ous prelate, who thought less of the dignity of his order than the suppression of heresy, from accepting a commission as inquisitor from the pope, as was the case with Guillem Arnaud, Bishop of Carcassonne, who, during his episcopate, lasting from 1249 to 1255, presided over the tribunal of Carcassonne with an energy that Dominicans might have envied.[1]
Yet, as the Inquisition achieved its independence of the episcopate, two concurrent jurisdictions could hardly coexist without jarring, even when both were animated by the desire of harmony: when jealousy and rivalry were strong, quarrels were inevitable. It was even hinted that bishops, desiring to preserve friends from the zeal of the inquisitors, would prosecute them in their own courts to preserve them from the rigorous impartiality of the Holy Office. To settle the questions which thus were constantly arising, Urban IV., in 1262, empowered the inquisitors to proceed in all cases at their discretion, whether or not these were also under examination by the bishops ; and this was repeated in 1265 and 1266 by Clement IV., with strong injunctions to the inquisitors that they were not to allow their processes to be impeded by concurrent action of the bishops. In 1273 Gregory X. laid down the same rule ; and it became the settled practice of the Church, embodied in the canon law, that both courts could simultaneously try the same case, communicating at intervals their proceedings to each other. Mutual conference, moreover, was necessary at the final sentence, and when they could not agree a full statement had to be submitted to the pope for decision. Even when proceeding alone and by his ordinary authority, the bishop was obliged to call in the concurrence of an inquisitor when he rendered sentence.[2]
- ↑ Trésor des Chartes du Roi en Carcassonne (Doat, XXI. 34-49).— Lib. Conv fess. Inquis. Albiae (MSS. Bib. Nat., fonds latin, 11847).— Archives Nat. de France, J. 431, No. 22-29.— Vaissette, III. 446.— Coll. Doat, XXVII. 161.— Molinier, L'Inquisition dans le midi de la France, Paris, 1880, pp. 275-6.
- ↑ Mag. Bull. Roman. I. 122.— Wadding. Annal. ann. 1265, No. 3.— Arch, de rinq. de Carcassonne (Coll. Doat, XXXII. 32).— Martene Thesaur. V. 1818.— C. 17 Sexto V. 2. — C. 1 Extrav. Comm. v. 3. — Eymeric. Direct. Inquis. pp. 539, 580-1.— C. 1, § 1, Clement, v. 3.
Urban’s bull of 1262 is virtually the same as his "Præ cunctia" of 1264, printed by Boutaric, Saint-Louis et Alph. de Toulouse, pp. 443 sqq.
