor, and therefore in nothing should we despise our brothers, though they be paupers and downcast. For certainly Peter had received the power of the heavenly kingdom so that he might bind and release on earth those things that were bound and released in heaven; he walked on the sea, he cured the sick with (his) shadow, he killed sinners with (his) word, he roused the dead with prayer. And because at the prompting of the spirit he had gone to the gentile Cornelius, an inquiry was made against him by the faithful (about) why he had gone to gentiles and had eaten with them, why he had received them in baptism. And yet, the same first one of the apostles, filled with such great grace of gifts, upheld by such great power of miracles, responded to the complaint of the faithful not from power, but from reason; he explained the reason in order; how he saw descended from heaven a certain vessel, like a linen cloth in which four-footed creatures of the earth and beasts, reptiles and winged creatures were contained, and he heard a voice: “Arise, Peter, kill and eat” [Act 11:7]; how three men came calling him to Cornelius, how the holy spirit commanded him to go with them, how the same holy spirit, who in Judaea was accustomed to come into those who were baptized after baptism, came into gentiles before baptism. For if, when he was blamed by the faithful, he had heeded the authority that he had received from holy church, he could respond that the sheep who had been entrusted to him should not dare to reproach their shepherd. But if in the accusation of the faithful he were to say anything from his power, assuredly he would not have been the teacher of gentleness. Therefore with humble reason he appeased them and in the case of their reproach he even demonstrated witnesses, saying: “Moreover these six brothers also came with me” [Act 11:12]. Therefore, if the shepherd of the church and prince of apostles, singularly making signs and miracles, did not disdain to render an account humbly in the case of their reproach, how much more must we sinners placate with humble reason our censurers when we are rebuked about anything? Further, for my part, as you know, when I dwelled in the royal city near the footsteps of lords, many of them who were being accused of the aforesaid beliefs were accustomed to come. But with (my) conscience as witness I declare that never did I find in them any error, any depravity, anything of those things that were being said against (their) heart; whence, since I had rejected that opinion, I took care to receive them on friendly terms and rather to defend them from those censuring. For it was said against them that under the pretext of religion they were dissolving marriages and that they were saying that baptism did not completely absolve sins, and if anyone were to do penance for his iniquities for three years, afterwards he would be allowed to live wickedly, and that if, having been compelled, they anathematized anything concerning which they were censured, they were saying that in no way were they held by the bond of anathema. And if there are those who certainly think or hold such (beliefs), there is no doubt that they are not Christians, and I and all Catholic bishops and universal churches anathematize them because they think and speak things contrary to truth. For if they say that for the sake of religion marriages must be dissolved, one must know that even if human law allowed this, nonetheless divine law prohibited it. For truth says for itself: “What God has joined, let man not separate.” It also says: “It is not permitted to send away a wife except because of fornication” [Matth 19:9]. Who, therefore, should contradict this bearer of divine law? We know that it is written: “They will be two in one flesh” [Gen. 2:24]. If, therefore, husband and wife are one flesh and for the sake of religion the husband sends away the wife or the wife sends away the husband who remains in this world or perhaps turns toward unlawful things, what is that manner of living in which one and the same flesh on one side has passed over to continence and on (the other) side remains in defilement? But if each agrees to lead a continent life, who would dare accuse this when it is certain that almighty God, who has granted lesser things, has not barred greater ones? And we know that many of the saints first led a continent life with their spouses and subsequently turned to the guidance of holy church. Further, in two ways holy men are accustomed to abstain even from lawful things, sometimes to increase their merits before almighty God, but sometimes to wipe away the sins of (their) former life. For three boys, led away in service to a Babylonian king, seeking beans to eat, did not want to consume royal foods, not because it would be a sin if they were to eat things that God had created. Therefore they refused to take things that were permitted so that through continence virtue might grow. But David, who had carried off another’s wife and was scourged severely for his sin, wished later to drink water from the cistern of Bethlehem. When his very brave soldiers brought it, he refused to drink and pouring it out, offered it to the Lord. For he was allowed to drink if he had wanted, but because he remembered that he had done unlawful things he laudably abstained from lawful things. And he who before did not fear that the blood of dying soldiers be spilled for his sin, afterward determined that if he drank water, he would spill the blood even of living soldiers, saying: “Will I drink the blood of those men who went forth and the danger of souls?” [1Chron.11:19] Thenceforth when good spouses either wish to increase merit or to eliminate the sins of a former life, let them be allowed to bind themselves to continence and to strive for a better life. But if a wife does not follow the continence that a husband desires or the husband rejects that which the wife desires, the marriage cannot be separated because it is written: “The wife does not have power of her own body, but the husband; and the husband does not have power of his own body, but the wife” [1 Cor. 7:4]. But if there are those who say that sins are absolved superficially in baptism, what is more faithless than this proclamation, by which they hasten to dissolve the very sacrament of faith? Principally in this the soul is bound to the mystery of heavenly purity, so that absolved utterly from all sins it may adhere to him alone, about which the prophet says: “But it is good for me to adhere to God” [Psal 72:28]. For certainly the crossing of the red sea was the figure of holy baptism, in which the enemies behind them were dead but the others were found ahead in the desert. Thus indeed all those who are bathed in holy baptism, all their past sins are released, because they die like the Egyptian enemies behind them. But in the desert we find other enemies, because while we live in this life, before we reach the promised land, many temptations fatigue us and they hasten to hinder those striving for the land of the living. Therefore he who says that sins are not entirely absolved in baptism says that the Egyptians did not truly die in the red sea. But if he acknowledges that the Egyptians are truly dead, it is necessary that he concede that sins completely die in baptism, because in absolution our truth is indisputably stronger than the shadow of truth. In the gospel the Lord says: “He who is washed does not need but to wash, but he is wholly clean” [John 13:10]. If therefore sins are not completely absolved in baptism, how is he who is washed wholly clean? For wholly clean cannot be said about someone for whom any sin has remained. But no one opposes the voice of truth: “He who is washed is wholly clean.” Therefore nothing remains to him from the pollution of his sin, since he who redeems declares that he is wholly clean. But if there are those who say that one must do penance for sin for some three years and after three years one (can) live in pleasures, they have not yet known the qualities of truth faith nor the commands of sacred scripture. Against these the distinguished preacher Paul says: “He who sows in his flesh will also reap corruption of the flesh” [Gal. 6:8]. Against these he says again: “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” [Rom. 8:8]. There he adds to the disciples: “But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit” [Rom. 8:9]. To be sure these are in the flesh who live in carnal pleasures. Against these it is said: “Nor will corruption possess incorruption” [1 Cor. 15:50]. Further, if they say that penance of a short time should suffice against sin such that one is allowed to revert to sin, the sentence of the first shepherd rightly strikes them, that says: “That of the true proverb has happened to them: the dog has returned to its own vomit and the sow that was washed to wallowing in mud” [2 Petr. 2:22]. For great is the virtue of penance against sin but (only) if one perseveres in the same penance. For it is written: “He who will persevere to the end, he will be saved” [Matth. 10:22]. Hence it is written: “He who washes [baptizatur] after (touching) the dead and touches him again, what use is his washing?” [Eccl. 34:30]. To be sure every perverse deed is dead because it leads to death, because it does not live a life of justice. Therefore he washes from the dead and touches him again who deplores the depraved deeds that he recalls having committed but implicates himself in those same things again after tears. Therefore any soul does not benefit from washing of that dead, who by doing again what he has deplored does not rise through the grief of penance toward the rightness of justice. For to do penance truly is to lament sins committed but to avoid lamenting again. Further, if there are those who say that if someone, compelled by necessity, anathematizes, he is not obligated by the bond of anathema, they witness to themselves that they are not Christians because they believe that with vain endeavors they can release the bonds of holy church, and through this they suppose that absolution of holy church, which it offers to the faithful, is not true, if they do not judge its bonds to be worthy. We should not dispute against them any longer because in all things they are to be despised and anathematized so that just as they believe that they deceive truth, in that way they are truly bound to their sins. Therefore, if there are those who, in the name of a Christian, have dared either to preach those things that we have declared statements of error, or to silently maintain them with themselves, we have anathematized and anathematize them beyond doubt. Nonetheless, as I said before, of all the beliefs in those who were accustomed to come to me in the royal city, I recognized absolutely no error of any aforesaid belief, nor do I think that there was any. For if there were, I would have recognized it. But because there are many faithful who are inflamed by unlearned zeal, and often, when they follow certain quasi-heretics, they commit heresies, they must be counseled for their infirmity, and as I said before, they must be calmed with reason and gentleness. Indeed they are similar to those about whom it is written: “I bear witness to them that possess emulation of God but not according to knowledge” [Rom. 10:2]. Therefore your excellency, who lives in reading, in tears and in alms incessantly, as I have asked, must placate ignorance with gentle exhortations and responses, to find glory of eternal retribution not only for herself but also for them. Very great love has urged me to say these things to you, because I believe that in your joy I grow and in your sadness I diminish. May almighty God guard you with heavenly grace, and with the saving piety of our lord and tranquility of our most pious lady, for the care of the little lords may he extend your life very long.(3)

Original letter:

GREGORIUS THEOCTISTAE PATRICIAE. Magnas omnipotenti Deo gratias agere debemus, quod piissimi et benignissimi imperatores nostri tales de suo genere iuxta se propinquos habent, de quorum conversatione nobis omnibus grande sit gaudium. Unde et pro eisdem domnis continue nobis orandum est, ut eorum vita cum suis omnibus protegente caelesti gratia per longa tempora et tranquilla servetur. Indico autem, quod levitate populi tumultum contra vos detractionis exortum quibusdam nuntiantibus agnovi. Qua ex re excellentiam vestram audio fuisse non modice contristatam. Quod si ita est, valde miror, cur vos, qui cor fixistis in caelo, verba hominum agitant in terra. Beatus etenim Iob, cum amici eius, qui ad consolandum venerant, in increpatione prosilissent, ait: 'Ecce enim in caelo testis meus et conscius meus in excelsis'. Qui enim vitae suae in caelo testem habet, iudicia hominum in terra pertimescere non debet. Dux quoque bonorum Paulus dicit: 'Gloria nostra haec est, testimonium conscientiae nostrae'. Qui iterum dicit: 'Opus suum probet unusquisque, et sic in se ipso gloriam habebit et non in altero'. Si enim laudibus laetamur, vituperationibus frangimur, gloriam nostram non in nobis, sed in aliorum ore posuimus. Et fatuae virgines in vasis suis oleum non sumpserunt, sapientes autem sumpserunt oleum in vasis cum lampadibus. Lampades quippe nostrae bona sunt opera. De quibus scriptum est: 'Luceat lux vestra coram hominibus, ut videant opera vestra bona et glorificent patrem vestrum, qui in caelis est'. Tunc autem oleum in vasis cum lampadibus sumimus, quando de bonis actibus nitorem gloriae non a laudantibus proximis quaerimus, sed hunc in testimonio conscientiae servamus. In omne autem quod de nobis extra dicitur recurrere ad arcana mentis debemus. Etsi omnes vituperent, liber est tamen quem conscientia non accusat, quia, etsi omnes laudent, liber esse non potest, si hunc conscientia accusat. De Iohanne veritas dicit: 'Quid existis in desertum videre? arundinem vento agitatam?' Quod videlicet per negationem dicitur, non per confirmationem, cum subditur: 'Sed quid existis videre? hominem mollibus vestitum? Ecce, qui mollibus vestiuntur, in domibus regum sunt'. Quamvis enim iuxta veritatem evangelii Johannes vestimento aspero fuerit indutus, per significationem tamen mollibus vestiti sunt, qui adulationibus ac laudibus delectantur. Negatur autem, quia Iohannes arundo vento agitata fuerit, quoniam mentis eius fortitudinem nulla humani oris aura flectebat. Nos enim si laudibus erigimur, vituperationibus humiliamur, arundo vento agitata sumus. Sed absit hoc, absit a corde vestrae excellentiae. Scio, quia magistrum gentium studiose legitis, qui ait: 'Ego si adhuc hominibus placerem, Christi servus non essem.’ Si qua tamen vel parva tristitia ex hac re menti vestrae exorta est, credo, quod hoc fieri omnipotens Deus benigne permisit. Neque enim electis suis in hac vita promisit gaudia delectationis, sed amaritudines, tribulationes ut medicinae more per amarum poculum ad dulcedinem aeternae redeant salutis. Quid namque dicit? 'Mundus gaudebit, et vos lugebitis'. Qua spe, qua promissione, paulo post additur: 'Iterum videbo vos, et gaudebit cor vestrum, et gaudium vestrum nemo auferet a vobis’. Hinc iterum discipulis dixit: 'In patientia vestra possidentis animas vestras'. Pensate, quaeso, ubi erit patientia, si deest, quod toleretur. Ego Abel esse non suspicor, qui Cain non habuerit. Boni enim si sine malis fuerint, perfecte esse boni non possunt, quia minime purgantur. Ipsa autem malorum societas purgatio bonorum est. Tres in arca filii fuerunt, unus inrisor patris extitit, qui, etsi in se benedictus fuit, maledictionis tamen sententiam in filio auscepit. Duos Abraham priusquam Cethuram uxorem acciperet, filios habuit, sed tamen carnalis eius filius repromissionis est filium persecutus. Quod magnus doctor exponit dicens: 'Sicut is qui secundum carnem est persequebatur eum qui secundum spiritum, ita et nunc'. Duos Isaac filios habuit, sed unus, qui spiritualis extitit, ante minas fratris carnalis fugit. Duodecim Iacob filios habuit. sed unum, qui rectius vivebat, decem in Aegyptio vendiderunt. In David propheta, quia fuit, quod purgari debuisset, actum est, ut persecutorem filium pateretur. Beatus Iob de societate reproborum dicit: 'Frater fui draconum et socius strutionum'. Ad Ezechielem Dominus ait: 'Fili hominis, increduli et subversores sunt tecum, et cum scorpionibus habitas'. In duodecim apostolis unus reprobus mixtus est, ut esset, cuius persecutione undecim temptarentur. Apostolorum princeps discipulis loquitur dicens: 'Iustum Loth oppressum a nefandorum iniuria conversatione eripuit'. Aspectu enim et auditu iustus erat, habitans apud eos, qui de die in diem animam iusti iniquis operibus cruciabant'. Paulus quoque apostolus discipulis scribit dicens: 'In medio nationis pravae et perversae, inter quos lucetis, sicut luminaria in mundo, verbum vitae continentes. Quia ergo scriptura teste cognoscimus in hac vita bonos sine malis esse non posse, de stultorum vocibus excellentia vestra turbari nullatenus debet, maxime quia in omnipotente Deo tunc certa fiducia est, quando pro bono opere adversitatis aliquid in hoc mundo recipitur, ut plena merces in aeterna retributione servetur. Unde in sancto evangelio veritas dicit: 'Beati eritis, cum adversum vos omne malum dixerint homines mentientes propter nomen meum'. Qui in consolatione nostra sua in exemplum adducere opprobria dignatus est dicens: 'Si patrem familias Beelzebub vocaverunt, quanto magis domesticos eius?' Sunt autem plurimi, qui vitam bonorum fortasse amplius quam debent laudant, et, ne qua elatio de laude subripiat, permittit omnipotens Deus malos in obtrectatione et obiurgatione prorumpere, ut, si qua culpa ab ore laudantium in corde nascitur, ab ore vituperantium suffocetur. Hinc est, quod doctor gentium se in praedicatione currere testatur per 'infamiam et bonam famam'. Qui etiam dicit: 'Ut seductores et veraces'. Si igitur fuerunt, qui malam famam Paulo imponerent, qui hunc seductorem vocarent, quis ergo Christianus debet indignum ducere pro Christo iniurias audire? Quantae autem virtutis praecursor nostri redemptoris fuit, novimus, qui per sacrum eloquium non solum plus quam propheta, sed etiam angelus vocatur, et tamen, sicut mortis eius historia testatur, post mortem a persecutoribus corpus eius incensum est. Sed quid ista de sanctis hominibus dicimus? De ipso sancto sanctorum, id est de Deo, qui pro nobis homo factus est, loquamur, qui ante mortem in iniuria, quia daemonium haberet, audivit, post mortem vero a suis persecutoribus seductor appellatus est, cum dicerent: 'Scimus, quia seductor ille dixit: post tres dies resurgam'. Quanta ergo nos peccatores a lingua vel manibus iniquorum hominum portare necesse est, qui in adventu aeterni iudicis iudicandi sumus, si et ipse tanta etiam post mortem pertulit, qui iudex venit? Haec, dulcissima et excellentissima filia, breviter dixi, ne, quotiens stultos homines derogare cognoscis, qualibet vel parvula mentis tristitia tangaris. Sed quia sedari hoc ipsum stultorum hominum murmur tranquilla ratione potest, peccatum credo, si bonum quod valet fieri neglegitur, ut fiat. Nam cum placare insanas mentes atque ad salutem reducere possumus, scandalizare eos minime debemus. Sunt enim quaedam scandala, quae omnino despicienda sunt, quaedam vero cum vitari sine culpa possunt, despicienda non sunt, ne cum culpa serventur. Quod sacro evangelio praedicante cognovimus, quia, cum veritas diceret: 'Non quod intrat in os coinquinat hominem, sed quod procedit ex ore, hoc coinquinat hominem' et discipuli responderent dicentes: 'Scis, quia Pharisaei audito hoc verbo scandalizati sunt?', protinus respondit: 'Omnis plantatio quam non plantavit pater meus caelestis eradicabitur. Sinite illos; caeci sunt, duces caecorum'. Et tamen cum tributum peteretur, prius rationem reddidit, per quam tributum solvere non deberet, atque ilico subiunxit: 'Ut autem non scandalizemus eos, vade ad mare et mitte hamum et eum piscem qui primus ascenderit tolle; et aperto ore eius invenies staterem. Illum sumes, da illum pro me et te'. Quid est autem, quod de scandalizatis aliis dicitur: 'Sinite illos; caeci sunt, duces caecorum' et, alii ne scandalizentur, a Domino tributum solvitur, etiam quod non debetur? Quid est, quod aliud scandalum esse permisit, aliud vero venire prohibuit, nisi ut nos doceret et illa scandala quae nos implicant in peccata contemnere et ea quae placare sine peccato possumus modis omnibus mitigare? Vestra itaque excellentia potest protegente Domino pravorum hominum scandala cum magna tranquillitate declinare. Priores enim subinde eorum vobis secreto vocandi sunt atque ipsis ratio reddenda et perversa quaedam capitula quae teneri existimant coram ipsis anathematizanda. Quod si etiam, sicut dicitur, dari anathema ficte suspicantur, etiam iureiurando firmandum est vos eadem capitula numquam tenere, numquam tenuisse. Nec vobis indignum videatur tali eis modo satisfacere, nec de imperiali genere sit contra eos aliquod in vestra mente fastidium. Omnes etenim fratres sumus, unius imperatoris potestate conditi et sanguine redempti, et idcirco fratres nostros, quamlibet pauperes et abiectos, in nullo despicere debemus. Certe etenim Petrus potestatem regni caelestis acceperat, ut quaeque in terra ligaret vel solveret, essent in caelo ligata vel soluta, super mare ambulavit, aegrotantes umbra curabat, peccantes verbo occidebat, mortuos oratione suscitabat. Et quia ex ammonitione spiritus ad Cornelium gentilem fuerat ingressus, contra eum a fidelibus quaestio facta est, cur ad gentiles intrasset et comedisset cum eis, cur eos in baptismate recepisset. Et tamen isdem apostolorum primus tanta donorum gratia repletus, tanta miraculorum potestate suffultus querellae fidelium non ex potestate, sed ex ratione respondit, causam per ordinem exposuit, quo modo vas quoddam, velut linteum, in quo quadrupedia terrae et bestiae, reptilia atque volatilia inerant, de caelo summitti viderit vocemque audierit: 'Surge, Petre, occide et manduca'; qualiter tres viri venerint eum ad Cornelium vocantes, qualiter spiritus sanctus hunc cum eis ire praeceperit, qualiter isdem spiritus sanctus, qui venire in baptizatis in Iudaea post baptismum consueverat, in gentilibus ante baptismum venit. Si enim, cum a fidelibus culparetur, auctoritatem quam in sancta ecclesia acceperat attendisset, respondere poterat, ut pastorem suum oves quae ei commissae fuerant reprehendere non. Sed si in querella fidelium aliquid de sua potestate diceret, profecto doctor mansuetudinis non fuisset. Humili ergo eos ratione placavit atque in causa reprehensionis suae etiam testes exhibuit dicens: 'Venerunt autem mecum et sex fratres isti'. Si igitur et pastor ecclesiae apostolorum princeps signa et miracula singulariter faciens non dedignatus est in causa reprehensionis suae; rationem humiliter reddere, quanto magis nos peccatores, cum de re aliqua reprehendimur, reprehensores nostros ratione humili placare debemus? Ad me etenim, sicut nostis, cum apud vestigia dominorum in regia urbe demorarer, multi ex eis venire consueverant, qui de praedictis capitulis accusabantur. Sed teste conscientia fateor, numquam in eis aliquid erroris, aliquid pravitatis, aliquid de his quae contra cor dicebantur inveni; unde et eos opinione contempta familiariter suscipere et magis ab insequentibus defendere curabam. Dicebatur namque contra eos, quia sub optentu religionis coniugia solverent et quia dicerent, quod baptisma peccata genitus non auferret et, si de iniquitatibus suis quis paenitentiam in triennium ageret, postmodnm ei perverse vivere liceret, et quia, si compulsi aliquid de quibus reprehendebantur anathematizarent, se dicerent anathematis vinculo nullo modo teneri. Et si sunt qui certissime talia sentiunt vel tenent, quia Christiani non sunt, dubium non est, eosque et ego et omnes catholici episcopi atque universa ecclesia anathematizamus, quia veritati contraria sentiunt, contraria loquuntur. Si enim dicunt religionis causa coniugia debere dissolvi, sciendum est, quia, etsi hoc lex humana concessit, lex tamen divina prohibuit. Per se enim veritas dicit: 'Quae Deus iunxit, homo non separet'’. Quae etiam ait: 'Non licet dimittere uxorem, excepta causa fornicationis'. Quis ergo huic caelesti legis latori contradicat? Scimus, quia scriptum est: 'Erunt duo in carne una'. Si igitur vir et uxor una caro sunt et religionis causa vir dimittit uxorem vel mulier virum in hoc mundo remanentem vel fortasse ad inlicita migrantem, quae est ista conversatio, in qua una eademque caro et ex parte transiit ad continentiam et ex parte remanet in pollutione? Si vero utrisque conveniat continentem vitam ducere, hoc quis audeat accusare, quando certum est, quia omnipotens Deus, qui minora concessit, maiora non prohibuit? Et multos sanctorum novimus cum suis coniugibus et prius continentem vitam duxisse et postmodum ad sanctae ecclesiae regimina migrasse. Duobus etenim modis sancti viri etiam a licitis abstinere solent, aliquando ut merita sibi apud omnipotentem Deum augeant, aliquando vero ut anteactae vitae culpas detergant. Tres etenim pueri in regis Babylonici obsequio deducti legumina ad vescendum petentes cibis regiis uti noluerunt, non quia culpa esset, si ea quae Deus creaverat ederent. Noluerunt ergo ea sumere quae licebant, ut per continentiam virtus excresceret. David vero, qui alienam coniugem tulerat et valde pro sua culpa fuerat. flagellatus, aquam bibere longe post de Bethlemitica cisterna voluit. Quam cum eius fortissimi milites detulissent, bibere recusavit eamque fundendo Domino libavit. Licebat enim ei bibere, si voluisset, sed quia inlicita se fecisse meminerat, laudabiliter et a licitis abstinebat. Et qui prius pro culpa sua morientium militum sanguinem fundi non timuit, postmodum si aquam biberet. etiam viventium militum se sanguinem fudisse iudicavit dicens: 'Num sanguinem hominum istorum qui profecti sunt et animarum periculum bibam?' Proinde cum boni coniuges aut meritum augere desiderant aut anteactae vitae culpas delere, ut se ad continentiam astringant, et meliorem vitam appetant, licet. Si vero continentiam quam vir appetit uxor non sequitur aut quam uxor appetit vir recusat dividi coniugium non licet, quia scriptum est: 'Mulier sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed vir: et vir sui corporis potestatem non habet. sed mulier. Si qui sunt vero, qui dicunt peccata in baptismate superficie tenus dimitti, quid est hac praedicatione infidelius, in qua ipsum fidei sacramentum festinant solvere? in quo principaliter ad caelestis munditiae mysterium anima ligatur ut absoluta radicitus a peccatis omnibus soli illi inhaereat, de quo propheta ait: 'Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est’. Certe enim maris rubri transitus figura sancti baptismatis fuit, in quo hostes a tergo sunt mortui, sed alii contra faciem in heremo inventi. Sic quippe omnes, qui in sancto baptismate tinguntur. eorum peccata praeterita omnia laxantur, quia eis velut, Aegyptii hostes a tergo moriuntur. Sed in heremo alios hostes invenimus, quia, dum in hac vita vivimus, priusquam ad promissionis patriam pertingamus, multae nos temptationes fatigant et ad terram viventium tendentibus iter intercludere festinant. Qui ergo dicit peccata in baptismate funditus non dimitti, dicat in mari rubro Aegyptios non veraciter mortuos. Si autem fatetur Aegyptios veraciter mortuos, fateatur necesse est peccata in baptismate funditus mori, quia nimirum plus valet in absolutione nostra veritas, quam umbra veritatis. In evangelio Dominus dicit: 'Qui lotus est, non indiget, ut lavet, sed est mundus totus'. Si igitur peccata in baptismate funditus minime dimittuntur, quo modo is qui lotus est mundus est totus? Totus enim mundus dici non potest, cui de peccato aliquid remansit. Sed nemo resistit voci veritatis: 'Qui lotus est, mundus est totus'. Nihil ergo ei de peccati sui contagio remanet, quem totum fatetur mundum ipse, qui redemit. Si qui autem sunt, qui dicunt, quia de peccato quolibet triennio paenitentia agenda est et post triennium in voluptatibus vivendum, isti adhuc nec praedicamenta verae fidei nec sacrae scripturae praecepta cognoverunt. Contra hos praedicator egregius Paulus dicit: 'Qui seminat in carne sua, de carne metet corruptionem'. Contra hos iterum dicit: 'Qui in carne sunt, Deo placere non possunt'. Ubi discipulis subiungit: 'Vos autem non estis in carne, sed in spiritu'. Hi quippe in carne sunt, qui in carnalibus voluptatibus vivunt. Contra hos dicitur: 'Neque corruptio incorruptionem possidebit'. Si autem dicunt pauci temporis paenitentiam contra peccatum debere sufficere, ut iterum liceat ad peccatum redire, recte eos pastoris primi sententia percutit, qui ait: 'Contigit illis illud veri proverbii: canis reversus ad suum vomitum et sus lota in volutabro luti'. Magna est enim contra peccatum virtus paenitentiae, sed si quis in eadem paenitentia perseveret. Nam scriptum est: 'Qui perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit'. Hinc scriptum est: 'Qui baptizatur a mortuo et iterum tangit eum, quid proficit lavatio illius?' Mortuum quippe est omne opus perversum, quod pertrahit ad mortem, quod vita iustitiae non vivit. Baptizatur ergo a mortuo et iterum tangit eum, qui prava opera, quae se egisse meminit, deplorat, sed in eisdem se iterum post lacrimas implicat. Anima itaque quaelibet eiusdem mortui lavatione non proficit, qui hoc iterum faciendo quod planxit nec per lamenta paenitentiae ad rectitudinem iustitiae exsurgit. Paenitentiam enim vere agere est commissa plangere, sed iterum plangenda declinare. Si qui vero sunt, qui dicunt, quia compulsus quispiam necessitate, si anathematizaverit, anathematis vinculo non tenetur, ipsi sibi testes sunt, quia Christiani non sunt, quia ligamenta sanctae ecclesiae vanis se aestimant conatibus solvere ac per hoc nec absolutionem sanctae ecclesiae, quam praestat fidelibus, veram putant, si ligaturas eius valere non existimant. Contra quos diutius disputandum non est, quia per omnia despiciendi et anathematizandi sunt, utunde se fallere veritatem credunt, inde in peccatis suis veraciter ligentur. Si qui sunt igitur, qui sub nomine christiano haec quae praediximus errorum capitula aut praedicare audent aut taciti apud semetipsos tenere, hos procul dubio et anathematizavimus et anathematizamus. Ex omnibus tamen capitulis in eis, sicut praedixi, qui ad me in regia urbe venire consueverant, nullum omnino errorem cuiuslibet praedicti capituli agnovi, sed neque fuisse existimo. Nam si fuisset, agnovissem. Quia vero sunt multi fidelium, qui imperito zelo succenduntur, et saepe, dum quosdam quasi hereticos insequuntur, hereses faciunt, eorum infirmitati consulendum est et, sicut praedixi, ratione ac mansuetudine sunt placandi. Illis quippe sunt similes, de quibus scriptum est: 'Testimonium perhibeo illis, quod aemulationem Dei habent, sed non secundum scientiam'. Vestra itaque excellentia, quae in lectione, in lacrimis atque in elemosinis incessabiliter vivit, eorum, sicut petii, imperitiam placare mansuetis exhortationibus ac responsionibus debet, ut non solum de semetipsa, sed etiam de illis gloriam aeternae retributionis inveniat. Haec me vobis dicere nimius amor suasit, quia et in vestra laetitia me crescere et in vestra tristitia me existimo minorari. Omnipotens Deus gratia vos caelesti custodiat et salva domni nostri pietate et piissimae domnae tranquillitate pro parvulorum dominorum nutrimento vitam vestram longius extendat.

Historical context:

Gregory writes at length about accepting the presence of the evil, without whom there could not be the good, and how to deal patiently with people who seem to have mistaken beliefs. But he also corrects some of the beliefs that are current about married couples separating to pursue religious lives if only one wants to, about baptism removing sin and after a period of penance allowing the sinner to return to his sin. Finally, he commends the young princes to her care.

Scholarly notes:

1. Gregory uses the formal plural referring to the emperor, but the singular seems more appropriate in English. 2. A stater was worth two drachmas. 3. This translation was provided by Ashleigh Imus.

Printed source:

Gregorii I Papae Registum Epistolarum, ed. Paulus Ewald and Ludovicus Hartmann (Berlin: Weidmann, 1887-91, repr. 1978), 11.27, 289-97.

Date:

601, February