|
The withdrawal of the Popes from the capital of Christendom and the
unfortunate schism, for which their residence at Avignon is mainly
responsible, proved disastrous to the authority of the Holy See.
The Avignon Popes were Frenchmen themselves. Their cardinals and
officials belonged for the most part to the same favoured nation. They
were dependent upon the King of France for protection, and in
return, their revenues were at times placed at his disposal in order to
ensure victory for the French banners. Such a state of affairs was
certain to alienate the rulers and people of other nations, especially
of Germany and England, and to prepare the way for a possible
conflict in the days that were to come.
The Great Western Schism that followed upon the residence at
Avignon divided Christian Europe into hostile camps, and snapped the
bond of unity which was already strained to the utmost by political and
national rivalries. Sincere believers were scandalised at the
spectacle of two or three rival Popes, each claiming to be the
successor of St. Peter, and hurling at his opponents and their
supporters the severest censures of the Church. While the various
claimants to the Papacy were contending for supreme power in the
Church, they were obliged to make concession after concession to the
rulers who supported them and to permit them to interfere in religious
affairs, so that even when peace was restored and when Martin V was
universally recognised as the lawful Pope, he found himself deprived
of many of the rights and prerogatives, for which his predecessors from
Gregory VII to Boniface VIII had struggled so bravely.
Nor was this all. In their efforts to bring about a reunion, and
despairing of arriving at this happy result by an agreement among the
contending Popes, many honest theologians put forward principles,
which, however suitable to the circumstances of the schism, were
utterly subversive of the monarchical constitution of the Church.
They maintained that in case of doubtful Popes the cardinals had the
right to summon a General Council to decide the issue, and that all
Christians were bound to submit to its decrees. In accordance with
these principles the Council of Constance was convoked, and, elated
with the success of this experiment, many of the more ardent spirits
seemed determined to replace, or at least, to limit the authority of
the Popes by the authority of General Councils summoned at regular
intervals. The Pope was to be no longer supreme spiritual ruler.
His position in the Church was to be rather the position of a
constitutional sovereign in a state, the General Council being for
the Pope what modern Parliaments are for the king.
Fortunately for the Popes such a theory was completely discredited by
the excesses of its supporters at the Council of Basle, but it served
to weaken the authority of the Holy See, and to put into the hands of
its opponents a weapon which they were not slow to wield whenever their
personal interests were affected. Henceforth appeals from the Pope to
a General Council, although prohibited, were by no means
unfrequent.
Yet in spite of all these reverses, had the Church been blessed with
a succession of worthy Popes burning with zeal for religion, free to
devote themselves to a thorough reform, and capable of understanding
the altered political and social conditions of the world, the Papacy
might have been restored to its old position. But unfortunately the
Popes from Nicholas V to Leo X were not the men to repair the
damage that was done, or to ward off impending danger. The calamities
that threatened Europe from the advance of the Turks, and the
necessity of rousing its rulers to a sense of their responsibilities
occupied a large share of their attention; while the anxiety which they
displayed in the miserable squabbles of the Italian kingdoms,
sometimes out of disinterested regard for the temporal States of the
Church, as in the case of Julius II, more frequently from a
desire of providing territories for their unworthy relations, left them
little time to safeguard the general well-being of the Church. In
case of some of them, too, if one may judge them by their actions,
the progress of Humanism seemed to be nearer to their hearts than the
progress of religion.
In his personal life Nicholas V (1447-55) was not unworthy
of his exalted position, but the necessity of repairing the damage that
had been done by the unruly assembly at Basle, which arrogated to
itself the authority of an independent General Council, the removal
of the last obstacle to the Turkish invasion of Europe in the fall of
Constantinople, and the importance of securing for Rome a
pre-eminent position in the great classical revival, engaged all his
energies to the exclusion of necessary reforms. Calixtus III
(1455-58) was too old to do much, yet, notwithstanding his
advancing years and the indifference of the European rulers, he threw
himself into the struggle against the Turks, aiding and encouraging
Hungary and Albania in their resistance, and it is due largely to his
efforts that the victorious advance of Mahomet II was checked by
the overthrow of his forces at Belgrade (1456). Pius
II[21] (1458-64), though in his youth not the most
exemplary of the Humanist school, devoted himself with earnestness and
zeal to the duties of his sacred office. He published a Bull
retracting all the attacks which he had made against the Papacy in his
capacity as secretary to the "Concilabulum" at Basle. He set
himself to study the Scriptures and the early Fathers in place of the
Pagan classics, and he showed his approbation of the Christian
Humanists. But he was unable to undertake the work of reform. In
view of the danger that still threatened Europe he convoked an assembly
of the princes at Mantua to organise a crusade against the Turks, but
they turned a deaf ear to his appeals, and, at last weary of their
refusals and indifference, he determined to place himself at the head
of the Christian forces for the defence of Europe and Christianity.
He reached Ancona broken down in spirits and bodily health, and died
before anything effective could be done. Paul II
(1464-71), who succeeded, made some efforts to purify the
Roman Court. He suppressed promptly the College of Abbreviators
who were noted for their greed for gold and their zeal for Paganism,
and closed the Roman Academy. On account of his severity in dealing
with the half Christian Humanists of the Curia he has been attacked
with savage bitterness by Platina, one of the dismissed officials, in
his "Lives of the Popes",[22] but nobody is likely to be deceived
by scurrilous libels, the motives of which are only too apparent. The
worst that can be said against Paul II is that he was too fond of
appointing his relatives to high positions in the Church; but in
mitigation of that it is well to remember that his reforms had raised up
so many enemies against him in Rome, and disaffection was so rife
amongst even the highest officials of his court, that he may have
deemed it prudent to have relatives around him on whom he could rely.
Sixtus IV (1471-84) was the first of the political
Popes, Leo X being the last. They are so called on account of
the excessive interest they displayed in Italian politics of the
period, to the neglect of the higher interests with which they were
entrusted. Most of them, with the exception of Alexander VI,
were not positively unworthy men, but they were too much concerned with
secular pursuits to undertake a reform of the gross abuses which
flourished at the very gates of their palace. The papal court was no
worse and very little better than the courts of contemporary rulers,
and the greed for money, which was the predominant weakness of the
curial officials, alienated the sympathy of all foreigners, both lay
and cleric.
Julius II (1503-13) did, indeed, undertake the difficult
task of restoring the States of the Church that had been parcelled out
into petty kingdoms by his predecessors, but his policy soon brought
him into conflict with Louis XII of France. Louis demanded that
a General Council should be convoked, not so much out of zeal for
reform as from a desire to embarrass the Pope, and when Julius II
refused to comply with his request the king induced some of the
rebellious cardinals to issue invitations for a council to meet at Pisa
(Sept. 1511). Most of the bishops who met at Pisa at the
appointed time were from France. The Emperor Maximilian held
aloof, and the people of Pisa regarded the conventicle with no
friendly feelings. The sessions were transferred from Pisa to
Milan, and finally to Lyons. As a set off to this Julius II
convoked a council to meet at Rome, the fifth Lateran Council (May
1512), for the threefold purpose of healing the French schism,
of proscribing certain doctrinal errors, and of undertaking the work of
reform. The earlier sessions were taken up almost entirely with the
schism, and before the work of reform was begun Julius II passed
away.
He was succeeded by the young and learned John de' Medici, son of
Lorenzo the Magnificent of Florence, who took the name of Leo X
(1513-21). Like his father, the new Pope was a generous
patron of art and literature, and bestowed upon his literary friends,
some of whom were exceedingly unworthy, the highest dignities in the
Church. Humanism was triumphant at the Papal Court, but,
unfortunately, religion was neglected. Though in his personal life
Leo X could not be described as a deeply religious man, yet he was
mindful of his vows of celibacy, attentive to the recitation of the
divine, office, abstemious, and observant of the fasts of the
Church. As a secular ruler he would have stood incomparably higher
than any of the contemporary sovereigns of Europe, but he was out of
place considerably as the head of a great religious organisation.
Worldliness and indifference to the dangers that threatened the Church
are the most serious charges that can be made against him, but
especially in the circumstances of the time, when the Holy See should
have set itself to combat the vicious tendencies of society, these
faults were serious enough.
The defeat of the French forces at Novara (1513), and the
loyalty of the other rulers of Europe to the Holy See induced Louis
XII of France to make peace with the new Pope, and to recognise
the Lateran Council. But on the accession of Francis I
(1515-47) a fresh expedition into Italy was undertaken; the
Swiss troops were overthrown at Marignano (1515) and Leo X
was obliged to conclude a Concordat[23] with the French King. By
the terms of this agreement France agreed to abandon the Pragmatic
Sanction of Bourges, while the Pope bestowed upon Francis I and
his successors the right of presentation to the bishoprics and abbacies
in his dominions. The work of reform, which should have claimed
special attention at the Lateran Council, was never undertaken
seriously. Some decrees were passed prohibiting plurality of
benefices, forbidding officials of the Curia to demand more than the
regulation fees, recommending preaching and religious instruction of
children, regulating the appointment to benefices, etc., but these
decrees, apart from the fact that they left the root of the evils
untouched, were never enforced. The close of the Lateran Council
synchronises with the opening of Luther's campaign in Germany, for
the success of which the Council's failure to respond to the repeated
demands for reform is to a great extent responsible.
In any scheme for the reform of the abuses that afflicted the Church
the reformation of the Papal Court itself should have occupied the
foremost place. At all times a large proportion of the cardinals and
higher officials were men of blameless lives, but, unfortunately,
many others were utterly unworthy of their position, and their conduct
was highly prejudicial to religion and to the position of the Holy
See. Much of the scandalous gossip retailed by Platina in his
"Lives of the Popes", and by Burcard[24] and Infessura[25] in
their "Diaries" may be attributed to personal disappointment and
diseased imaginations, but even when due allowance has been made for
the frailty of human testimony, enough remains to prove that the Papal
Court in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was not calculated to
inspire strangers to Rome with confidence or respect. Such corrupt
and greedy officials reflected discredit on the Holy See, and
afforded some justification for the charges levelled against them of
using religion merely as a means of raising money.
The various taxations,[26] direct and indirect, levied by the
Popes during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries helped to give
colour to these accusations. It ought to be remembered, however,
that the Popes could not carry on the government of the Church, and
support the large body of officials whose services were absolutely
necessary, without requiring help from their subjects in all parts of
the world. During the residence of the Popes at Avignon additional
expenses were incurred owing to the necessity of providing residences
for themselves and their court, and, at the same time, the rebellions
and disorders in the Papal States put an end to any hope of deriving
any revenue from their own temporal dominions. On their return to
Rome money was required to repair the palaces that had gone into ruin,
and to enable the Popes to maintain their position as patrons of art
and literature, and as the leaders of Europe in its struggle against
the forces of Islam.
For this last purpose, namely, to organise the Christian forces
against the Turks, the Popes claimed the right of levying a fixed tax
on all ecclesiastical property. The amount of this varied from one-
thirtieth to one-tenth of the annual revenue, and as a rule it was
raised only for some definite period of years. Even in the days when
the crusading fever was universal, such a tax excited a great deal of
opposition; but when Europe had grown weary of the struggle, and when
the Popes could do little owing to the failure of the temporal rulers
to respond to their appeals, this form of taxation was resented
bitterly, and the right of the Popes to raise taxes in this way off
ecclesiastical property was questioned by the ecclesiastics affected as
well as by the temporal rulers. England and France took measures to
protect themselves; but in Germany the absence of any strong central
authority, and the want of unity among the princes made it difficult to
offer any effective resistance to these demands. In 1354,
1372, 1459, 1487, and in 1500, the German bishops
protested strongly against the attempts of the Pope to levy taxes on
ecclesiastical property.
But in addition to these extraordinary levies there were many permanent
sources of revenue for the support of the Papal Court. In the first
place from the time of Boniface IX annats, which consisted of a
certain proportion of the first year's revenue, were to be paid by all
clerics on whom a minor benefice was conferred by the Holy See. In
case of the major benefices, bishoprics and abbacies, the "servitia
communia" and the "servitia minuta" took the place of annats. The
"servitia communia" was a fixed sum the amount of which depended upon
the annual revenue of the See or abbey, and was divided between the
Pope and the cardinals of the Curia. The "servitia minuta",
amounting to about 3 1"2 per cent. of the "servitia communia",
was given to the lower officials, who prepared the letters of
appointment. The revenues of vacant Sees and the property of deceased
bishops were also claimed by the Holy See. From England the Pope
received yearly the Peter's Pence, and from all countries that
acknowledged his feudal jurisdiction he was entitled to a definite
annual tribute.
Furthermore, the reservations[27] of benefices were another fruitful
source of revenue. The policy of reserving benefices to the Holy See
might be defended, on the ground that it was often necessary in order
to counterbalance the interference of secular rulers in regard to
ecclesiastical appointments, and that it afforded the Pope a
convenient means of rewarding officials whose services were required for
the government of the Church. But the right of the Pope to reserve
benefices was abused during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and
gave rise to constant friction with the civil and ecclesiastical
authorities in different countries of Europe. Reservations, instead
of being the exception, became very general, and, as a result, the
eyes of all ambitious clerics were turned towards Rome from which they
hoped to receive promotion, whether their immediate superiors deemed
them worthy or unworthy. Such a state of affairs opened the way to the
most serious abuses, and not unfrequently to disedifying wrangles
between rival candidates, all of whom claimed to have received their
appointments from Roman officials.
Intimately connected with papal reservations were expectancies or
promises given to certain persons that they would be appointed to
certain benefices as soon as a vacancy would occur. Such promises of
appointment were unknown in the Church before the twelfth century, but
later on they became very general, and led to most serious abuses
during the residence of the Popes at Avignon and during the
disturbances caused by the Great Western Schism. Expectancies were
adopted as a means of raising money or of securing support. Various
attempts were made to put an end to such a disastrous practice, as for
example at the Councils of Constance and Basle, but it was reserved
for the Council of Trent to effect this much needed reform.
Again the custom of handing over benefices "in commendam", that is
of giving some person the right of drawing the revenues of a vacant
benefice for a certain specified time, was highly prejudicial to the
best interests of religion. Such a practice, however justifiable in
case of benefices to which the care of souls was not attached, was
entirely indefensible when adopted in regard to bishopric, abbacies,
and minor benefices, where so much depended upon personal activity and
example. The person who held the benefice "in commendam" did nothing
except to draw the revenue attached to his office, while the whole work
was committed to an underpaid vicar or representative, who was obliged
often to resort to all kinds of devices to secure sufficient means of
support. Again though plurality of benefices was prohibited by several
decrees, yet during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries nothing was
more common than to find one individual holding, by virtue of a papal
dispensation, two, three, six, ten, and possibly more benefices to
most of which the care of souls was attached. Such a state of affairs
was regarded as an intolerable scandal by right minded Christians,
whether lay or cleric, and was condemned by decrees of Popes and
councils; but as exceptions were made in favour of cardinals or
princes, and as even outside these cases dispensations were given
frequently, the evils of plurality continued unabated.
Again, the frequent applications for and concessions of dispensations
in canonical irregularities by the Roman congregations were likely to
make a bad impression, and to arouse the suspicion that wholesome
regulations were being abandoned for the sake of the dispensation fees
paid to the officials. Similarly, too, complaints were made about
the dispensations given in the marriage impediments, and the abuses
alleged against preachers to whose charge the duty of preaching
indulgences was committed. Furthermore, the custom of accepting
appeals in the Roman Courts, even when the matters in dispute were of
the most trivial kind, was prejudicial to the local authorities, while
the undue prolongation of such suits left the Roman lawyers exposed to
the charge of making fees rather than justice the motive of their
exertions.
The disturbances produced by the schism, and the interference of the
state in episcopal elections helped to secure the appointment of many
unworthy bishops. Even in the worst days of the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries a large proportion of the bishops in the different
countries of Europe were excellent men, but a large percentage also,
especially in Germany, were thoroughly worldly. They were more
anxious about their position as secular princes or proprietors than
about the fulfilment of their sacred duties. Very often they were
sprung from the nobility, and were appointed on account of their family
influence without any regard to their qualifications, and, as a rule,
the duties of visitation, of holding synods, and even of residing in
their dioceses, were neglected. Besides, even when they were anxious
to do their best, the claims of the lay patrons and the papal
reservation of benefices made it difficult for them to exercise proper
disciplinary control over their clergy. In many cases, too, the
cathedral chapters were utterly demoralised, mainly owing to outside
influence in the appointment of the canons. The clergy as a body were
very far from being as bad as they have been painted by fanatical
reformers or by the followers of Luther. The collections of sermons
that have come down to us, the prayer books for the instruction of the
faithful, the catechisms, the compilations from the Holy
Scriptures, the hymns, theological works, and especially the
compendiums prepared for the use of those engaged in hearing
confessions, give the lie to the charge of wholesale neglect[28];
but, at the same time the want of sufficient control, the interference
of lay patrons in the appointments to benefices, the absence of
seminaries, and the failure of the universities to give a proper
ecclesiastical training, produced their natural effect on a large body
of the clergy. Grave charges of ignorance, indifference,
concubinage, and simony were not wholly groundless, as the decrees of
various councils sufficiently testify.
Many causes contributed to bring about a relaxation of discipline in
many of the religious orders. The uncanonical appointment of abbots,
the union of various abbacies in the hands of a single individual, the
custom of holding abbacies "in commendam", and the wholesale
exemption from episcopal authority for which many of the religious
orders contended, are sufficient to account for this general
relaxation. The state of the various houses and provinces even
belonging to the same order depended largely on the character of the
superiors, and hence it is not fair to judge one country or one
province, or even one house, by what happened in other countries,
provinces, or houses. Hence arises the difficulty of arriving at any
general conclusion about the religious houses. It is safe, however,
to say that with the exception of the Carthusians all the older orders
required reform. From the beginning of the fifteenth century attempts
were made to restore the old discipline in the Benedictine communities
and with considerable success. The Carmelites were divided into two
main branches, the Calced and the Discalced; the Franciscans were
divided into three main bodies, the Conventuals, the Observants,
and the Capuchins; the Dominicans made various efforts to restore the
ancient discipline especially from about the beginning of the fifteenth
century; while many of the Augustinians who were determined on reform
established new congregations, as for example, the Discalced
Augustinian Hermits, who spread themselves over France, Spain,
and Portugal. In addition, various new congregations, amongst them
the Oblates founded in 1433 by St. Francisca Romana, and the
Hermit Brothers in 1435 by St. Francis of Paula, were
established to meet the necessities of the age.[29]
Unfortunately the endless disputes between the religious and secular
clergy[30] at this period tended to distract the attention of both
from their spiritual work, and to give rise to considerable disorder
and discontent. On the one side, men like the Paris professor,
John Poilly and Richard Fitzralph, Archbishop of Armagh, were
too extreme and seemed inclined to leave to the religious orders no
place in the ministration of the Church, while on the other, some of
the religious, such as the Franciscan, John von Gorrel, wished to
assert for themselves complete independence of episcopal control.
Various attempts were made by Boniface VIII, Benedict XI,
Alexander V, John XXII, Calixtus III, Sixtus
IV, and by the Councils of Constance and Basle to settle these
disputes, but without much permanent result. It was only in the
eleventh session of the Fifth Lateran Council (1516) that Leo
X promulgated the decrees, which in substance hold good at the
present time, fixing the relation between the bishops and the regular
clergy.[31]
Many of the fanatical preachers anxious for reform were guilty of
undoubted exaggeration in the pictures which they painted of clerical
life at the time, as were also not a few of the Humanists, anxious to
cast ridicule on their opponents. But even when all due allowance has
been made for these exaggerations in such works as the "Onus
Ecclesiae"[32] of Bishop Berthold, the rhymed sermons of one of
the great Franciscan opponents of Luther, Thomas Murner
(1475-1537), which became popular in Germany under the
titles of the "Narrenbeschworung" and the "Schelmenzunft",
Faber's "Tractatus de Ruinae Ecclesiae Planctu", the
"Encomium Moriae" of Erasmus, the Dialogues of St. German in
England, the "Narrenschiff" of Sebastian Brant, and the
petitions of the Spanish Cortes, enough remains to convince any
reasonable man that a reform of the clergy was an urgent necessity.
For many years the cry of reform of the Church in its head and members
had been heard in nearly every country of Europe. The justice of such
a demand was admitted universally, but the difficulties in the way were
so great that no Pope cared to risk a generous scheme of reform. Most
of the abuses of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries might be traced
back to the decline of the papal power during the Avignon exile and the
Great Western Schism. When peace was restored to the Church, and
when the Popes might have done something for the revival of
ecclesiastical discipline, the advocates of the conciliar theory
blocked the way by their extravagant attacks on the Papacy, and by
their attempts to destroy the supremacy of the Holy See under the
guise of reforming the Roman Curia. Besides, it was impossible to
carry through any effective measures for the removal of abuses without
attacking what were regarded as vested interests, and the holders of
these interests were determined not to yield without a struggle. The
cardinals wished to restrict the rights of the Pope; the bishops
wished to reform the cardinals and the Papal Court; the Paris
doctors wished to reform the bishops and the regular clergy; while the
regular clergy traced all the evils in the Church to the indifference
and neglect of the secular priests. Unfortunately there was no man
endowed with the foresight and the courage of Gregory VII to put
his finger upon the real cause of the downfall, namely the slavery of
the Church, and to lead a campaign for the independence of the
spiritual power, particularly for the restoration of free canonical
elections.
At the Council of Constance everybody recognised the necessity of
reform, but the jealousies of the various nations, the opposition of
the interests concerned, and the fear of provoking a new schism, made
it impossible to do more than to adopt temporary expedients, which, it
was hoped, might give some relief. Decrees concerning exemption from
episcopal authority, the union of benefices, simony, tithes, and the
duties of the clerical state were promulgated in the fourteenth
session, and the other questions, upon which the different nations
could not agree, were to be regulated by Concordats with the Holy
See. The Concordat with the German nation dealt with canonical
election, appeals to Rome, annats, indulgences, dispensations, and
the limitation of excommunication; the English Concordat insisted on
the right of England to be represented in the college of cardinals and
contained clauses dealing with indulgences and dispensations; the
Concordant with Castile regarded the number of cardinals, the
reservation and collation of benefices, annats, "commendams",
appeals, and indulgences; by the Concordat with France it was
arranged that owing to the wars in which France was engaged the annats
and other taxes payable to the Holy See should be reduced
considerably. Measures such as these were utterly inadequate even had
they been observed to the letter, but in reality complaints were made
frequently, especially in Germany, that they were disregarded.
The Council which met in Siena (1524) was entirely
unrepresentative, and was dissolved without having accomplished
anything. But great hopes were expressed that the Council of Basle
would formulate and carry out a thorough scheme of reform.
Unfortunately, however, these hopes were doomed to disappointment.
An extreme section, hostile to the Papacy and determined to weaken
its position, dominated the Council, and made it impossible to do the
work for which the assembly had been convoked. Though the council held
its first session in 1431, nearly four years passed before any
reform decrees were issued. They dealt with concubinage,
excommunication, the abuse of interdicts, and the abolition of annats
and other taxes payable to the Holy See. The violence with which the
Council assailed Eugene IV, and the fear of a new schism
alienated many who were anxious for reform, but who were not willing to
attack the essential prerogatives of the Pope. The clergy of France
met at Bourges in 1432, and with their consent the Pragmatic
Sanction of Bourges was published by the king in 1438. According
to this edict annats were retained, but were reduced to one- fifth of
the amount formerly paid, and most of the reformatory decrees of Basle
were adopted for use in France. Germany was desirous of reform, but
at the same time unwilling to break with the Holy See, and hence the
German nation remained neutral in the disputes between Eugene IV
and the Council. Finally Germany returned to its allegiance, and
the Concordat of Vienna was signed in 1448, according to which
the right of the Pope to make appointments to benefices in the Empire
and the amount of the fees to be paid to the Curia were regulated.
This agreement was not regarded with favour in some parts of Germany,
and complaints were made frequently by the princes that the terms of the
agreement were not observed by the Roman officials. England also took
steps to protect itself by the Statutes of "Provisors" and
"Praemunire" (1453). These statutes rendered null and void
all collations, reservations or provisions of benefices made by the
Holy See in England, and forbade all appeals to the Roman tribunal
on questions which could be settled before English tribunals.
During the pontificate of Nicholas V, Calixtus III, and
Pius II, very little was done for reform. The fear that if
another General Council were convoked the disgraceful scenes of Basle
might be repeated, and the dangers which threatened Europe from a
Turkish invasion, seem to have paralysed the Popes, and to have
prevented them from taking effective measures to abolish evident
abuses. Paul II did, indeed, take action against the Pagan
Humanists who barely concealed their antipathy to Christianity even in
the city of the Popes, but he took no steps to remove the influences
which had made such a state of affairs possible. As a rule at each
successive conclave the cardinal electors pledged themselves that
whichever of them should be elected would undertake certain measures,
some of which might have redounded to the good of the universal
Church, others of them merely to the advantage of the sacred college
itself; but these election agreements were always quashed, and the
evil was allowed to increase without check. From the election of
Sixtus IV the tendency was steadily downwards, till in the days of
Alexander VI the Papacy reached its lowest point. At a time when
even people indifferent to religion were shocked by the state of affairs
at the Roman Court, it is no wonder that a zealous and holy
ecclesiastic like the great Dominican Savonarola[33] should have
denounced these abuses in no uncertain language, and should have warned
Alexander VI of the terrible judgment in store for the Church
unless some steps were taken to avert the indignation of an offended
Almighty. The threats and warnings of Savonarola were, however,
scoffed at as the unbridled outbursts of a disappointed fanatic, and
the cry for reform was put aside as unworthy of attention.
Julius II (1503-13) was personally above reproach, but
the circumstances of his time allowed him very little opportunity to
undertake a generous plan of reform. The recovery of the Papal
States that had been frittered away by his predecessors in providing
territories for their family connections, the wars in Italy, and the
schemes of Louis XII forced the Pope to play the part of a
soldier rather than that of an ecclesiastic, and delayed the
convocation of the General Council to which right-minded Christians
looked for some relief. Louis XII, taking advantage of this
general desire, forestalled the Pope by inducing some of the cardinals
to summon a General Council to meet at Pisa (September 1511).
The assembly met at Pisa and adjourned to Lyons, but the feeling of
loyalty to the Pope was too strong for Louis XII, and the
assembly at Lyons could count on very little support outside France.
Julius II determined to summon a General Council to meet in Rome
for the reformation of the Church. This, the Fifth Lateran
Council, as it was called, was opened in May 1512, but the
earlier sessions were devoted almost entirely to the condemnation of the
French schism, the decrees of the "Conciliabulum" at Lyons, and
the Pragmatic Sanction. Before the work of reform could be taken in
hand Julius XII died (1513), and the young cardinal
deacon, John de' Medici, ascended the papal throne under the title
of Leo X.
From the new Pope, if one were to judge him by his antecedents, a
development of classical learning and art might be expected rather than
a renewal of religion. Personally Leo X was not a wicked man. On
the contrary in his private life he was attentive to his religious
duties, but he was indifferent and inclined to let things shape their
own course. The Lateran Council did, indeed, undertake the
restoration of ecclesiastical discipline. It condemned abuses in
connexion with the bestowal of benefices, decreed the reformation of
the Curia, especially in regard to taxes, defined the position of the
regulars in regard to the bishops of the dioceses in which their houses
were situated, ordered the bishops to enforce their censorship over
books published within their jurisdiction, and approved of the
Concordat that had been arranged between Leo and Francis I
(1516).
Such reforms as these were so completely inadequate that they failed to
give satisfaction to the host of clerics and laymen who desired a
thorough reform. The news that the Council was dissolved in March
1517 without having grappled with the urgent reform of the Church
in its head and members, sent a thrill of dismay throughout the
Christian world, and secured for Luther the sympathy of many when a
few months later he opened his campaign at Wittenberg. It was thought
at first that he aimed merely at the removal of abuses, and in this
work he could have counted upon the active co-operation of some of the
leading German ecclesiastics, who showed themselves his strongest
opponents once they realised that he aimed not so much at reform as at
the destruction of the Church and of all religious authority.
|
|