By Rev. James A. MacCaffrey.
The fifteenth century may be regarded as a period of transition from the ideals
of the Middle Ages to those of modern times. The world was fast becoming more
secular in its tendencies, and, as a necessary result, theories and principles
that had met till then with almost universal acceptance in literature, in art,
in education, and in government, were challenged by many as untenable.
Scholasticism, which had monopolized the attention of both schools and scholars
since the days of St. Anselm and Abelard, was called upon to defend its claims
against the advocates of classical culture; the theocratico-imperial conception
of Christian society as expounded by the canonists and lawyers of an earlier
period was forced into the background by the appearance of nationalism and
individualism, which by this time had become factors to be reckoned with by the
ecclesiastical and civil rulers; the Feudal System, which had received a mortal
blow by the intermingling of the classes and the masses in the era of the
Crusades, was threatened, from above, by the movement towards centralization and
absolutism, and from below, by the growing discontent of the peasantry and
artisans, who had begun to realize, but as yet only in a vague way, their own
strength. In every department the battle for supremacy was being waged between
the old and the new, and the printing-press was at hand to enable the patrons of
both to mould the thoughts and opinions of the Christian world.
It was, therefore, an age of unrest and of great intellectual activity, and at all such times the claims of the Church as the guardian and expounder of Divine Revelation are sure to be questioned. Not that the Church has need to fear inquiry, or that the claims of faith and reason are incompatible, but because some daring spirits are always to be reckoned with, who, by mistaking hypotheses for facts, succeed in convincing themselves and their followers that those in authority are unprogressive, and as such, to be despised.
This was particularly true of some of the Humanists. At first sight, indeed,
it is difficult to understand why the revival of classical learning should lead
to the danger of the rejection of Christian Revelation, seeing that the
appreciation of the great literary products of Greece and Rome, and that, even
in the days of the Renaissance, the Popes and the bishops were reckoned amongst
the most generous patrons of the classical movement. Yet the violence of extreme
partisans on both sides rendered a conflict almost unavoidable.
On the one hand, many of the classical enthusiasts, not content with winning for
their favorite studies a most important place on the programmes of the schools,
were determined to force on the Christian body the ideals, the culture, and the
outlook on the world, which found their best expression in the masterpieces of
pagan literature; while, on the other, not a few of the champions of Scholastic
Philosophy seemed to have convinced themselves that Scholasticism and
Christianity were identified so closely that rejection or criticism of the
former must imply disloyalty to the latter. The Humanists mocked at the
Scholastics and dubbed them obscurantists on account of their barbarous
Latinity, their uncritical methods, and their pointless wrangling; the
Scholastics retorted by denouncing their opponents as pagans, or, at least,
heretics. In this way the claims of religion were drawn into the arena, and, as
neither the extreme Scholastics nor the extreme Humanists had learned to
distinguish between dogmas and systems, between what was essential and what was
tentative, there was grave danger that religion would suffer in the eyes of
educated men on account of the crude methods of those who claimed to be its
authorized exponents.
Undoubtedly, at such a period of unrest, the Church could hardly expect to
escape attack. Never since the days when she was called upon to defend her
position against the combined forces of the Pagan world had she been confronted
with such a serious crisis, and seldom, if ever, was she so badly prepared to
withstand the onslaughts of her enemies. The residence at Avignon, the Great
Western Schism, and the conciliar theories to which the Schism gave rise, had
weakened the power of the Papacy at the very time when the bonds of religious
unity were being strained almost to the snapping point by the growth of national
jealousy. Partly owing to the general downward tendency of the age, but mainly
on account of the interference of the secular authorities with ecclesiastical
appointments, the gravest abuses had manifested themselves in nearly every
department of clerical life, and the cry for reform rose unbidden to the lips of
thousands who entertained no thought of revolution. But the distinction between
the divine and the human element in the Church was not appreciated by all, with
the result that a great body of Christians, disgusted with the unworthiness of
some of their pastors, were quite ready to rise in revolt whenever a leader
should appear to sound the trumpet-call of war.
Nor had they long to wait till a man arose, in Germany, to marshal the forces of
discontent and to lead them against the Church of Rome. Though in his personal
conduct Luther fell far short of what people might reasonably look for in a
self-constituted reformer, yet in many respects he had exceptional
qualifications for the part that he was called upon to play. Endowed with great
physical strength, gifted with a marvelous memory and a complete mastery of the
German language, as inspiring in the pulpit or on the platform as he was with
his pen, regardless of nice limitations or even of truth when he wished to
strike down an opponent or to arouse the enthusiasm of a mob, equally at home
with princes in the drawing-room as with peasants in a tavern --Luther was an
ideal demagogue to head a semi-religious, semi-social revolt. He had a keen
appreciation of the tendencies of the age, and of the thoughts that were
coursing through men's minds, and he had sufficient powers of organization to
know how to direct the different forces at work into the same channel. Though
fundamentally the issue raised by him was a religious one, yet it is remarkable
what a small part religion played in deciding the result of the struggle. The
world-wide jealousy of the House of Habsburg, the danger of a Turkish invasion,
the long-drawn-out struggle between France and the Empire for supremacy in
Europe and for the provinces on the left bank of the Rhine, and the selfish
policy of the German princes, contributed much more to his success than the
question of justification or the principle of private judgment. Without doubt,
in Germany, in Switzerland, in England, in the Netherlands, and in the
Scandinavian countries, the Reformation was much more a political than a
religious movement.
The fundamental principle of the new religion was the principle of private
judgment, and yet such a principle found no place in the issues raised by Luther
in the beginning. It was only when he was confronted with the decrees of
previous councils, with the tradition of the Church as contained in the writings
of the Fathers, and with the authoritative pronouncements of the Holy See, all
of which were in direct contradiction to his theories, that he felt himself
obliged, reluctantly, to abandon the principle of authority in favor of the
principle of private judgment. In truth it was the only possible way in which he
could hope to defend his novelties, and besides, it had the additional advantage
of catering for the rising spirit of individualism, which was so characteristic
of the age.
His second great innovation, so far as the divine constitution of the Church was
concerned, and the one which secured ultimately whatever degree of success his
revolution attained, was the theory of royal supremacy, or the recognition of
the temporal ruler as the source of spiritual jurisdiction. But even this was
more or less of an after- thought. Keen student of contemporary politics that
Luther was, he perceived two great influences at work, one, patronized by the
sovereigns in favor of absolute rule, the other, supported by the masses in
favor of unrestricted liberty. He realized from the beginning that it was only
by combining his religious programme with one or other of these two movements
that he could have any hope of success. At first, impressed by the strength of
the popular party as manifested in the net-work of secret societies then spread
throughout Germany, and by the revolutionary attitude of the landless nobles,
who were prepared to lead the peasants, he determined to raise the cry of civil
and religious liberty, and to rouse the masses against the princes and kings, as
well as against their bishops and the Pope. But soon the success of the German
princes in the Peasants' War made it clear to him that an alliance between the
religious and the social revolution was fraught with dangerous consequences;
and, at once, he went to the other extreme.
The gradual weakening of the Feudal System, which acted as a check upon the
authority of the rulers, and the awakening of the national consciousness,
prepared the way for the policy of centralization. France, which consisted
formerly of a collection of almost independent provinces, was welded together
into one united kingdom; a similar change took place in Spain after the union of
Castile and Aragon and the fall of the Moorish power at Granada. In England the
disappearance of the nobles in the Wars of the Roses led to the establishment of
the Tudor domination. As a result of this centralization the Kings of France,
Spain, and England, and the sovereign princes of Germany received a great
increase of power, and resolved to make themselves absolute masters in their own
dominions.
Having abandoned the unfortunate peasants who had been led to slaughter by his
writings, Luther determined to make it clear that his religious policy was in
complete harmony with the political absolutism aimed at by the temporal rulers.
With this object in view he put forward the principle of royal supremacy,
according to which the king or prince was to be recognized as the head of the
church in his own territories, and the source of all spiritual jurisdiction. By
doing so he achieved two very important results. He had at hand in the machinery
of civil government the nucleus of a new ecclesiastical organization, the
shaping of which had been his greatest worry; and, besides, he won for his new
movement the sympathy and active support of the civil rulers, to whom the
thought of becoming complete masters of ecclesiastical patronage and of the
wealth of the Church opened up the most rosy prospects. In Germany, in England,
and in the northern countries of Europe, it was the principle of royal supremacy
that turned the scales eventually in favor of the new religion, while, at the
same time, it led to the establishment of absolutism both in theory and
practice. From the recognition of the sovereign as supreme master both in Church
and State the theory of the divine rights of kings as understood in modern times
followed as a necessary corollary. There was no longer any possibility of
suggesting limitations or of countenancing rebellion. The king, in his own
territories, had succeeded to all the rights and privileges which, according to
the divine constitution of the Church, belonged to the Pope.
Such a development in the Protestant countries could not fail to produce its
effects even on Catholic rulers who had remained loyal to the Church. They began
to aim at combining, as far as possible, the Protestant theory of ecclesiastical
government with obedience to the Pope, by taking into their own hands the
administration of ecclesiastical affairs, by making the bishops and clergy
state-officials, and by leaving to the Pope only a primacy of honor. This
policy, known under the different names of Gallicanism in France, and of
Febronianism and Josephism in the Empire, led of necessity to conflicts between
Rome and the Catholic sovereigns of Europe, conflicts in which, unfortunately,
many of the bishops, influenced by mistaken notions of loyalty and patriotism,
took the side of their own sovereigns. As a result, absolute rule was
established throughout Europe; the rights of the people to any voice in
government were trampled upon, and the rules became more despotic than the old
Roman Emperors had been even in their two-fold capacity of civil ruler and high
priest.
Meanwhile, the principle of private judgment had produced its logical effects.
Many of Luther's followers, even in his own lifetime, had been induced to reject
doctrines accepted by their master, but, after his death, when the influence of
Tradition and of authority had become weaker, Lutheranism was reduced to a
dogmatic chaos. By the application of the principle of private judgment, certain
leaders began to call in question, not merely individual doctrines, but even the
very foundations of Christianity, and, in a short time, Atheism and Naturalism
were recognized as the hall-mark of education and good breeding.
The civil rulers even in Catholic countries took no very active steps to curb
the activity of the anti-Christian writers and philosophers, partly because they
themselves were not unaffected by the spirit of irreligion, and partly also
because they were not sorry to see popular resentment diverted from their own
excesses by being directed against the Church. But, in a short time, they
realized, when it was too late, that the overthrow of religious authority
carries with it as a rule the overthrow of civil authority also, and that the
attempt to combine the two principles of private judgment and of royal supremacy
must lead of necessity to revolution.
I wish to express my sincere thanks to the many friends who have assisted me,
and particularly to the Very Rev. Thomas O'Donnell, C.M., President, All Hallows
College. My special thanks are due also to the Rev. Patrick O'Neill (Limerick),
who relieved me of much anxiety by undertaking the difficult task of compiling
the Index.
James MacCaffrey.
St. Patrick's College, Maynooth,
Feast of the Immaculate Conception.
*******
This is taken from the History of the Catholic Church.
Copyright © World Spirituality · All Rights Reserved