READING GUIDE 9: Papal Power and Papal Decline
A. Innocent III: Policies and Relations with Kings
These texts are meant to illustrate the breadth of papal authority
by 1215. Notice how wide-ranging Innocent III’s interests are, and how
effective he was at forcing secular rulers to follow church rulings.
1. Was Innocent claiming absolute authority in all spheres of human
life? Over what DID he claim authority?
2. The letter to the prefect Acerbius and the nobles of Tuscany revisits
an important plank in the papacy’s theory of papal authority. What metaphor
does Innocent use to describe royal and papal authority? Which is superior,
and why?
3. In his letter concerning heresy, Innocent was referring to the Cathar
(or Albigensian) heretics who infested southern France in the late 12th
and early 13th centuries. What are Innocent’s views about heresy?
How should it be treated? What weapons do the bishops have to battle heresy?
How ought laymen to fit into the church’s plans?
4. Innocent was also concerned with usury, or the lending of money
at interest. Why was it forbidden? Who was to enforce the prohibition on
usury? Where would usurers be tried?
5. A tithe is a donation to a religious institution (traditionally
it is 10% of one’s income). What did Innocent have to say about tithes?
What practice was he seeking to abolish? Why? What ‘stick’ did he have
to enforce this abolition?
6. Innocent was greatly interested in reviving the crusading movement,
which had fallen on hard times after 1187, when the Muslim Emir Saladin
reconquered much of the crusader kingdoms. What problems did Innocent
encounter with the Venetians? What interests motivated the Venetians? What
did Innocent have to say about this? What compromise did he ultimately
reach with them?
7. What is the basic message of Innocent’s letter concerning Jews?
What practices was he seeking to curtail? Why were Jews subject to these
awful practices? Why did Innocent want to stop them?
8. Innocent placed an interdict on France in 1200 because King Philip
II of France refused to abide by the church’s rulings on marriage (he tried
to ditch his wife). What does an interdict mean for France? Why was this
considered to be such a serious penalty? Notice the few exceptions to the
ban on performing the sacraments - wh received exemptions from the ban?
9. Innocent’s ruling on the choice of German King (1201) is especially
interesting. Remember that German kings had traditional rights to the title
of Emperor of the Romans (the title descended from the Roman Empire and
came to be known later as the Holy Roman Emperor). Yet from perhaps
the 8th century, it had been the practice for popes to crown Emperors.
This tradition gave the papacy precedence for interference in German politics.
Of course before 1050, no pope was powerful enough to interfere in secular
German politics, but by 1201 ..... It’s also important to know that
the last king of Germany, Henry VI, had died leaving a very young son (Frederick),
a brother (Philip) and a rival claimant from another family (Otto). What
justification does Innocent give for claiming the right to decide who would
be king/emperor? Why can Rome make this decision? Who did Innocent choose,
and why? What does this episode say about Papal authority?
10. The excerpt from King John’s submission to Innocent III is also
important. Remember that John fell afoul of the papacy for attempting to
have his own candidate made archbishop of Canterbury. Now, having studied
the investiture controversy, we know exactly why this was such a problem
for the church. You will also recall that for his arrogance and impertinence,
John ended up excommunicated and with his country under interdict. Only
in 1213 did John decide to give in utterly to the pope. This excerpt comes
from John’s charter of submission. What did John do to acknowledge his
error? Who became the theoretical ruler of England (and Ireland)?
How did John retain any position at all? What obligations did John agree
to perform in the future? What does this episode say about papal authority?
B. Gratian on Marriage
These excerpts are from the great compilation of canon law created
by Gratian c. 1140 and known as the Decretum. Some explanation
of the format of the Decretum might be necessary. It was arranged
in sections related to specific issues of canon law (marriage, for instance).
For each question/issue, Gratian assembled all of the relevant authorities
(scripture and previous church rulings) he could find, before finally settling
on his own decision concerning that issue. Notice that over time,
later writers added commentaries, known as glosses, to Gratian’s text.
The glosses tended to be added to specific sentences; for instance, on
this web-page, we have a gloss written by a man named Huguccio concerning
the phrase ‘sine ardore’ (without ardor). When a reader was reading
Gratian and came to that phrase, he would then skip to Huguccio’s gloss
to see what Huguccio thought Gratian had meant. Eventually there even came
to be glosses for the earlier glosses! Some glosses became so well-known
and so widely accepted that they tended to be recopied with every manuscript
of the Decretum. These manuscripts came to be known as the Glossa
Ordinaria, or the Standard Gloss, since they included the glosses accepted
by most authors as correct and necessary. This meant that a manuscript
of Gratian copied in 1250 with the Glossa Ordinaria might well have only
a small rectangle of Gratian’s original text in the center of the page
with copious glosses added in the margins all around it.
1. In Gratian’s opening text, he distinguishes the first two instances
of ‘marriage’. The first was in Eden. What was it like? What was the second
like? Why was the second instance necessary (ie., what does he mean by
‘to eliminate unlawful movement’? movement of what?)
2. What is this mutual debt that a married couple owes to each other?
Its origin lies in the reason for marriage - what is that origin?
3. Does Gratian think that the sole purpose for marriage is children?
What other purpose does it have? Is that other purpose evil? Why not?
4. Gratian repeats a formula concerning the three ‘goods’ or benefits
of marriage - what are they? [this formula was first developed by Saint
Augustine in the 4th century]
5. What does Huguccio’s gloss on ‘without ardor’ tell us?
6. Huguccio’s gloss on “yet marriage” adds more to what Gratian wrote.
For Huguccio, what are the four possible reasons for sex (ie., for a man
to ‘know’ his wife)? Each reason carries a moral interpretation.
What are they? What are the best reasons for sex in marriage? What are
the worst?
7. What does Huguccio mean about having sex ‘according to the order
of nature’?
8. Does Huguccio see a major difference in having sex with your spouse
for reasons of incontinence or for reasons of lust? Why?
9. What does the Glossa Ordinaria add (if anything) to Gratian’s distinction
between the two original reasons why marriage was instituted?
C. The Papacy Judges Matters of Marriage and Sexuality
These texts are meant to illustrate the papacy’s interest in marriage
in general, and in promoting a particular model of marriage. Notice, too,
the sophisticated legal mechanism (canon law, with church courts) to hear
cases concerning marriage. Continence here means refraining from
sex. Incontinence meaning having sex because one has followed one’s
natural urges (but not lust!). All these texts come from the register
of Innocent III (1198-1216)
1. Innocent’s letter to Clement of Oseney
a. What two offenses had “W” committed? What was
the initial penance assigned to him? Why did he claim he could not carry
it out? What did Innocent decide
about penance? Why?
b. What was the fate of W.’s wife? How did Innocent
recommend that she act towards her husband? What does Innocent admit might
stand in the way of that
recommendation? Why might
she legally be allowed to expect sex from W? What is the conjugal debt?
From this text, who seems to be allowed to demand it?
2. Letter to Arnold of Gerona
a. What were the facts of this case?
b. Why was G in trouble for having sex with the
mother of his fiancee, and then with that fiancee? How did the medieval
church define such a crime?
c. What was the fate of G? Why?
d. What was the fate of the mother? Why?
e. What was the fate of the daughter [notice that
she is called ‘wife’ from the third sentence on - why?]? On what did her
fate depend?
3. Letter to the Archbishop of Tarragona
a. What are the facts of the case between B and
Ages?
b. What is the problem being brought to Innocent’s
attention? What is his decision?
c. What conclusions can we draw about marriage and
sex within marriage?
4. Letter to the Archbishop of Salzburg
a. What are the facts of the case? To what did the
church object? (ie., what was Corradus’ crime?)
b. What punishment does Innocent command?
5. Letter to the Archbishop of Siponto
a. What are the facts of the case? About what was
the archbishop seeking Innocent’s advice?
b. In this case, the deeds performed were not necessarily
so bad, it was the order in which they were performed. How might the girl
have saved herself from any
legal problems whatsoever?
c. What does this case suggest about impotency?
D. The End of the Medieval Papacy: the Failure of Boniface VIII
Most scholars acknowledge that the high point of the political authority
of the newly revived papacy came during the pontificate of Innocent III
(1198-1216). Still, it was not really until almost a century later, under
Boniface VIII (1294-1303) that secular monarchs began to ignore the papacy’s
political demands in any systematic way. Note, however, that even after
the sort of political power associated with Innocent III disappeared, the
social and legal authority of the papacy in matters such as marriage and
sexuality retained its force. The church courts were just as busy,
if not busier, in the 14th century than they had been in the 12th; it was
simply that kings had gained sufficient power in their kingdoms to be capable
of ignoring papal political pressure. The most extreme papal claims for
political supremacy came under Boniface VIII, but they were firmly rejected
by King Philip IV of France, who proved that ultimately force and national
identity would prevail. We have two of Boniface’s most famous statements
of papal authority (verging towards the idea of papal infallibility) and
then an account of Philip’s successful efforts to intimidate and break
Boniface. Remember: a ‘bull’ is a formal papal decree.
a. Boniface VIII: the bull Clericos Laicos, 1296
Boniface’s first quarrel with Philip IV came in 1296 over the issue
of whether the king could tax the French churches to support his wars against
the king of England. For Philip it was a matter of sovereignty; as
sovereign of France, he felt he could demand support from all of the French,
including the French church. For Boniface, this was a return to the days
prior to the Gregorian Reform and Investiture Controversy of the 11th century;
if Philip taxed the church, it would lose its independence. When Philip
went ahead and demanded a tax, Boniface issued the bull Clericos Laicos
to rebuke him. Note: ‘the Apostolic Chair’ means the ‘papacy’ (because
the popes were thought to sit in Peter the Apostle’s chair as his heirs
and successors).
1. Boniface accuses laymen in general of greed and
hostility to the church. Is his accusation justified?
2. What does Boniface declare about those
clergy who give taxes to laymen? And about those laymen who take taxes
from the clergy? What shall be their fate?
b. Boniface VIII: the bull Unam Sanctam, 1302
Boniface lost his first struggle with Philip; the pope had to back
down and Philip successfully levied a tax on his clergy. Five years later
(1301), however, a new crisis occurred. Philip accused one of the
French bishops of treason and had that bishop arrested and held for trial
by the royal judges. When he heard of this, Pope Boniface was outraged,
for this deed contradicted the fundamental notion of canon law, that the
clergy were distinct legally and ought to be subject to church courts alone.
In a first bull, named Ausculta Fili, Boniface accused Philip of
usurping papal lordship over the church; the pope added: “Let no one persuade
you that you have no superior or that you are not subject to the head of
the ecclesiastical hierarchy, for he is a fool who so thinks”. Philip
responded by having this bull burned publicly; he then cleverly changed
the terms of the dispute from clerical privilege and immunity to national
sovereignty by circulating a forged bull which claimed that the pope was
going to seize the land of French laypeople. French people were thus led
to believe that the pope had designs on their private property.
Philip summoned the French Estates General (like English parliament) which
duly expressed outrage at the pope’s alleged claims; egged on by the king’s
agents, the Estates sent a formal letter to the cardinals in Rome asking
them to depose the ‘heretical’ Boniface. Boniface reacted with righteous
indignation and published a new bull, Unam Sanctam (1302), which
contained the clearest and fullest statement of papal supremacy to date.
It would prove to be the last time a medieval pope attempted to make such
claims.
1. Boniface starts with a statement of the unity
of the Christian (Catholic) church. Why?
2. Boniface then employs the metaphor of the corporate
body - the one body of the church can have only a single head. Who is that
head?
3. Also in this second paragraph, Boniface makes
use of the Gelasian notion of the two swords - what is this? How does it
help the pope’s position? Who rightfully
ought to have possession
of both swords? Why?
4. What conclusions does Boniface draw about the
relative strengths of spiritual and secular power?
5. Near the end of the bull, Boniface makes an oblique
reference to the specific dispute raging between him and Philip. Can you
spot it?
6. The last line of the bull is clearly the most
important (and the most famous) line of the bull. What does it say? Why
is it important?
c. Boniface VIII: Outrage at Anagni
King Philip was not impressed by Unam Sanctam. He decided to
teach Boniface a lesson about the true relationship between the spiritual
and temporal ‘swords’, and thus sent a team of agents to Italy to hunt
down the pope and force him, physically, to agree to Philip’s demands.
The French agents (with some Italian allies, led by a man named Sciarra;
these Italians were the relatives and men of some cardinals whom Boniface
had punished) found Boniface at his palace in Anagni in 1303.
1. What happened at Anagni? How did the pope respond?
2. Which side of the struggle does the author of this passage support?
Why?
3. Note: Sciarra and the French may not have physically harmed the
pope (although other texts suggest they ‘roughed him up’ a bit), nevertheless
the pope died within three months of this incident. Many said he died of
shame and humiliation. The victory was Philip’s.