Leo, bishop, to Niceta, bishop of Aquileia, greetings.
My son Adeodatus, a deacon of our see, has returned to us and reports that you asked him to obtain from us the authority of the Apostolic See on certain matters which appear to present considerable difficulty of judgment. The care that must be taken in examining these temporal circumstances is all the more pressing, because the wounds inflicted by the cruelty of war must be healed above all by the principle of religion.
Chapter I: Women Who Remarried While Their Husbands Were Captive Must Be Restored to Their First Husbands
You tell us that during the devastation of war and the violent raids of the enemy, certain marriages were broken apart in such a way that the wives of men taken into captivity — believing their husbands dead or beyond hope of ransom — were driven by loneliness to take other husbands. Now that things have turned for the better, with the Lord’s help, and some of those who were thought dead have returned home, you rightly feel uncertain what ought to be determined by us concerning these women who are now bound to other men. Since we know the Scripture which says that a woman is joined to her husband by God (Prov. 19:14), and know the commandment that what God has joined, let no man put asunder (Matt. 19:6), we must hold that the bonds of lawful marriage must be restored, and that once the wrongs inflicted by the enemy have been removed, each person must recover what properly belongs to him.
Chapter II: The Man Who Married Such a Woman Is Not to Be Considered Guilty
The man who took such a woman as his wife is not to be judged guilty as though he had intruded on another’s rights — since it was believed that the husband no longer lived. Just as many things belonging to those taken captive could legitimately pass into another’s possession, justice nevertheless requires that when they return, their own property be restored to them. If this is the rule for slaves, land, houses, and other possessions, how much more must it apply to the restoration of marriages that were disrupted by war’s necessity and must now be set right by peace’s remedy?
Chapter III: A Husband Who Returns and Still Loves His Wife Is to Receive Her Back Freely
If therefore a man has come back from long captivity and still loves his wife and wishes her to return to him, what necessity imposed must be overlooked and not held against him, and what loyalty demands must be restored.
Chapter IV: A Woman Who Refuses to Return to Her First Husband Is to Be Excommunicated
But if a woman has become so attached to her second husband that she would rather remain with him than return to the one lawfully hers, she deserves to be reproved — indeed, to be cut off from communion with the Church. For she has chosen to make herself guilty of a sin that could have been forgiven, thereby showing that she is satisfying her own desires rather than accepting the pardon that was freely offered her. Let marriages return to their proper state by the willing choice of those involved; and let what was forced by necessity not be turned into a reproach for bad will — since women who refuse to return to their husbands are to be held as faithless, while those who return to the bond God first established deserve every praise.
Chapter V: Those Forced by Fear or Hunger While in Captivity to Eat Food Sacrificed to Idols Are to Be Given Penance
Concerning the Christians who were reportedly polluted while among their captors by eating food sacrificed to idols — your inquiry on this point also deserves an answer. We judge that they are to be purified by the satisfaction of penance, which is to be measured not so much by its length of time as by the depth of the heart’s contrition. Whether it was terror that compelled them or hunger that persuaded them, the sin is not in doubt and must be atoned for — since the food was taken out of fear or need, not out of religious devotion.
Chapter VI: Those Who Were Rebaptized by Force or Error Are to Be Received Back Through Penance and the Laying On of the Bishop’s Hands
Concerning those whom you likewise consulted us about — those who were compelled by force or led by error to submit to rebaptism, and who now know that they acted against the mystery of the Catholic Faith — the moderation to be maintained is this: they are to be received back into our fellowship only through the remedy of penance and the laying on of the bishop’s hands for the reception of communion. The length of penance is to be set at your discretion, according to the devotion you find in those converting, with due regard to the age of the elderly, the dangers of illness, and whatever other pressing necessities may exist. If anyone in these circumstances is so critically ill while still doing penance that there is fear for his life, he must be helped by priestly care and given the grace of communion.
Chapter VII: Those Baptized Only by Heretics Are to Be Confirmed by the Invocation of the Holy Spirit Through the Laying On of Hands
As for those who received baptism from heretics without having previously been baptized at all — these are to be confirmed by the invocation of the Holy Spirit alone through the laying on of hands, since they received only the outward form of baptism without its sanctifying power. This rule — that once received, baptism must never be repeated — is one we preach must be observed in all the Churches. The Apostle says: One Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5). Its washing is not to be profaned by repetition; only the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, as we have said, is to be invoked — so that what none can receive from heretics, they may receive from Catholic priests.
This letter, sent in response to your brotherhood’s inquiry, is to be made known to all your brother bishops and co-provincials, so that the authority it bears may serve the observance of all.
Given on the twelfth day before the Kalends of April, in the consulship of the Emperor Majorian.
Footnotes
- ↩ Aquileia was one of the most important cities of late antiquity, located at the head of the Adriatic in what is now northeastern Italy (near modern Trieste). It was a major commercial and military hub, the principal city of the region of Venetia et Histria, and one of the oldest and most prestigious episcopal sees in the Latin West — traditionally tracing its foundation to the Evangelist Mark. Its geographic position made it the first major Roman city in the path of invaders crossing the Alps from the northeast, which is precisely why its bishop is writing to Leo about the pastoral aftermath of Attila’s 452 invasion. Aquileia itself was devastated in that invasion — tradition holds it was so thoroughly sacked that it never fully recovered its former prominence.
- ↩ Niceta’s request is framed in the most precise possible terms: he asked for auctoritatem apostolicæ sedis — not Leo’s advice, not a consultation among bishops, not a recommendation, but the authority of the Apostolic See. The word auctoritas is a Roman legal term designating the binding weight of a source that creates norms others must observe. Niceta is treating the Apostolic See as the source of authoritative rulings that will govern his own pastoral practice and, as the closing of the letter makes clear, that of every bishop in his province. The distinction between seeking auctoritas and seeking counsel is precisely the distinction between ordinary immediate jurisdiction and a merely advisory collegial relationship. This same word will bracket the letter’s conclusion.
- ↩ This governing principle of the rescript — that temporal wounds must be healed “above all by the principle of religion” (religionis maxime ratione sanentur) — establishes the master logic of everything that follows. War and captivity create complex temporal situations; Leo’s rulings accommodate those situations without losing sight of the religious standard that must govern the accommodation. The canonical flexibility of Chapters I–IV (restoring disrupted marriages) is bounded by the spiritual principles of Chapters V–VII (penance for those religiously compromised). The temporal and the spiritual are ordered to each other, with the principle of religion taking precedence.
- ↩ The distinction Leo draws here — between those previously baptized who were rebaptized by heretics (Chapter VI) and those receiving heretical baptism as their first baptism (Chapter VII) — reflects the consistent patristic position received from Augustine against the Donatists and from Leo’s own predecessors, including Innocent I: heretical baptism is valid as baptism but lacks the gift of the Spirit, which is given in the Church through the bishop’s imposition of hands. For those receiving heretical baptism as their first, no rebaptism is needed; the invocation of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands completes what the heretical rite began. Leo is not legislating a new principle but transmitting an established tradition of the Roman See.
- ↩ The word auctoritas — authority — brackets this letter precisely. Niceta opened by asking for the auctoritatem apostolicæ sedis; Leo closes by directing that the letter be disseminated so that its auctoritas may govern every bishop in the province. What was sought as the Apostolic See’s authority at the beginning is granted, embodied in the seven rulings, and transmitted outward to the entire provincial episcopate at the end. The pattern of dissemination is identical to that of Letters CXLIX (Basil of Antioch directed to circulate Leo’s exhortation throughout the East) and CL (Euxitheus of Thessalonica directed to distribute it throughout Illyricum): Rome rules; the regional bishop transmits; the provincial episcopate receives and observes.
- ↩ March 21, 458. Majorian (Iulius Valerius Maiorianus) became Western Emperor on April 1, 457, and his consulship gives the dating. The letter was written approximately three months after the great December 1, 457 cluster (Letters CLVI–CLVIII), marking a return to the ordinary governance of the Western Church after the extended engagement with the Alexandrian crisis of 457.
Historical Commentary