300 BuoniCattolici
ances on these delinquents. These ranged from private fasts to wearing
crosses, to fines, and ultimately to ‘‘relaxation to the secular arm’’—
execution by the communal government. Not all excommunications re-
quired public ceremonies. For those sins not reserved to the bishop, the
confessor priest might absolve the penitent privately. And the bishop himself
could decide to handle a matter in private. But an ordinary excommunica-
tion could be compounded if the delinquent remained contumacious for
over a year. After that, other penalties, including civil disabilities, might be
imposed.^186 Excommunications that demanded public punishment and rec-
onciliation involved crimes that disturbed public order or decency and those
that broughtinfamia(loss of legal rights)—in short, crimes against the com-
munity. Such sinners could only be reconciled and readmitted to Commu-
nion by a public absolution.^187
Secular and ecclesiastical legislation from communal Italy reveals the
crimes that brought public excommunication. One common way to become
a public sinner was by open adultery. As early as 1210 , the diocese of Novara
excommunicated such sinners if they did not reform after an admonition.^188
Other churches enacted similar statutes, especially if the adulterers were
thought to have used sorcery to achieve their aims.^189 But sorcery itself was
a civil, not ecclesiastical, crime, punishable sometimes by death.^190 One
might be excommunicated for perjury or other sinful oaths—such as those
used to organize a cabal to rig the election of a parish priest.^191 In the later
Middle Ages, the most common reason for excommunication was debt.^192
That excommunication was routine and administrative, not public or sol-
emn. Crimes did not usually result in public discipline if they did not directly
threaten the religious order. For example, merely defaulting on tithes was,
at least initially, a matter between the delinquent and his priest. But tithe
violations could become more serious if they became chronic or systematic.
How such disputes could escalate can be seen at Reggio in 1280. There the
bishop and clergy clashed with the captain of the people over tithe rates.
The captain, with twenty-four other officials, enacted statutes preventing lay
proctors from collecting tithes. This effectively stopped collection. The
bishop excommunicated the captain, the officials, and the general council of
- Milan Council ( 1287 ), 28 , pp. 880 – 81 ; Ravenna Council ( 1311 ), 28 ,p. 472. See Siena Stat.i
( 1262 ), 2. 63 , pp. 223 – 24 , for civil disabilities. - Novara Synodii( 1298 ), 1. 2. 4. 3 , pp. 211 – 13. Such crimes barred membership in confraternities:
see De Sandre Gasparini, ‘‘Laici devoti,’’ 231 , commenting on statutes in Little,Liberty, Charity, Fraternity,
- Novara Synodii( 1210 ), p. 30.
- Grado Council ( 1296 ), 23 ,p. 1170 ; Ravenna Council ( 1311 ), 29 ,p. 473.
- See, e.g., Matteo Griffoni ( 1255 ), 13.
- Pisa Stat.i( 1286 ), 3. 17 , pp. 379 – 80 (which imposed as punishment cutting out the offender’s
tongue); Grado Council ( 1296 ), 25 ,p. 1170. In Milan priests were obliged to preach yearly on punishments
consequent to this sin: Milan Council ( 1287 ), 18 ,p. 878. - Vodola,Excommunication, 38 – 40.