[p. 342]: Meanwhile the scandal created by King Lothar in abandoning Theutberga and taking Waldrada began to grow and to become more generally notorious, spread by the adulation and iniquitous defence of it by these men [Theutgaud and Gunther]. Learning the fact of this matter, we forbade as earnestly as we could and tried – both through certain faithful men and through writings – to argue against the commission of so great a crime. King Lothar sent two counts to us, through whom, in writing112 and orally, he indicated that the bishops of his kingdom together with certain others were authorising him to reject Theutberga and choose Waldrada as a spouse, but that [p. 343 ‘se, ut ordo custodiretur’] he, to do things properly,113 was seeking from us by preference this authority and judgement, and waiting for advice. When we heard this, we replied that we were not indeed able to send legates114 at such short notice for this business, but we gave a most definite promise instead to send them later, warning that in the meantime no-one at all should engage in any deliberation whatsoever about this case. Lothar however, relying as afterwards became clear on the authority of these men, Theutgaud and Gunther, at that time bishops, did not wait for our legates and in a public celebration of the marriage rite115 joined Waldrada to himself by the law of matrimony. Nevertheless the legates of the apostolic see, who had already set out for Gaul, came to Lothar and said that they had been sent to him in accordance with our promise, and made every effort to bring home to the king that he should as we had ordered have pairs of bishops116 from the realms of the most glorious kings, Louis, namely, Charles the Greater [Charles the Bald] and Charles the Younger [King of Provence] to come together with them117 together with those of his kingdom, and they stated verbally118 that we had ordered Theutberga, who had appealed to the apostolic see, to be present at the same assembly, after a suitable safe conduct had been given her by King Lothar. For they were not able to have with them the letters that we had sent to you and the bishops of your kingdoms,119 since they had, as was well known, already been taken off them by friends of Lothar. King Lothar however, under the instruction of these two masters, neither wanted to give to Queen Theutberga definite assurance that justice would be done or that she would not be subjected to violence, nor waited at all for anyone but the prelates of his kingdom, that is those whom he had already bent to his wishes either by benefits120 or threats, to come to the assembly that was being gathered at the town of Metz: but after he had corrupted our legates and indeed got them on to his side121 he did what he wanted with no resistance from anyone. When the assembly had gathered together the prelates who had convened, among whom Theutgaud and Gunther retained the place of special eminence and enjoyed the greater power, anticipating, indeed usurping and arrogating to themselves our judgement, namely the one that we had already promised to pass, moved first by Queen Theutberga’s appeal and then by the petition of King Lothar, and which we could be seen quite clearly to have begun both through our legates and through our letters,122 they believed Theutberga to be guilty and thought that she should be condemned in her absence. An unholy document123 was written concerning the things that had at the king’s wish come out of the throat of iniquity, and thinking that these things would thus be kept in full force, they confirmed them with their own signatures, with Theutgaud first of all and Gunther leading the way, and poisonously compelling the others to follow them, in signing as in their other deeds. They made a solemn and comprehensive commitment124 to come to Rome soon and to render an account of what they had done. Finally they arrived [p. 344 ‘nostro sunt conspectui’] and presented themselves to our sight in the presence of the whole Church, and when we asked how those things had been done, they offered the aforesaid document and said that they had done nothing more or less than or different from what the document they were offering seemed to contain. It was taken and its contents detailed in the presence of the gathering of our bishops that was with us and of Theutgaud and Gunther themselves, and we explained very precisely in their hearing in how many ways we reprehended it and judged it to be altogether reprehensible and how inimical to justice and hateful to God were the things in it which were read as having been done. Although not all the passages worthy of censure in those unholy acts125 were then discovered, nor can all the things found be recalled to our mind and rehearsed again now:126 they were none the less so great and of such a kind, that the holy synod sitting together with me repeatedly cried out that on account of them Theutgaud and Gunther ought rightly to undergo the canonical sentence of deposition. At this we were moved – we say it here before God – by divine zeal, and, wishing only to carry out a just judgement, by common consent, after the council that favoured the adulterers, which we noted above had met in the town of Metz, had first been declared invalid, on those men – we are distressed to record this – we imposed the sentence of deposition; and, if they were perchance thenceforth to touch anything relating to their sacred ministry in accordance with previous custom, we excommunicated them. Firstly, indeed, because they refused contemptuously to obey our salutary orders with respect to Ingiltrude or Theutberga, or to Waldrada; for disobedience is such a horrendous evil that it is rightly compared to idolatry, for as Samuel says [1 Kgs 15:23] ‘To resist is like the sin of divination and to refuse to obey is like the crime of idolatry’, so St Paul rightly says [2 Cor. 10:6] ‘having in readiness to revenge all disobedience’…[The passage omitted deals with another case, that of Ingiltrude.] Fourthly, since they not only put up no pastoral resistance to the couple in the grip of adultery [Lothar and Waldrada] and failed as watchmen to announce the coming sword [Ezek. 33:2–7] but even, by giving them their consent and support, gave them the confidence to persist in their evil doing, and attempted with all their strength to defend so great a crime to the end. Therefore the Lord rightly made their tongue cleave to their palate,127 namely so that those who had no tongue to rebuke crime [p. 345 ‘ad bona quoque praedicandum] could not even have it to preach good things, in accordance with the words of the chant128 in a different place ‘God said to the sinner’ up to ‘and you will place your portion with adulterers’ [Ps. 49:16–18]. A man indeed puts his portion with adulterers when he becomes like them in respect of both crimes and punishments by consenting or favouring or not rebuking them, in accordance with what St Paul too wrote about such people [Rom. 1:32] ‘Since those who are responsible for such things are worthy of death – not only those who do them, but those who consent to those who do them.’ Fifthly, because they audaciously presumed to reach a definitive judgement, without any authority from us, in a case, surreptitiously arrogated to themselves, in which an appeal had been lodged by each side, that is by Theutberga and by Lothar, as we have already noted – acting contrary to the canons: for indeed, concerning appeals, which take place by the tomb of St Peter,129 the sacred laws130 committed anything requiring judgement131 to the decision and council132 of the bishop of Rome.133 But these men, ignoring the reverence due to St Peter, with audacious presumption both passed the definitive judgement which each party had beseeched us to give, and which we had begun to carry out, and judged that Theutberga, even as she sought refuge with the Church, should be crushed by condemnation. Sixthly, because they did this in [her] absence, contrary to the metaphorical saying:134 ‘Do not verbally abuse a deaf man.’ Indeed, it is verbal abuse of a deaf man when a person is condemned in absentia. For in a manner of speaking a person is deaf when they are absent and cannot hear what is objected against them; although that absence was rightly ensured, not because Theutberga sought it willingly, or because she had a bad conscience, as those men135 think, but from fear of the king, who refused to grant her an appropriate safe conduct, and out of suspicion of counsel biased against her.136 Seventhly, since the same men not only acted profanely137 by subscribing to all the things that had been evilly compiled, and thus lending them authority,138 to the detriment of the respect due to the apostolic see, but also, by compelling others to subscribe to them, became responsible for the transgression of all involved, and became criminally responsible for as many souls as they had in their role as ringleaders139 plunged into the depths of transgression by word or by deed.140