Folia Canonica 5. (2002)

STUDIES - Kenneth Pennington: Bishops and their Dioceses

BISHOPS AND THEIR DIOCESES

15

In the early thirteenth century Johannes Teutonicus propounded a theory of election that advocated a clear numerical majority in ecclesiastical elections.20 But Johannes was one of the last of the Old School. His theory was rejected by Bemardus Parmensis and, most importantly, by Pope Gregory IX, who stated in the decretal, Ecclesia vestra, that the maior et sanior pars could not always be the numerical majority.21 The most interesting aspect of Johannes’ electoral theory for our purposes is his views on electing an “extraneus,” a foreigner, as bishop. As we have seen, until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, most bishops were local men. Although Johannes was a fervent democrat in ecclesiastical elections, he was a committed oligarch when an ecclesiastical corporation wanted to elect an extraneus. Johannes may have been reacting to the increasing presence of foreign shepherds among local flocks. He believed that an extraneus could be elected only if there were no worthy candidates to be found locally, and only if the election were almost unanimous. Almost unanimous in this case means all but one. If the chapter elected an extraneus but two canons favored a local candidate, the two canons become the maior et sanior pars no matter how many canons voted for the other candidate.22

Johannes’ electoral theory reflects his conviction that foreign shepherds should not care for local flocks. He believed that an extraneus could be elected only with great difficulty, and he believed that even the pope could not provide a bishop to an unwilling flock. Johannes firmly rejected the constitutional structure of the church that was slowly evolving during his lifetime.

Johannes Teutonicus was in a minority. All the later canonists agreed that the cathedral chapter could elect an extraneus if the bishop had been elected by the maior et sanior pars. Johannes, the old conservative, conceived of the church as being a local institution, serving local interests, and controlled by local people. In general his ecclesiology emphasized local rights.

By the later Middle Ages the church was moving steadily towards centralization. The person of the bishop became a prince who ruled over his territory. His territory was more clearly defined than it had ever been, and his jurisdiction over institutions within his territory was more vigorously defined than it had ever been. The bishop, however, became less a creature of the diocese. The bonds between a bishop and his flock were attenuated and the legal relationship between them diminished. By the later Middle Ages, when bishops were generally appointed by papal mandates rather than elected by local cathedral chapters, the

20 J. Teutonicus to 3 Comp. 1.6.7 (X 1.6.22) v. solum plures (ed. Pennington), Rome 1981, 59.

21X 1.6.57.

22 J. Teutonicus to 4th Lat. c.23 (4 Comp. 1.3.8 [X 1.6.41]) v. ipsius quidem ecclesie (ed. García y García), Rome 1981, 210-211.