Proposuit
In reconstructing this legal history of 'absolute power,' I've been returning to some of the canonistic sources in Ken Pennington's masterful study. One point I did not sufficiently appreciate was the importance of the Decretalists on Proposuit - a decretal of Innocent III recorded in the Liber Extra at X.3.8.4:
It is a canonical source on the topic of 'absolute power.' Ken describes it as 'the Roman and canon lawyers' most important benchmark for the prince's power.'
The facts surrounding the decretal concern the award of a prebend (a clerical stipend and properties) to a priest attached to an abbey church in Cambrai. The prebend should have been awarded to the priest, designated simply as T. (for Thebaldus) in this decretal, but it went to someone else. Two popes - Innocent III and his predecessor, Celestine III - both insisted that the prebend must go to Thebaldus. But the Cambrai chapter refused, even arguing that stripping a prebend that had already been awarded to someone was contrary to canon law.
The legal question concerns the Pope's role: Could the pope lawfully intervene so that the prebend is restored to T, even if such intervention is potentially contrary to canon law?
Innocent III writes:
What's notable is that this decretal becomes the inspiration for a Decretalist literature on 'dispensation' from law and the phrase, supra ius - 'above the law.'
Hostiensis' gloss on Proposuit will be especially important because it gives him an opportunity to link the pope's dispensatory power with respect to canon law as comparable to the God's potestas absoluta, or 'absolute power.' Apparently, Hostiensis' commentary touches upon an issue of particular contemporary relevance: Can a Pope with his absolute power be accused and judged of a crime? Host. ad Proposuit §10.
