Papal Powers

My take the authority of the Pope is tied to the willingness of Catholic secular leaders to support him and his will, we outside of the Roman Catholic Church should fear the day he and these leaders all operate in unison as one. I find the fact he must sometimes work around them a good thing.

Deacon wrote:
To be clear, I am speaking only theoretically and historically about Papal claims to Naples. I'm not addressing anything in any particular game.

My opinions here on the forum, and those held by my characters in game, can differ a fair bit!

Glad to hear it Deacon!

tkolter wrote:My take the authority of the Pope is tied to the willingness of Catholic secular leaders to support him and his will, we outside of the Roman Catholic Church should fear the day he and these leaders all operate in unison as one. I find the fact he must sometimes work around them a good thing.

Tkolter, this is a common misconception and one of the reasons for my initial post on Papal States vs Papacy.  In terms of his religious authority, this is not at all dependent upon the opinions of others, but on his fidelity to the teaching of Christ, i.e. tradition handed on through the apostles.  The Orthodox interpret tradition even more strictly than Rome, which could lead to some interesting debates in game.  The Pope is not free to make up religion, but the church can and does restate truths of faith in more modern language or to address modern issues (due, for example to technological or social change).  I know the example is out of period, but Catholic Social Teaching arose in the 1800s as a response to industrialisation, a new urbanised poor who may have existed in small numbers before, but now threatened the stability of society.  Had the church stayed silent then its members would have looked to secular political movements and ideologies (like communism) which were incompatible with Christianity.  The church's response may have been late, but it is better to do the work and come up with a comprehensive response to a global need than rush in and then have to correct mistakes.  If you read Rerum Novarum (1891), it is actually way ahead of its time, and somewhat difficult reading for those who were doing rather nicely.  It is written, like all official Papal teachings, in reference to past principles and authorities, which underlines the point that the Pope's religious authority is not dependent upon the agreement of secular leaders.

In terms of his wider political authority, again referring to my Papal States vs Papacy post, in general you are correct in that he must gain support from other leaders just like any other ruler.  Inside Italy, though, it is slightly more complicated given the dominance of the church and family ties.  Stuart mentioned how the Lords of Milan regularly took issue with the Pope and he is correct - many Italian nobles tried at one point or another to reduce Papal influence.  Unfortunately for them, they all underestimated the extent of family ties binding the church into the fabric of their society.  As soon as they started to oppose the will of Rome, they lost a third of their support and left themselves hostage to the shifting middle who either saw their chance to challenge for power themselves or more often than not threw their weight behind Rome to preserve their privileges.  It was also common for families to split with one part joining the church (and donating lands to protect them) whilst the other ruined itself in politics.  The inevitable result is that church landholdings increased at the expense of the secular nobility, so over time resistance to the church became harder and harder.  There is a parallel to how Imperial power grew within the Holy Roman Empire, but there were Imperial institutions which helped the Emperor govern.  There were no such institutions in Italy and no Pope created any because it was not his priority.

Theoretically if all Catholic nations came together under Papal leadership there would be a lasting peace.  Unfortunately getting them all to put aside their differences is highly unlikely.  The closest we came was during crusades where the objective of the crusade gave them a practical unity.  As soon as the crusade ended they went back to squabbling.  In the game, it is quite historic that Italian states come together under Papal leadership to meet the threat, but once the threat has gone it would be equally historic for them to return to feuding.  Unless, of course, we happen to have enlightened rulers who wish to form a lose kind of federation as an attempt to permanently secure the freedom of Italy from foreign intimidation.  One area which unifies Italian States and the Papacy (secular and religious) is the preference for peace - no Italian States want to rebuild the Roman Empire and conquer the world.  I know players can set their own objectives, but most want to accelerate development by anticipating history rather than turn the clock back 1700 years - if they wish to rebuild the Roman Empire then I'm sure the new Rome game will give them the outlet they seek for war and destruction.


As an aside, I have found one area of mutual interest between Pope Clement and Abyssinia.  In one of the more extreme measures in the Middle Ages, the Papacy banned cats fearing they were Pagan symbols.  I've not completed research into why, but I do know it was common practice in several countries to place dead cats into the walls of buildings.  Perhaps someone can enlighten us to the significance?  The response was that the Papacy banned cats from Catholic homes.  There is no evidence it was at all effective as cats, by their nature, follow their prey, so perversely the ban probably led to more mice in Catholic homes and more frequent sightings of cats.  By 1700 it had dawned even on the Papacy that such Medieval superstitions were no longer practiced (except perhaps by Puritans or in the less enlightened areas of America), so Pope Clement lifted the ban.  The modern Abyssinian cat may well have originated as a British breed, but I'm sure their ancestors were highly regarded in Abyssinia in 1700.

The neat things you learn on this forum. I had no idea that the church had banned cats. How could I not have heard that before? I wonder if the ban had any historical anti-muslim component or was strictly based on idea of witchcraft or something.

Cats are revered in Islamic culture (to quote wikipedia): Cats in Islam

Conversely, they traditionally think of dogs are dirty animals.

My wife studies folklore and mythology told me that cats were thought of as guardians of the home in old paganism and dried dead cats were placed in walls as a good luck charm and to protect the home. As cats were said to have a sixth sense this alleged protection was against things like ghosts and the like, as well as the more practical idea that having a cat, even a dead one, in the house would deter mice and other pests.

Interesting link there Deacon, Cats are Halal & Dogs are Haram (under most, if not all schools of Islamic thought). I suspect Marshal Bombast’s wife may be on the money for the Catholic prohibition, i.e. residual Pagan practices.

A question for Papa Clement, the Papal Archives online, are they in an English version, or are they easily translatable? I feel an urge to have a look myself, sounds intriguing. It has been a while since I dived into primary sources.

Papal influence in Italy is partly also based on similar lines to the Power of the Holy Roman Emperor, In game we tend to think of the HRE a sthe German state dominated by Austria, in fact historically Germany is only a part of the picture The Holy Roman Empire is Spli tin 3 the Burgandy Kingdom, German Kingdom & Italian kingdom. With worldly & Spiritual matters dealt with by Pope & Kaiser. The Middle Ages saw confrontation between Pope & Kaiser to who actually had the upper hand. Geographically Italy was too difficult to bring under Imperial control, aslo lacked institutions similar to the Aulic Council & Reichstag, too many city states valued their various rights & priveledges to allow the Emperor ot enforce his will, hence the balance of power centered on Germany, historically however the Emperor has secular rights to rule Italy as well. They are not Hapsburg claims but Imperial claims . If the King of the Germans is crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope thne there is alos the possability some would say that he can lay claim ot the kingdom of Italy as well.

Some interesting comments there – thanks,

To answer Kerensky’s point first, some of the archive appears to be online, some of it isn’t, so best way forward is probably to contact them directly and they may be able to provide links to what you are interested in or at least tell you if it is available or when it will be.  It will be impossible for all of the archive to be put online, but I am fairly sure they intend to put more of it online.  I do know they are trying to place all recent documents on Vatican.va/archive with approved translations, but obviously the priority is with current documents so they have approved translations of the Vatican2 documents, catechism, Bible, etc, in many languages.  They also have the 1st Vatican Council documents in Latin and Italian.

With earlier documents it really depends on whether they have been requested, usually for an academic project, and then put online by that university in either the original or an acceptable translation.  It tends to be unofficial and incidental, but if you are looking to clarify a particular piece of doctrine the reference is in footnotes in a more recent document, and once you know its name you can search for that document on sites like documentacatholicaomnia.eu or newadvent.org (which is especially good for the Fathers and contains the 1909 Catholic Encyclopaedia – that may well give you the kind of information you are looking for anyway, or footnote references which if digitized will be linked).  I’m sorry I can’t be more specific, but one of the problems with the internet is that it keeps changing and having bookmarked useful sites they tend to be inaccessible when I try and look at them again, unless it is just my poor ability with computers.  I still print out my game turns when they arrive, for at least you know where you are with a piece of paper!

Back to cats ...

I’ve done a bit of research now on the cat question … it seems to have started in the Middle Ages where all sorts of animals were suspected of being used in Pagan rituals or as familiars.  Ordinarily this was not a particular concern of the church; bishops did have the authority to deal with such things, but it was a grey area whether Pagan superstitions fell within the authority of the church or secular authorities.  Unless there was a direct offence against church property or a serious attempt to lead Catholics away from the church, local bishops tended to avoid getting involved.  Once the initiative had been ceded to secular rulers, they started to use their own courts with some rather strange ideas of what constituted evidence and how to prove someone guilty.

The response from Rome was to send legates to help bishops in areas where there were more urgent threats to the church, notably from the Cathars, Abilgensians and Waldensians, and those legates reported back on what were little more than lynch mobs accusing neighbours of being possessed by evil spirits tried in secular courts.  Clearly a decision had to be made at a higher level whether this was a matter for the church or the state.  The Waldensians were a particular problem because they rejected the hierarchy of the church and believed the poverty championed by the new mendicant orders (Dominicans and Franciscans) should be imitated by the church itself.  So when they started accusing (rich) bishops of using animals in strange pagan rituals, Rome responded, deciding it was a religious matter to be dealt with by the church.  There is an interesting aside in respect of the Galician Church at this point which could prove useful in the game, but I will not dwell on it here.

The response came in 1231 when Pope Gregory IX, keen to find a task for the Dominicans and Franciscans, sent them as Papal inquisitors to regularise action against the Waldensians, and a priest, once thought to be a Domincan, but now probably an imposter, Konrad von Marburg, to Mainz, where he claimed to have uncovered a satanic cult which worshipped devils in (among other forms) a black cat.  Eager to impress, Konrad’s methods seem to have been somewhat dubious and reports of what he had ‘found’ were relayed to Rome.  It is unlikely that Pope Gregory IX, committed as he was to due legal process, believed them, but Konrad was assassinated, probably on the orders of Emperor Frederick II, who had already fallen out with the Pope over the 6th crusade.  It is possible that Pope Gregory sent Konrad to Mainz specifically to annoy the Emperor, but relations clearly soured and the Emperor was excommunicated.  The consequence of Konrad’s death was the bull Vox in Rama, which specifically mentioned cats.

In the somewhat emotional climate of the time it didn’t take long for anyone who was fond of cats to be accused of heresy, and the poor cats (mainly black ones, but I’m sure tabbies, tortoiseshells and others were also suspected) were killed in large numbers.  I don’t think Pope Gregory had anything personally against cats, it is just how one aspect of the bull was interpreted by people determined to find an excuse for their actions.  At the Reformation some protestants spread the rumour that the extermination of so many cats (and consequent increase in the number of rats) caused the Black Death.  This inevitably established the myth that Catholics hate cats, which of course has never been a requirement of the faith.


Reading the 3 previous posts there may also be something in the Islamic angle – crusaders returning from contact with Islamic practices may have been naturally suspicious of any behaviour which was encouraged by the enemy including associating with cats.  But within the context of Medieval Europe I suspect the stronger pull would have been its association with witchcraft and superstition.

J Flower wrote:Papal influence in Italy is partly also based on similar lines to the  Power of the Holy Roman Emperor, In game we tend to think of the HRE as the German state dominated by Austria, in fact historically Germany is only a part of the picture.  The Holy Roman Empire is split in 3 the Burgundy Kingdom, German Kingdom & Italian kingdom.  With worldly & Spiritual matters dealt with by Pope & Kaiser. The Middle Ages saw confrontation between Pope & Kaiser to who actually had the upper hand. Geographically Italy was too difficult to bring under Imperial control, also lacked institutions similar to the Aulic Council & Reichstag, too many city states valued their various rights & privileges to allow the Emperor to enforce his will, hence the balance of power centered on Germany, historically however the Emperor has secular rights to rule Italy as well.  They are not Hapsburg claims but Imperial claims.  If the King of the Germans is crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope then there is also the possibility some would say that he can lay claim to the kingdom of Italy as well.

Interesting, thanks JFlower.  It is certainly true that the Middle Ages saw many conflicts between Emperors and Popes, mainly with the Emperors trying to enforce their claims on parts of Italy, but Italian States then banding together and resisting those claims.  Over time more and more of Italy left the Empire.  Of course no Pope would ever willingly accept that he was subordinate to the Emperor and it was usually the case that if an Emperor attacked the Pope, other nations attacked the Emperor in defence of the Pope.  When the fighting stopped the Pope was still Pope and the Emperor had to accept Papal authority and independence as part of any peace.  The surprise is not that a man in a white hat, red slippers and armed with a stick could stand up to the mighty Kaiser, but that so often Kaisers thought that extreme military force could triumph over tradition.

Through most of the later Middle Ages and well into our period the Papacy saw the danger in an over-mighty Emperor as clearly as an over-mighty France, seeking to balance the two.  There are only limited possible outcomes.  If the Emperor turned on Rome, France would aid the Pope.  If France turned on Rome, the Emperor would aid the Pope.  If France and the Emperor combined against Rome, they would sack Rome, but then fall out over who controlled the Pope and ultimately agreed (possibly once Pope, King or Emperor had died) to return to the status quo.  The lesson should be that war against the Pope is pointless.