Clerics and monks were originally chalk and cheese. The clergy were an increasingly complex system committed to highly structured hierarchy – but there were unresolved uncertainties about the precise form it should take. The chapter discusses for instance the clerical cursus honorum, reactions against fast-track promotion, and the bigamia rule against clerics in higher orders marrying more than once and the rule’s relation to pagan marriage. The apostolic see was called in to clarify problems arising from these systems and also from the awkward relation between clerics and monks. Monasticism was an unstructured movement, sometimes out of control, at one point banned from towns by imperial law. The interpenetration of the clerical and monastic systems only intensified the challenge of integrating them. The problem would recur in different forms throughout the history of the Latin Church, and the difficulty of coordinating the two overlapping systems had the unintended consequence of strengthening the papacy, constantly called in to integrate monks within the religious legal system and adjust the differences between the two religious elites. The process is already in evidence with the earliest papal jurisprudence.

The apostolic see was asked how ritual systems, especially the system of clerical ordination, should be coordinated with the rules for the reception of repentant heretics. The main ritual system in question was clerical ordination, but baptism was drawn into the discussion. The main heresies in question were the Novatians, the followers of Bonosus and (less prominent) some Arians. The actual content of these theological heresies was hardly discussed in the papal responses. In terms of modern analytical ‘etic’ concepts, the responses are legal rather than theological. The last part of the chapter explains this conceptual distinction – between ‘legal’ and ‘theological’ – as it will be used throughout the book. Medievalists sometimes assume that canon law and theology were indistinguishable before the late twelfth century. It is true that they had constituted a continuum in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. When we look further back to late Antiquity, however, we find that a de facto distinction had emerged, even if around 1100 it would be submerged for a time.

Rather than providing a detailed survey of recent research (since this is available elsewhere), the chapter concentrates on the key contributions to the field of Erich Caspar, Charles Pietri, Geoffrey Dunn, and two historians influenced by Michel Foucault: Kristina Sessa and George Demacopoulos.