St. Leo, Patriarch of the West

By Thomas V. Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | Sep 16, 2026 | In Lives of the Popes

Previous installment

In the previous installment, we looked at St. Leo’s doctrine of the papacy, in which the bishop of Rome has authority over all other bishops in the world. Now we will continue to look at Leo’s reign in expanding circles to see him behaving as the universal pastor in practice that he claimed to be in principle. Future installments will cover his relations with the East, but for now I will look at St. Leo’s governance as Patriarch of the West. In northern Italy and Africa, Leo had to address disciplinary issues caused by barbarian invasions, while in southern Gaul, he punished an overweening bishop and gave directions on the administration of Penance.

The major sees of northern Italy were Milan, Aquileia, and Ravenna. Of these we have most documentation of St. Leo’s relations with Aquileia, which mainly addresses the Pelagian heresy and various problems caused by barbarian incursions. On the former point, Leo was concerned about Pelagian clergy migrating from diocese to diocese without permission from their old bishop, and without being required to repudiate their heresy. To the Pelagian belief that grace must be merited, Leo rejoined: “Grace not actually given gratis is not grace (gratia) at all.”

The invasion of northern Italy by Attila the Hun in 452 not only caused material problems for the Church and civil society—for one thing, the Huns destroyed Aquileia—but also gave rise to disciplinary complications. For instance, some women whose husbands were captured and presumed dead had remarried, only to have their original husbands show up alive later on. Who were they to treat as their husband? Leo ruled that while these women and their second husbands were not to be considered guilty of sin since they had made an innocent mistake, the wife must return to her first husband as the true one, under pain of excommunication if she refused.

St. Leo also had to make rulings concerning those who had fallen away into paganism or heresy during the invasion and now wanted to return. As the popes had always decreed, such people were allowed to return to communion after doing penance. Likewise, those who had been baptized in a heretical sect were not to be rebaptized. Rebaptizing someone known to have been validly baptized would be a sacrilege, but when ruling about similar cases in Ravenna, Leo allowed for what we now call “conditional baptism” for those whose baptism was doubtful.

In all these cases, Leo was responding to inquiries from the bishops of northern Italy who sought a judgment from Rome, despite being outside Leo’s metropolitan jurisdiction.

North Africa, the birthplace of Latin-language Christianity and of figures like Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine, was in poor shape after the Vandal invasion, especially because the Vandals imposed Arianism and persecuted orthodox Catholics. This barbarian rule, though short-lived, was the first in a number of blows which reduced the region to a backwater of Latin Christendom, finally to be virtually snuffed out by the Arab armies of the Caliphate in the seventh century. Today, the ancient dioceses of North Africa exist only in ghostly form as the titular sees assigned to auxiliary bishops. The once-mighty name of Carthage now lies dormant, lacking even a titular bishop.

In the chaos ensuing from the Vandal takeover, disciplinary irregularities arose. Leo sent a bishop to investigate, and followed up with orders on how they should be handled. One such issue was men being consecrated to the episcopate in violation of the canons—either because they had not been promoted gradually through the various levels of ministry, because they went straight from being laymen to being bishops, or because they had been married twice or were married to a widow (forbidden on grounds of St. Paul and the Mosaic law). When a bishop’s marital status violated the law, Leo demanded that he be deposed, but bishops who had been promoted too quickly were allowed to keep their office, with the warning that there would be no such leniency for those improperly promoted in the future.

Though always concerned to follow canon law rigorously, Leo consistently used moderation in his governance, generally preferring to give a light penalty or none at all when it came to first-time canonical violations. It should also be noted that while he frequently intervened in the affairs of churches in other regions as necessary, he was also concerned to preserve the traditional and canonical rights of other metropolitan bishops, and when some lower-ranking prelate sent a question or request to Rome, Leo would remind him that he ought to have consulted or gone through his local metropolitan. So far was St. Leo from aggrandizing Rome’s authority out of self-interest, as alleged by some critics of his strong claims for the papacy.

Given previous clashes between Africa and Rome, it is noteworthy that St. Leo insisted on African deference to the Roman see. Disciplinary infractions, he said, should be handled first by the local synod, but its decision must then be sent to Rome for ratification. Forty years later the Catholic bishop of Carthage, outnumbered in a dispute with the Arian bishops of Africa, would protest, “We must wait till the Roman Church in particular, which is the head of all the churches, has sent a representative.”

St. Leo vs. St. Hilary of Arles

In the installment covering Pope St. Zosimus (417-418), I mentioned his intervention in a dispute over jurisdiction among the bishops of Southern Gaul. Zosimus had granted local primacy to the see of Arles. Long cited as the reason for Arles to have such primacy was one St. Trophimus, who had supposedly been sent to Gaul as an emissary (depending on the account) of the Roman Church, of the Apostles, of St. Paul, or even of St. Peter himself. But St. Zosimus’s grant to Arles had overridden the pre-existing rights of the metropolitans of Vienne, Marseilles, and Narbonne, and provided an opportunity for high-handed behavior by the metropolitans of Arles. The controversy continued through the next few papacies.

The main issue of primacy was who had the right to select and consecrate bishops for the vacant sees in the region. Furthermore, by the time of St. Leo, this question had particular spiritual stakes, for the monastic movement was growing in Southern Gaul, fostering a rigorous ecclesiastical discipline. St. Honoratus, founder of the monastery at Lérins, had been elected bishop of Arles, the very see which at this time had the greatest power in the province. His successor, St. Hilary, writes Trevor Jalland, “made use of every opportunity which arose for providing vacant sees with candidates of his own choosing and probably gave the impression that, if he were allowed a free hand, the whole of Gaul would be governed ecclesiastically by bishops trained in the rigorist school.”

The stage was set for an unfortunate public clash between two saints when another Gallic bishop, Celidonius, came to Rome, with the complaint that a synod summoned by St. Hilary of Arles had deposed him on the charge of having been uncanonically elected. St. Leo reopened the investigation, and when St. Hilary heard of this, he immediately left Gaul for a wintertime journey across the Alps to Rome. Upon his arrival, Hilary was not only made to justify his action before a Roman synod, but he was outraged to learn that Celidonius had been received into communion with Rome, disregarding Hilary’s excommunication of him. As a result, Hilary apparently made some kind of outburst before the Roman synod, making a bad impression on the pope. Having got nowhere with the Romans, Hilary returned disappointed to Gaul, while the Roman synod reinstated Celidonius.

But then, after Hilary’s departure, a new allegation against him was heard at Rome. It seems that while the elderly Gallic bishop Projectus had been lying ill, Hilary had shown up to his diocese and summarily consecrated a new bishop to replace him. The replacement was a newcomer to the diocese, chosen without consulting the local people. The Roman synod, hearing of this double irregularity, nullified Hilary’s action and deposed the new bishop. And an outraged Pope Leo wrote a letter to the bishops of Gaul explaining his decision and announcing penalties against Hilary.

Hilary, said Leo, had shown “that by claiming for himself the rights of consecration of all churches throughout Gaul and by transferring to himself the privilege proper to metropolitan bishops, he so desires to subjugate you to his authority, that he may not put up with being a subject of the blessed Apostle Peter.” (Hilary had been accused more generally of traveling around accompanied by soldiers to impose his proteges on vacant sees.) Note that Leo invokes papal authority as a bulwark of the traditional rights of local bishops against any one of them trying it to lord it over the others. While certain privileges had been granted by Rome to the bishop of Arles at an earlier time, these were no longer in effect, and Hilary had behaved in an uncanonical manner regardless.

Whether or not the allegations against Hilary were entirely accurate, they were all Pope Leo had to go on, and Hilary’s departure from Rome had given the impression of a guilty man fleeing judgment. So St. Leo characterized Hilary’s actions in strikingly harsh terms:

Hilary turned up unexpectedly among people to whom he was unknown, and just as suddenly went off, making many journeys, as we have heard, at a headlong speed and rushing about through remote provinces with such haste that he appears to have acquired a reputation everywhere more for ridiculous precipitancy than for episcopal dignity. At any rate the letter sent to us by the laity suggests as much when it says, “He was off before we knew he had got here.” …So Hilary seems to have been more anxious to kill off a sick man than to consecrate a bishop, and to deceive the person whom he intruded by giving him an irregular consecration.

Aside from rectifying the particular wrong done in the case of Projectus, Leo made a number of rulings addressing the broader situation in Southern Gaul. Most importantly, the right to consecrate bishops to fill a vacant see would now belong only to the metropolitan of the province including that see, not to any other metropolitan. Then Leo turned to Hilary himself. The bishop of Arles was forbidden to convene synods, and was deprived of his own metropolitan privileges. He was to remain as the bishop of his own diocese, but not to consecrate any other bishops.

Leo emphasized that Rome was intervening in these matters not to increase her own power, but to protect the rights of the local bishops and to preserve the peace and canonical order of the Church. And his decisions were soon backed up by an imperial rescript from the Emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III, upholding the primacy of the Roman bishop, such that “it shall not be lawful for any bishop, whether in Gaul or in other provinces, in violation of ancient custom to undertake anything without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal city.”

It is hard to judge St. Hilary’s actions based on the one-sided information we have. His eagerness to choose bishops for the region was likely motivated by a zeal for moral reform of the Church in Gaul. But he used means so irregular and provocative that Rome could not let it stand. At any rate, St. Hilary accepted Rome’s decision and kept to his own episcopal duties from then on. Though he had been excommunicated by Rome, this did not seem to mean he was no longer considered a member of the Church, since St. Leo explicitly allowed him to keep his episcopal office.

After the death of St. Hilary in 449, relations between Rome and Arles quickly became cordial once more. When yet another jurisdictional dispute broke out, this time between Arles and Vienne, both making appeals to Rome, Leo was willing to arrange an impartial compromise between the two rather than maintaining the former penalty against Arles. The result was the restoration of much of its former jurisdiction.

A glimpse of the ancient practice of Penance

Also worth highlighting in St. Leo’s relations with Southern Gaul are his rulings on the administration of Penance, written in response to two different requests. But first, when reading ancient texts related to Penance, we must understand a few differences in how the early Church used this sacrament.

First, the sacrament was only used to absolve mortal sins. Regular, repeated confession as a medicinal practice even for venial sins would be introduced into Europe in the seventh century by Irish monks, who themselves were inspired by the penitential practices of Egyptian desert monks. (Though it is a myth that they introduced the practice of private confession, which already existed, as we saw in an earlier installment.)

Second, in the early centuries it was widely though not universally held that this sacrament could only be received once in a lifetime. So seriously did the early Christians take mortal sin, and the necessity of a true commitment never to commit mortal sin a second time after confession. Of course, this sometimes led people to delay reconciliation until the very end of life, since they knew they would only get one chance for absolution of sins.

Third, one had to complete one’s assigned penance before receiving absolution—this is why the traditional name for the sacrament was Penance rather than Confession, since the sins were not absolved at the moment of confession. Penances were far heavier in the early Church than they are today (as, to a lesser extent, were penances throughout most of the Church’s history), so the penitential process could take years or even the rest of one’s life. For certain sins, the canons said that one could not receive absolution and communion (the reception of communion being the sign of reconciliation with the Church) until one’s deathbed after a lifetime of penance.

So, the bishop of Fréjus wrote to Leo with a question about the rules for granting absolution, and Leo responded with some general principles:

First, bishops have authority over the assignment of penances, and the reconciliation of penitents to the Church. It is through the prayers of the bishops that sins are forgiven.

Second, those penitents who die before receiving reconciliation cannot be absolved after death. Yet we should not assume we know the fate of such people, for in taking them from this life before they were reconciled to the Church, God has reserved their judgment to Himself, and has left their fate a mystery in order to instill proper fear into the rest of us: “For it is highly profitable and necessary that the offences of sinners should be pardoned by the prayer of the bishop before the day of death.”

Third, those in urgent need or danger of death should not be denied Penance and immediate reconciliation: “We ought not therefore to be hard-hearted in dispensing the gifts of God, nor to ignore the tears and groans of those who accuse themselves, believing as we do that the desire to do Penance has been formed by inspiration of God.” But people should not presume to delay seeking reconciliation for their sins, because God’s providence may not grant them access to a bishop before death.

Fourth, dying persons who are unable to speak should not be denied Penance and Communion.

On another occasion, Leo received a letter from Bishop Rusticus of Narbonne, who was so discouraged by controversy and criticism from his people that he wanted to resign. Leo responded encouraging and admonishing Rusticus not to abandon the watch over his flock due to persecution—for disagreements, disobedience, and slander are no more an excuse to run away than actual violent persecution would be.

I am amazed, however, that your beloved self is so much upset by the difficulty of scandals, from whatever cause they may have arisen, that you say that you desire specially release from the travails of episcopal office and prefer to spend your life in quiet and ease, rather than persevere in the duties which have been entrusted to you. …You should consistently maintain justice and show clemency with kindness. Let sins, not sinners, be an object of hatred. Restrain the proud, encourage the feeble, and if rather severe punishment has to be awarded to sins, let it be inflicted in the spirit not of anger but of tenderness.

Leo also responded to a number of specific disciplinary questions from Rusticus, mostly having to do with marriage, Penance, and baptism. I will quote four of the answers about Penance, to give a sense of how spiritually demanding the ancient practice was compared to our own:

(10) Concerning those who have undertaken Penance and then start a lawsuit.

It is one thing to demand one’s rights and another thing to despise even that which is one’s own through love of perfection. But a person who seeks pardon for wrongdoing ought to abstain even from what is right, while if a penitent has a suit which perhaps he is bound to undertake, it would be preferable for him to have recourse to an ecclesiastical court rather than to a civil one.

(11) Concerning those who carry on business while in the course of performing Penance or after having completed it.

The nature of the gain affects the case; whether the profit is honest or base. Yet it is better for one undergoing Penance to suffer loss rather than be involved in the risks of business, since in the course of trade between buyer and seller it is difficult to avoid sin.

(12) Concerning those who after performing Penance return to government service.

Canon law forbids a person to return to government service after the performance of Penance. So a man is not free from sin who is ready to involve himself in such a vocation.

(13) Concerning those who after performing Penance take wives or associate with concubines.

One who while still young has performed Penance, in fear of death or faced by danger of being made prisoner and then afterwards, in dread of the sin of youthful incontinence, has chosen to marry a wife, so as not to be guilty of fornication, appears to have done something pardonable so long as he has carnal knowledge of no one at all but his wife. In such a case the writer states that he does not so much define a rule as judge what is preferable. For, strictly speaking, nothing is so fitting for one who has performed Penance as perseverance in chastity.