ST.

FRANCIS XAVIER COLLEGE SEMINARY CATALUNAN GRANDE, DAVAO CITY

SECULARIZATION IN THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD

A Research Paper of the Subject in Contemporary Religious Questions (CRQ) Submitted By: Sem. Jessie Joseph Canonigo Sem. Jay Daclan Sem. Lord Cedric Lumacad Sem. Roland Cris Montecalbo Sem. Randy S. Osiba Sem. Angelito O. Ugot Submitted to: Rev. Fr. Calexto Peligrino, SDV Professor Davao City, Philippines September 18, 2013

Table of Contents Frontispiece Table of Contents.1 Chapter I Historical Framework .......................................................................2 Chapter II Philosophical Tenets .........................................................................5 A. On Political Philosophy 6 a. 1. Gales of Rome .. 6 a. 2. William of Ockham 7 b. 3. Francisco Suarez ...10 B. On the Secularization of the Church12 b. 1. Byzantium .12 b. 2. The West ...12 b. 3. The Carolingians ...13 b. 4. Post Carolingians ...14 b. 5. Late Middle Ages .15 Chapter III Conclusion 16 Bibliography.18

SECULARIZATION IN THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD Chapter I: Historical Framework Medieval comes from the Latin words 'med' (meaning middle) and 'eval' (meaning age). It refers primarily to Europe (the term being applied to other cultures by analogy). Medieval philosophy includes the pre-scholastic, scholastic and late scholastic periods. Scholasticism refers to the intellectual culture characteristic of the medieval schools in the twelfth century. Late scholasticism conventionally begins with the fourteenth century and overlaps with the early modern period. The people we think of as the early modern philosophers were trained in the universities (or, in Descartes' case, in a Jesuit school), but they wrote mostly outside the universities and mostly in vernacular languages. The pre-scholastic medieval period includes Abelard and Anselm and the writers of the Carolingian age, but it is difficult to say how far back this period should be traced. Perhaps it should include Boethius and Augustine, who were deeply influential in Europe from their own time until the end of the middle ages (and beyond), though they might also be regarded as belonging to late Antiquity.1 The medieval period, or middle ages, arguably lasted from about the time of the fall of the Western half of the Roman Empire in 476 CE until the late 1400s. Some consider the invention of the printing press in 1450 to be one of the markers of the succeeding Renaissance. Although some historians might argue the period lasted for a millennium (rounding off to 5001500 CE to get the thousand years), the assignment of beginning and ending dates of the period are often in many ways arbitrary.2 The rise of secularization in this period started at Europe around the time of Pope Boniface VII in accordance to the will of King Phillip IV. The state of medieval Europe around the time of Pope Boniface VIII represents a tumultuous time in history with dramatic struggles

Cf. http://www.shadowedrealm.com/medieval-articles/exclusive/medieval_period_important_points on Aug. 3, 2004. 2 http://www.shadowedrealm.com/medieval-articles/exclusive/medieval_period_important_points on Aug. 3, 2004

occurring between the secular ideas of a growing number of individuals, groups, and leaders against the once-dominant influence of the Catholic Church. The politics was dictated by the authority of the Pope. In doing so, following the beginning of the paradigm shift that favored the localities and nations over the supreme rule of the divine as expressed through the Popes, medieval Europe was making a permanent break with centuries of political and social tradition.3 In this way, the shift to secularization is slowly creeping. This shift was due to a growing number of advantages the secular authorities possessedadvantages that would eventually topple the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, which ushered in a period of secular change. Furthermore, as cities and towns began to flourish and more artisans and skilled tradesman changed the nature of economics, among other elements in medieval culture, institutions of higher learning that emphasized philosophy and thought began to grow. These produced an ever-increasing din of new voices that were calling into questionwhat it meant to be a subject, and more importantly, what power was most correct to be subject to.4 The increasing of assertions by monarchies that political power should rest in the hands of the state and not the Church was one of the greatest sources that signaled a dawn of growing movement toward secularism in the medieval period. In this situation, the Catholic Church led by Pope Boniface VII responded this aggressive grab of historically undisturbed position of power through the issuance of a decree that in order to find peace and salvation in heaven, all citizens had to obey and become subjects of the Pope. Thus, this was become something of an ill-timed and overly aggressive statement at a point when states were consolidating power.5 Monarchs such as King Philip IV of France reacted with the most resistance and took broad moves to institute policies of secularism. This sparked a war of policy initiatives between Boniface VII and Philip IV with each taking bold moves to retain authority. For instance, Philip abolished all church personnel and clergymen from his government and no longer granted a tax exemption to the clergy, who were a broad class of men with more wealth than one, might
3

Cf. http://www.articlemyriad.com/rise-secularism-medieval-europe-historical-circumstances-advantages on Jan. 17, 2012. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.

associate as appropriate in our modern times. In reaction, a serious of wars between the two men; Philip through his refusal to grant money to Rome, and papal bulls declaring god as the supreme ruler over the state culminated in Bonifaces designation as a heretic and Philips excommunication. In short, this was the end between any friendly relationship between France and Romea severance that would has a significant impacton more than just politics, but would influence society and culture at large.6 Secularism in the medieval period is more or less money oriented. The advantage of the nation/state and secularism lie in one clear area in particularmoney. Taxes accounted for an enormous portion of Romes coffers and through their control of the purse strings and the tax changes Philip made; papal authority lost its bite. Without the direct funds from one of the richest nations in Europe, as well as the significant loss of Romes political power that occurred when Philip IV eradicated all traces of theology from his political leadership, there were few options the Catholic Church had to restore their once unquestionable power. There is something so implicitly oppositional about this war between the papal and secular that occurred in France Philip was fighting with tangible power (his influence over tax money and political positions of power) whereas Boniface was fighting with words, bulls and degrees based on concepts which were intangible (statements about Gods supreme power over the state and excommunication). Furthermore, unlike any other monarch in history, Philip IV had several legal professionals at his counsel who aided him in putting policies in action whereas the dwindling papal authority had only the same structure that had guided it for years that could rely on upon threat of excommunicationsomething that meant very little to the rationality-minded secular king. Another more general but equally important change was occurring throughout medieval Europe as many new cities began to rise in prominence. Older cities experienced an economic boom and became thriving centers of commerce where distinct class systems began to emerge, which was a rather new event following the ravages of the Crusades and Black Death. With the rise in these localities, all of which had their own developing class systems based on municipal government-like structures that were emerging, came aspects related to open trade of goods and services. People became skilled artisans and laborers, which led to a more even economic system
6

http://www.articlemyriad.com/rise-secularism-medieval-europe-historical-circumstances-advantages on Jan. 17, 2012.

(although certainly still rigidly structured class-wise). This spawned the development of universities and institutions of learning where the arts and sciences began to flourish and add even more fuel to the fire of increasingly bold secular questions about the nature of power and authority. In short, this period produced a new balance power and this rather more egalitarian (in a very cautious, relative sense) balance permitted another main advantage the secular movement hadmore numbers overall.7 The advantages for the secular movement, which began in earnest with the massive political backlash by Philip IV against the increasingly desperate actions and bulls issued by Boniface VII, were two-fold. First, by depriving the Catholic Church of its funds gained through a system of extreme taxation, as well as by removing the members of the clergy from political appointments, Philip XI was able to singlehandedly take the first steps to secure an advantage over Rome. Without the valuable funds provided through the taxes of the French people and without any political authority left to reverse this, Rome was left defenseless. While it attempted to excommunicate and provide other supreme condemnations, the rational and legal -team-led authority of Philip had secured a perfect advantage. This newly secularized state in official terms, coupled with a period of population growth and other advantages that would be addressed if granted more space, allowed for a rise in the population of cities and towns where distinct classes functioned to further the economy in general and allow for institutions of higher learning to develop and disseminate ideas. This new state of learning versus religious doctrine created a world that we recognize now more far different than the one that existed prior to Philips succession to the throne and changed the course of Western history forever.8

Chapter II: Philosophical Tenets The Philosophical Views on secularization in the medieval period is not so much a prevalent issue because secularism is apparent only from a limited scope such as on politics and the church. In fact, there were no comprehensive studies that focus only on secularism or secularization done by the medieval philosophers, theologians and other researchers.

http://www.articlemyriad.com/rise-secularism-medieval-europe-historical-circumstances-advantages on Jan. 17, 2012. 8 Ibid.

Perhaps, the interest of the philosophers, theologians and eloquent researchers is the existence of God rather than secularization. However, there were few who in their own little way talked about secularization minimally in their respective study like St. Thomas Aquinas, Giles of Rome, William of Ockham, Francisco Suarez and other medieval writers who in their own little way discussed a little on secularism. They discussed something on politics which is called political philosophy and the secularization of the church and its property. What make these two scopes philosophical are the ideas, approaches and principles applied and emphasized. On Political Philosophy In the political philosophy, St. Thomas Aquinas gave emphasis about power. He spoke on Secular and Spiritual Power. The relationship between secular and spiritual power is discussed briefly at the end of his early work Scripta super librossententiarum. (For translation, see Thomas Aquinas [1978], pp. 1067.). St. Thomas asks, When two authorities conflict, how should we decide which to obey? He answers that if one authority originates totally from the other (as, he says, the authority of a bishop derives from the Pope), greater obedience in all matters is due to the originating authority. If, however, both powers originate from a higher authority, the higher authority will determine which of them takes precedence on which occasion. Spiritual and secular power, he says, both come from God, so we should obey the spiritual over the secular only in matters which God has specified, namely matters concerning the salvation of the soul, and in civic matters we should obey the secular powerunless spiritual and secular power are joined in one person, as they are in the Pope, who by God's arrangement holds the apex of both spiritual and secular powers. In other words, the Pope has supreme authority in both secular and spiritual matters.9 Giles of Rome Giles of Rome talked about the clash between Pope Boniface and King Phillip IV. According to him, Philip IV, King of France 12851314, was one of the most ruthless of medieval rulers. He came into conflict with Pope Boniface VIII, one of the most arrogant of medieval Popes, and with Pope Clement V, one of the most timid. Clement acquiesced in Philip's attack on the Templar Order and other outrages to evade the king's pressure to condemn his
9

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/giles/.

predecessor, Boniface, as a heretic. These conflicts gave rise to a body of writings of great interest to the history of political thought.10 Giles argues that the Pope's fullness of power extends to political matters, so that the Pope is the supreme ruler of the world, God's deputy on earth, who delegates power to governments and supervises their activities. Giles's term for governmental power is dominium, which was also a term for property; Giles assimilates the two kinds of dominium, so that he holds that the Pope is also the supreme owner. He supports his position with many arguments, of which (1) He appeals to the idea that the universe is a single unity with a hierarchical ordering in which the Pope is the supreme hierarch among mankind: there are two swords, but the temporal sword must be subject to the spiritual, i.e., secular rulers must be subject to the Pope. (2) He applies Augustine's discussion of the question whether the Romans had a true republic (see 4.1) to argue that no one who does not submit to Christ's dominium, and therefore to the dominium of the Pope as Christ's vicar, can have any just dominium himself. As Augustine said, property is possessed by the laws of emperors and kings (4.3), which presupposes the authority of a community: so, Giles argues, since people who fail to honor the true God cannot belong to a community, only members of the community of the faithful can have any right to political power or property.11 William of Ockham When his authorship of Defensorpacis was discovered, Marsilius hastily left Paris and took refuge at the court of Ludwig of Bavaria in Munich. Not long afterwards a number of dissident Franciscans also took refuge in Munich, among them William of Ockham. From about 1332 until his death in 1347 Ockham wrote a series of books and pamphlets, now usually called his political writings, arguing that Pope John XXII and his successor Benedict XII ought to be deposed.12

10 11

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/giles/. Ibid. 12 Ibid. .

In the first of these, the Work of Ninety Days, Ockham defended against Pope John XXII the Franciscan claim that the highest form of religious poverty is to live without property or any other right enforceable by a human court. John had argued that no one can justly consume something without owning it. Marsilius and others had answered that we can justly consume things we don't own if we have the owner's permission. It was objected that permission confers a right, and permission to consume transfers ownership. Ockham answers by means of a distinction between natural rights and legal rights. In the state of innocence ownership would have been contrary to natural law because everyone had a natural right to use any thing. But after the fall natural law gave (or God gave) to human communities the right to enact human law assigning property, i.e. assigning to individuals or groups the right to exclude others from using certain things. This law binds morally, since we must respect agreements. Thus the institution of property morally ties or impedes the natural right to use things, so that in ordinary circumstances we cannot justly use another's things. However, the original natural right is not altogether abolished; on some occasions we can still exercise it.13 For example, if an object is inappropriate, we can use it without asserting property rights over it. In circumstances of extreme need, we can use another's property to sustain life. Even outside a situation of necessity, we can use another's property with the owner's permission, not only to preserve life but for any legitimate purpose. Permission sometimes confers a legal right, but sometimes the person giving permission, or the person accepting it, does not intend to give, or accept, any right enforceable in a human court; in such a case, if the permission is withdrawn, for good reason or not, the person who previously had permission has no legal remedy. Such permission to use property does not confer ownership or any other legal right, or any new right of any kind, but merely unties the natural right to use. The natural right is enough to make use, even consumption, just. The Franciscans can therefore justly use and consume things that belong to others without having any legal rights, relying on the natural right to use untied by the owner's permission.14 Soon Ockham began to write about the conflict between John and the Roman Empire, and, like Marsilius, he saw the papal claim to fullness of power as the root of many evils.Unlike
13 14

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/giles/. Ibid.

Marsilius, however, he did not reject the idea of papal fullness of power in every sense. Against Marsilius (whom he quotes extensively on this topic), Ockham defended the traditional belief that Christ appointed Peter as head of the Church, and he held that the Pope, as Peter's successor, has supreme power in the Church. Not only must the Pope respect the moral law and the teachings of the Church, but he must also respect rights based on human law and compact, and he must respect the Gospel liberty of Christians. A Pope who oversteps these bounds may be deposed; indeed, if his action involves heresy, he is deposed ipso factoand according to Ockham, Popes John and Benedict were heretics.15 Besides disagreeing with Marsilius over the status of Peter and the extent of the Pope's power, Ockham rejected his thesis that a community cannot be well governed unless all coercive power is concentrated in one sovereign authority. Ockham argues that, on the contrary, such concentration is dangerous and incompatible with freedom. Just as he had argued that the extreme version of the doctrine of papal fullness of power would make Christians the Pope's slaves, contrary to the gospel liberty, so he argues that the corresponding doctrine of fullness of power for the Emperor would be incompatible with the best form of government, in which subjects are free persons and not slaves.16 According to the canon Iuscivile (Decretum, dist. 1, c.8), Civil law is the law proper to itself that each people or city establishes, for divine and human reason. Ockham took this as a statement of a natural right belonging to each free community, i.e. one not already under government, to establish its own law and its own government. A particular community exercises the power to establish government by choosing a ruler and a form of government; the ruler's power therefore comes from God, but also from the people, i.e. from the community. But although power comes to the ruler by the community's agreement, disagreement is not enough to remove it: the ruler has a right to the power the community has conferred as long as he exercises it properly, and he cannot normally be corrected or removed. But in exceptional circumstances, if the ruler becomes a tyrant, or if there is some other pressing reason in terms of the common good, the community can depose its ruler or change its form of government. This is true also of the Church. Although Christ gave headship in the Church to Peter and his successors, each
15 16

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/giles/. Ibid.

Christian community has power by Natural Law to elect its own head. The Christian community can depose a wicked pope and could perhaps even change the constitution of the Church, at least temporarily, from the papal monarchy Christ established to some other form.17 Ockham discusses heresy and heretics, arguing that for someone to be a heretic it is not enough that something that person believes is heresy, he or she must also believe it pertinaciously, and to discover pertinacity it is often necessary to enter into discussion to find whether the person is ready to abandon the error when it is shown to be such. For example, a layperson who believes dogmatically a doctrine that is in fact heresy, until it has been shown to be heresy in a way adapted to that person's understanding, may maintain it a thousand times, even in the face of contradiction by bishop or Pope, without being a heretic. On the other hand, a Pope who tries to impose a false doctrine on others is known to be pertinacious precisely from the fact that he is trying to impose false doctrine on others, and a Pope who becomes a heretic automatically ceases to be Pope. Thus ordinary Christians (or a Pope arguing as a theologian and not purporting to exercise papal authority) can argue for a heresy as long as they are open to evidence and make no attempt to impose their belief on others, whereas a Pope who tries to impose a heresy immediately ceases to be Pope and loses all authority. Christians must defend dissidents who are upholding a position that may possibly be the truth against a possibly heretical Pope, until the uncertainty is resolved by discussion. This is an argument for freedom of discussion within the Church (though not for toleration in general).18 Francisco Surez Another Spanish philosopher-theologian of the late scholastic period who wrote about political questions was Francisco Surez (15481619). In his De legibus (1612) he defended a version of Thomas Aquinas's philosophy of law. Surez agrees that there are acts wrong in themselves, apart from anyone's will, but argues that a provident God must command rational creatures not to do such acts. Since we can know by natural reason that God exists and is provident, we can know by natural reason that morality is commanded by God, and as such it is Natural Law. This seems to be a double
17 18

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/giles/. Ibid.

10

obligation theory of morality: some things are wrong intrinsically but are, in addition, contrary to Natural Law because they are forbidden by God.19 Surez follows Aristotle in holding that human beings are naturally social. Human life requires association in communities, first in the family, then in cities, then perhaps in kingdoms (but not in a world empire). The family is not self-sufficient, so membership in some wider community is a necessity. Every community wider than the family needs a government with political power, including power to make laws. Directive government would have been necessary even if the Fall had never occurred (cf. Thomas Aquinas, 9 above), but after the Fall government needs power to coerce those who will not voluntarily obey its laws. Since community living and government power are natural necessities, political power comes from God as the author of nature.20 In choosing to form a particular community, people thereby establish polit ical power, since government is necessary to the ongoing existence of any community: it would be inconsistent to will to form a community but not to have a government. A community is formed by the consent of those who join it, but an additional act of will is not needed to create governmental power. Such power is therefore bestowed on the community immediately by God as the author of nature. However, although they cannot choose to have no government, the members of the community do choose the form of their government (rule by one, by a few or by many, or by the community as a body); they can even choose to be ruled by someone outside their community (just as an individual can voluntarily become a slave). A king or other ruler has power not immediately from God but from the community that consents to his rule, but once the community has bestowed ruler ship, the ruler is the vicar of God and must be obeyed. He has acquired a right to his power and cannot be deprived, unless he lapses into tyranny; if he does, the community has a right of war against him.21

19 20

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/giles/. Ibid. 21 Ibid.

11

On the Secularization of the Church The first extensive secularizations of the Church property by the state occurred almost simultaneously in the Eastern and Western Churches in the 18th century.22 Byzantium. In the Byzantine Empire, the controversy over Iconoclasm, precipitated by the banning of images in the Churches by Emperor Leo III in 727, included an attack upon the extensive land holdings of the Greek monasteries. The reign of Leos successor, Constantine V, Copronymous (741-775), was marked by open persecution of the monks, the suppressions of many monasteries and the confiscation of their properties. The monasteries were great centers of images worship, and the strong iconoclastic convictions of the Isaurian emperors partially explained these persecutions and suppressions. But the emperors were attempting also to reorganize and strengthen the byzantine state and army. Monastic wealth, for them as for many later rulers, offered a rich and easily appropriated resources for the fulfillment of their policies.23 The West.In the Latin west, Charles Martel, the great Frankish mayor of the palace, initiated a similar policy of secularization in the interest of military reorganization. Threatened by the Arabs from beyond the Pyrenees, apparently engaged in changing the basis of the Frankish army from foot soldiers to Calvary, and needing estates to support the mounted fighters, Charles found the land of the Churches essential for his task. Much obscurity surrounds this earliest Western example of extensive state secularization. No contemporary writer refers to it. The oldest reference and even this is doubtful-dates from shortly after Charless death, is in interpolation preserved in the letters of St. Boniface and probably attributable to the English Bishop Egbert of York. Charles reputation as a secularizer was not really established until the publication by Hinscar of Reims in 858 of the Dream of Saints Eucherius. Eucherius, Bishop of Orleans, reputedly saw in a vision Charless body devoured by a dragon because he had dispe rsed the lands of the Churches.24

22 23

D.Herlihy.New Catholic Encyclopedia (USA: The Catholic University of America, 1967),p. 40. Ibid. 24 Ibid.

12

With few and late sources, it is difficult to fi the responsibility of Charles Martel in initiating or pursuing these secularizations. But there is no doubt that both Charles and his successors in the Carolingian line pursued fiscal policies that resulted in the whole or partial secularization of Church property. Their motivation was, to be sure, exclusively financial. There is no suggestion, as in later attacks upon the Church property, of opposition to ecclesiastical wealth on moral or doctrinal grounds.25 The Carolingians. Secularization took three principal forms under the Carolingian rulers. The crudest was the appointing of the laymen as administrators over vacant dioceses or as lay abbot over monasteries. This recourse enabled the Frankish mayors and kings to support their retainers without technically secularizing the ecclesiastical endowment. So widespread did this practice become that by early 9th century Churches and monasteries had to set aside special portion of their revenues called mensae, for the support of the clergy and monks, the Frankish rulers also forced bishops or abbots to grant land under favorable terms to laymen. His befice( precarium) by order of king precariumverboregis) again diverted ecclesiastical revenues to the support of lay ministers of fighters, without technically secularizing Church lands, finally, the Carolingians imposed heavy military levies and taxes upon ecclesiastical and particularly upon monastic estates. Even the Immunities that the Frankish rulers granted liberally to Churches and monasteries involved no true exemption from fiscal burdens, but only the privileges of themselves arranging for tax collations and recruitment.26

Carolingians policy toward Church in managing the large estates with royal favor, Church property seems even to have grown considerably after Charles Martel, constituting about a third of the cultivated land under his grandson Charlemagne. But the Carolingians did divert a substantial portion of the ecclesiastical revenues to the support of their army, while usually leaving to the land and even the administrative responsibly for the Churches. This shrewd exploitation of ecclesiastical wealth utilizing the skills was well as the lands of Churches, undoubtedly helped make possible military success.27
25 26

D. Herlihy. New Catholic Encyclopedia,p. 40. Ibid. 27 Ibid.,p. 41.

13

Post- Carolingian period. In the late 10th century, the renewed invasions by Northern, Saracens, and Magyars and incessant internal strife led to the disintegration of the Carolingian state. The prevailing chaos also made possible a massive attack upon the ecclesiastical endowment that one historian called the great secularization the chief culprits were initially the feudal magnates. Lord such as Arnulf of Bavaria seized the monastic lands for the support of their knights, and all over Europe the need and greed of the undisciplined petty nobility took a tall from the largely undefended Churches. The emergence in Germany of a more effective state under the Saxon (919-1024) and Salion (1024-1125) kings and emperors helped curtail the more flagrant robberies. But the revived Empire itself, as the Carolingians state before it, still relied greatly upon the income from Church lands for the support of its administration and administration and army.28

This pillaging of the ecclesiastical endowment and diversion of ecclesiastical revenues to secular ends directly contributed to the spread of moral and spiritual abuses in the 10th century Church deprived of adequate means of support, clerics were sorely tempted to use their spiritual powers for material profit, Simony, rather than representing an occasional moral failing among the 10th century clergy, seems to have served for many of them as an essential means of support. Understandably, the Gregorian reform of the 11th century sought with the same success to reconstitute the ecclesiastical endowment, and councils and popes from that time on tried energetically to defend it from all further encroachment. Thus, in 1123 the first Lateran Council, first of the economical councils to be held in the west, reiterated the traditional condemnation of alienations and prohibited all lay control of ecclesiastical appointments. In 1139 the second Lateran councils forbade lay ownership of Churches altars, or tithes. In a strong reaffirmation of the Churchs claim to a tax immunity, the third Lateran council in 1179 permitted taxation of Church property only with the consent of bishop and clergy. In 1274 at Lyons, Pope Gregory IX required papal approval for alienations and in 1296 in the Bull ClericisLaicus Boniface VIII allowed taxation of the clergy only with papal approval.29

28 29

D. Herlihy. New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 41 Ibid.

14

Later Middle Ages. From the 12th century to the end of the middle ages, the Church remained strong enough to protect its endowment against major losses. However the name period was marked also by the appearance of the first extensive attacks upon the Churchs right to hold property. In the 12th century, the Albigenses, Waldenses, and other heretics violently condemned ecclesiastical wealth and called for a return to the apostolic poverty of the first Christians at the same time, satirists such as GeraldesCambrersis and Walter Map were ridiculing the alleged avarice and high monks and the fiscal machinations of the 13th century by the Curia. The chorus of criticism was swelled in the 13th century by the protracted debate concerning the Franciscan rule and the degree of poverty imposed by it, radical segments of the Franciscan community, the Zelanti and the Franciscan, spirituals, castigated propertied monks and friars and declared absolute poverty to be the sine qua non of true spiritual living.30 In the 14th century, three great rebels against the medieval ecclesiastical order- William of Ockham, Marsilius of Padua, and John Wyclif- gave these criticisms their most systematic and forceful expression. Starting from quite different premises, all three agreed in conceding to the state supreme dimension over Church property. In his DefensorPocis (1324), Marsilius declared that Church property not needed for worship, for the support of the clergy, or for the common welfare and defense John Wyclif was considerably more radical. Advancing the theory that grace alone converged rights of dominion and of ownership, Wyclif categorically denied to the papacy, monks, friars, and other sects, as he called them, any claim to power or property. The lay magistrate was Gods vicegerent and alone could exercise true dominion. Moreover, the lay magistrate had the positive responsibility of supervising the Church, assuming control over its endowment, and correcting the terrible abuses that the sects were perpetrating. Some few efforts were made in the late Middle Ages to realize these proposals. In 1371 the English parliament heard with some sympathy the proposition that the Churchs property could be legitimately used for the defense of the kingdom, but it avoided direct secularizations. In 1376 the commune of Florence, then at war with the papacy, actually set about confiscating and selling Church property to finance the war, but with the restoration of peace they abandoned the policy. There were also little suppression of poor or decayed religious houses, and the transference of their endowment to other, stronger houses or to new establishments such as university colleges. Such
30

D. Herlihy. New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 41.

15

suppressions were permitted by Canon law, and fragrant violations were avoided. The relative stability of the ecclesiastical endowment in the later middle Ages stand in surprising contrast to the frequent and extreme theoretical attacks upon it. Virtually all the criticisms, policies, and proposals that the protestant reformers advanced in regard to Church property had been anticipated by the rebellious thinker of the closing Middle Ages.31

Chapter III: Conclusion

What exactly the secularization in the medieval period particularly in Europe means is an attempt to topple down the supreme authority of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, it is somehow a deprivation of the Catholic Church of its funds gained through a system of extreme taxation and removing clergy men from political appointments. Its aim is to secularize the whole Europe where humanism was their focused. Humanism somehow defined as where the people are interested in purely human culture and political achievements and fulfillment rather than spiritual growth because they perceived religion as superstitious. They want to deduce the power and authority of the Pope in their office. On the other hand, secularization in the medieval period is a collision on several issues and matters between the church and state. Wherein, the state with the leadership of the King must have supremacy over the church lead by Pope Boniface VII. King Phillip IV had several legal professionals at his counsel who aided him in putting policies in action whereas the dwindling papal authority had only the same structure that had guided it for years that could rely on upon threat of excommunicationsomething that meant very little to the rationality-minded secular king. The development of secularization anywhere tends to challenge the view of Christian on politics and religion. In the context of political philosophy, secularization could tolerate politicians that will probably be carried away with their personal interest over their positions that they can still do the things for the common-good and welfare of their constituents whether secularist or religious people.
31

D. Herlihy. New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 42.

16

In the context of the Church, while it is true that religious dogma is not legislation for the civil order still it is its principles to operate, and must operate, beyond the confines of dogma and authority appropriate within the point of significant integration and inclusion of church from public life and the state. We must deem that religious beliefs of the church are significant in our society today. It has something to do in resolving social and political issues confronting state. It is in the church institution that we can obtain fair judgment and true justice whenever there are issues that have to be addressed in the community of such state.

17

Bibliography

Secondary Source:

HERLIHY,D.New Catholic Encyclopedia (USA: The Catholic University of America, 1967).

Instrument:

Http://www.shadowedrealm.com/medieval-articles/exclusive/medieval_period_important_points on Aug. 3, 2004. Http://www.articlemyriad.com/rise-secularism-medieval-europe-historical-circumstancesadvantages on Jan. 17, 2012.

Http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/giles/.

18