Folia Theologica et Canonica 10. 32/24 (2021)
Ius canonicum
140 ELEMER BALOGH Henceforth, I will highlight illustrative examples from the case law of some Bavarian holy saints. I predict that Vienna and its environs belonged to the bishopric of Passau until 1100, then to the archdiocese of Salzburg; it became an independent bishopric seat from 1469, and it did not rise to the rank of archbishopric until 1722. Thus, from the point of view of ecclesiastical history, Passau and Salzburg were also the territory of the Bavarian holy jurisdiction until the second half of the 15 th century. 1. Augsburg Although there were no cases of a specifically criminal nature before the Holy See in Augsburg (according to the records of the Augsburger Gerichtsbuch), at least from the point of view of sanctions, there were cases to be found with undoubtedly criminal nature in their contents The protocol entry calling the subject matter of the lawsuit sacrilege (causa sacrilegii) provides information on a very remarkable legislative custom. The defendant in the lawsuit filed by Elwangen Monastery and its abbot, Heinrich Kotzspüchel, committed a church robbery as he broke into the monastery’s sacristy, broke a chest and took the money found in it. The plaintiff’s claim was for compensation for nine times the damage caused, in addition to the usual church sanctions. The accused confessed his deed, raised only certain objections, which, however, were rejected by the court and found guilty, but the sentence was postponed (implicitly, perhaps even abandoned). Here is a brief summary of the case: “Nos iudices curie Augustensis presidentes iudicio in causa sacrilegii, quam coram nobis venerabiles ac religiosi domini abbas et conventus monasterii Elwacensis moverunt contra Hainricum dictum Kotzspüchel, quod ipse reus Dei timore et ecclesie reverentia postpositis, qua die ausu sacrilego clam et latenter monasterium in Elwangen predictum intravit et in sacristia eiusdem unam cistam appemit et reseravit nequiter etfurtive centum et septem libras Hallensium recipiens et auferens ex eadem (...) que quidem pecunia ibidem deposita fuit et commissa per discretam dominam Serhusam dictam Ruessin et eandem pecuniam sic fraudulenter et viciose sublatam et subtractam domum secum detulit et portavit, licet postmodum restituerit eandem mulieri cuius fuerat prenotate (...) quare petunt nomine quo supra reum per vos compelli et et condempnari ut damnum taliter illatum novies componet emunitatemque violatam emendet secundum canonicas sanctiones nec non ipsum pro crimine commissi sacrilegii excommunicari, donec de omnibus premissis satisfaciat (...) ipse reus dictum sacrilegium coram nobis confitebatur in iure sed dixit, sibi dictum sacrilegium fore [= esse] remissum ab actoribus antedictis ipsis in eorum capitulo communiter congregatis, et se fore [= esse] per ipsos emendatum de eodem et super hoc quandam litteram sigillis abbatis et conventus predictorum signatam prout primafacie apparuit in modum productionis produxit, sed procurator actoris dictam remissionem
