Folia Theologica et Canonica 10. 32/24 (2021)
Ius canonicum
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF MEDIEVAL HOLY SEES 145 could, of course, summon laymen on the grounds of ratione peccati. In fact, there was a certain degree of alternatively, especially in the area of secular offences, a kind of judicial uncertainty, a so-called positive conflict of jurisdiction, which can also be seen in the Salzburg case-law. Assault and even murder were also brought before the Salzburg officialatus. It can be seen that it was mainly cases of abuse by or between clerics that were brought before the metropolitan see. Penance and excommunication were the most common punishments used, the latter mainly for secular offenders. Three types of abuse against clerics can be distinguished: their (unlawful) arrest, wounding and killing10 11. In order to be exempt from excommunication, a satisfactory satisfaction had to be provided, of which penance was a regular part. The medieval church judiciary was very strict about the handling of money. Anyone found to be a usurer faced ecclesiastical punishment as usurari us manifestus. This crime was common in the Alpine region, which had a lively circulation of money, and was complained about by the Council of Salzburg in 1386. A decision was made here that if the usurer did not give up his claim within a month, after three warnings, he should be excommunicated. It was the duty of the church magistrates to watch and warn suspected usurers. According to the synod of 1490, those found to be usurers were to pay £10 ordinary money to the church or to the poor as a side penalty. An earlier synod (1386) had defined usury, but did not specify the amount of the usury or the amount of the ill-gotten gains - it was left to the wise discretion of the judge. There were also a number of usury cases before the Holy See in Augsburg. A common feature was that the plaintiff (the person who had been wronged) sued the exploiter only after the usurious transaction had been fully completed, claiming back the amount wrongfully paid (usurariam pravitatem extortum). The scale of exploitation on which the convictions of usury were based was not fixed there either, but there are concrete examples: for a loan of £30 the victim paid out £70, for £75 £100.11 It was in an age when the majority of society was still illiterate that the forgery of diplomas fundamentally shattered confidence in the written word. Forgers of the original documents or those who forged them in the first place were among the perpetrators. Whether the perpetrator was a cleric or a layman, he was liable to excommunication. In Salzburg, the lay offender was handed over 10 Although a direct influence cannot be proven, the correlation between the three types of case and the corresponding formations of the so-called quinque casus recorded in the Decretum maius and the Tripartitum is striking. The offences against the Hungarian nobles in the Hungarian ordinary law are extended only by the two cases of the offence of conduct affecting the property, otherwise the other three types of facts are literally identical. This is a further addition to the canonical context of contemporary Hungarian legal culture, and also brings to light the very intensive relationship with the neighboring Salzburg ecclesiastical order, which existed during the reign of King Matthias. 11 See Augsburger Gerichtsbuch, 89; 130, 3.
