CRISTO RAUL.ORG |
POPE LEO X
CHAPTER XVII.
THE COUNCIL OF THE LATERAN.
LEO X’s devotion to literature and art and
his keen political activity have thrown into the background, in a manner hardly
befitting the history of a spiritual ruler, the efficiency of his
ecclesiastical government. Nevertheless, the latter was by no means
insignificant ; within the first half of his reign two ecclesiastical events of
the most far-reaching importance occurred : the Lateran Council and the
Concordat with France. With the proceedings of the former, Leo's church policy
was closely interwoven, especially with regard to his efforts towards reform.
In spite of the difficulties which beset
him, Leo X was determined to carry on and complete the conciliar work of his
predecessor. Immediately after his accession he hastened to answer, in terms of
the highest approval, the letter addressed to Julius II. by the pious Duke
George of Saxony, regarding the appointment of a Procurator at the Council. On
the 11th of April, 1513, the day of his solemn occupation of the Lateran, he
issued a Constitution which proclaimed his earnest intention of proceeding with
the Council, and prorogued the sixth session until the 27th of April. There
assembled twenty-two Cardinals, two Patriarchs, twelve Assistants at the
Throne, sixty-two Bishops, and a detached group of thirteen Prelates, among
whom were not a few who, like the ardent reforming Bishop of Chieti, Pietro Caraffa,
appeared in the Council for the first time. The States of Lower Italy and the
Venetian Republic were the best represented, being under the powerful
protection of the Emperor, Spain, Venice, Milan, and Florence. Mario de Perusco
acted as Procurator Fiscal, the humanist Tommaso Inghirami as Secretary. At
the opening ceremony Bishop Simon Begnius of Modrussa preached on the two
principal subjects before the Council, the Turkish difficulty and church
reform. In an historical survey, beginning with the great Schism, he reviewed
the Church's losses to the Turks, pointed out the grievous blows dealt to faith
and morals in the Church, and what attempts had hitherto been made to avert the
evil. Now, when freed from error, they were living in peace, the time had come
to restore the head of the faith, the Roman Church, to a better position, since
from the head health as well as sickness flowed down to the members. Now had
come the Lion from the tribe of Juda, the Solomon whom God had raised up to
deliver the daughter of Sion, the people of God, out of the hands of the
persecutor and destroyer. But, urged the preacher, the assembled fathers must
work together with one mind to reform the deformed, that doubt may be
dispelled, faith exalted, and religion established : yet reform must begin with
themselves, each one, and they must cleanse their own dwellings before those of
others.
The Pope in his allocution also called upon
the members of the Council to fix their attention first and foremost on the
good of Christendom. At the same time he expressed his wish that the assembly
might continue to sit until peace had been established in the Church. To the
proposal of the Procurator of the Council, that proceedings should be taken
against the absentee members, Leo did not assent ; on the other hand, he
publicly offered safeconducts to all except the schismatics, and exhorted the
princes to do the same. No other matters of importance were transacted in this
session.
The first thing to be done was to settle
the method of procedure. In general the business of the sessions was prepared
beforehand in the Consistories and then in the Papal Chancery. Further, the
Dean of the College of Cardinals, Raffaello Riario, proposed the formation of
separate congregations which should treat beforehand with the Pope and the
Sacred College. Leo was unwilling to appoint the members of these congregations
himself, as his predecessor had done; he handed over the choice to the Fathers
of the Council, who forthwith elected four-and- twenty Prelates by a majority
of votes. The latter were subdivided into three committees, but in such a way
that the Pope added to each group of eight thus chosen, eight Cardinals and
four representatives for those who were absent when the votes were taken (of
which representatives two for each group were Generals of religious orders). Of
these committees, which sat repeatedly, the first was occupied with the
restoration of peace and the healing of the Schism, the second with Curial
reform, and the third with the Pragmatic Sanction and questions of faith. Much
else remained over for discussion in the general congregation which was
independent of the committees. In the sessions each one was free to utter his
opinions on the decrees, to bring forward objections, and propose alterations.
The free participation of the members in the transactions of the Council was
thus fully guaranteed.
At the date of the seventh session (June
17, 1513) seventy-seven Bishops were already assembled, four of whom
represented England, Poland, Savoy, and Ferrara. At the beginning of the
sitting citations were issued by the Procurator to Poland, Masovia, Milan, and
Mantua. The preacher spoke of the Turkish danger and described Leo, in terms of
panegyric, as the King of Kings who wielded the two swords over the whole earth
: under him, who had been as wonderfully chosen as he had been wonderfully
brought out of captivity, all ought to rally together. Hereupon the Pope
ordered a Bull to be read f in which he promised to send embassies^ of peace to
the princes, and, in consideration of the growing inclination of the French to
make submission, he adjourned the session until the month of November. Up to
this point the various committees had not been idle ; the Pope, Cardinals, and
Bishops were assiduous in their co-operation, and Leo only left Rome for a
short time.
In a decree of the 20th of September the
Pope defined his attitude towards the Hussites of Bohemia; concessions were
held out as regards the chalice and the confiscated church property, none as
regards the punishment of sinners and the license to preach. On the 13th of
October the Reform Commission broke up into five subdivisions, to each of which
was assigned a special department of the Curia. A report which they had
prepared dealt with the question of benefices, urged upon the members of the
Papal household a worthy mode of life and corresponding seemliness in dress,
and denounced exactions and other abuses.
Leo was meanwhile busily engaged in
Consistory in preparing material for the next (the eighth) session. This was
held on the 19th of December, 1513. The official entrance of the French into
the Council immediately followed. On this occasion the sermon was preached by a
Johannite father ; his main theme was the warfare of Christ, whose captain and
standard-bearer Leo was ; like a true physician, he was healing the ills of the
Church by means of the Council, which would bring back a golden age. After a
penal mandate against the French officials in Provence for encroachments on the
Church had received the Papal approval, there ensued the proclamation of a
Bull, destined to be famous, which was directed against a one-sided and
erroneous philosophy.
The three condemned propositions were :
that the human soul is mortal ; that one soul is common to all men ; that the
truth of this assertion holds good at least in philosophy. The propositions
thus condemned aimed at a tendency of thought which threatened to destroy all
positive Christianity, and which, having started from a false mediaeval philosophy,
culminated in that of the 18th century, and partially survives at the present
day. Further, they had come into conjunction with that erroneous side of the
Renaissance in which classical, cabbalistic, and rationalist elements were
linked together in a strange alliance. The first two propositions were
specially defended by the Paduan Professor, Pietro Pomponazzi, who avowed
himself to be a disciple of the new peripatetic school which had arisen along
with the Arabic recension of Aristotle by Averroes. Even if the controversial
defence of his views was not put into writing until a later date, and no
recantation was demanded of him until 1518,f yet he had before that denied the
complete individual immortality of the soul. The question at issue was the
great problem of individuality which had already occupied the thought of the
Middle Ages, and had come to a point with the growth of nominalism. Even the
theory of “twofold truth” had already sprung up in the schools of the 12th
century logicians, had found aliment in nominalism, and had crept into the
philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa. This teaching caused an artificial breach
between philosophy and theology, between dogma and reason, which was to be widened
by the impress of the future rationalism. In relation to this development the
decision of the Council had a special importance. It was dogmatically affirmed,
in agreement with the earlier pronouncements of the Council of Vienne, that the
soul is the “forma corporis”, that each man has an individual soul, and that
every assertion contrary to the truth, as contained in the faith, is false.
These definitions supplied a standard which was as important as it was
necessary ; to a certain extent they relieved Leo from responsibility for those
who were open to the charge of anti-Christian extravagances, and whose tastes
and interests he nevertheless shared in other respects and to a great extent
encouraged.
At the same time the Bull was a practical
weapon against the inroads which a paganized humanism was making among the clergy,
for the University professors were directed to give a foremost place to what is
now called apologetic theology, and priests who were desirous of following the
humanist curriculum were enjoined to complete a five years’ course of theology
or canon law as the most effectual breakwater to oppose to a false philosophy.
Even in the Council-hall itself the atmosphere of the new ideas seems to have
made itself felt ; thus the objection raised by the Bishop of Bergamo had a
tinge of the condemned propositions. The general of the Dominicans, Cajetan,
pleaded for a freer treatment of philosophy, because, apparently, he dreaded an
intermixture of this science with theology.
During this important session measures were
also proposed for the best means of restoring peace to Christendom, for the
inauguration of a Crusade, and for the reconciliation of the Bohemians to the
Church. Finally, a regulation for the reform of the Curia was brought forward
which made great reductions in taxation and was directed against other official
abuses. It was far from giving satisfaction, however, to those who wished for
more sweeping reforms. This dissatisfaction often found expression in the
Council. Paris de Grassis, Bishop of Pesaro, exclaimed : “I am for a general
reformation, including that of the reformers themselves”; whereupon the Pope
replied, with a touch of humour, that “he would think the matter over, and see
how he could satisfy everybody”.
How wide were the differences of opinion on
the question of reform, how great the conflict of opposing interests, is shown
clearly in the following transactions. The Bishops were separated from the
religious orders by divisions as great as those which separated them from the
Cardinals, and the work of the Council was thus impeded. The Pope had to appear
in person in the general congregation and exhort to a more brotherly
gentleness. When several Bishops refused to give their assent to the draft
introduced by the Cardinals, Leo praised them, and said laughingly that they
were cleverer than he, since no one was more bound by his obligations to the
Cardinals than he was.
The ninth session was not held until the
5th of May, 1514. Once more the private chaplain, Antonio Pucci, in the
customary sermon at the beginning of the sitting, exhorted those present, and
especially the Pope, to keep to the work of church reform, since it was the
Council’s duty to inquire into disorders and remove them. Scathing was his
description of the moral degradation into which the laity, the orders, and the
clergy had sunk. The upshot, accordingly, of the session was the acceptance of
a very stringent Bull on the reform of Church and Curia.
The first part insisted on the appointment
of fit persons to bishoprics and abbatial posts in accordance with canon law,
regulated commissions and the consistorial procedure, put a check on
deprivations and translations, forbade the pernicious system of in
commendam, and restricted the union of benefices, dispensations, and
reservations ; whoever, after four years, was still in possession of four
livings, was to be deprived of all. The second part dealt with the Cardinals,
their mode of life, their surroundings, their households, their functions,
their titular churches and commends, their position towards their relations,
their legateships, their residential and discretionary duties. The
prescriptions for the members of a Cardinal's house hold applied also to the
Papal and Curial retainers The last section of the Bull aimed at the religious
and moral elevation of the priesthood and of the laity: the religious
instruction of the young was to be duly carried out, heavy penalties were
assigned to blasphemers and to incontinent, negligent and simoniacal priests,
church revenues were no longer to be confiscated, the privileges of the clergy
were to be observed, all kinds of superstition abolished and all impostors,
passing as Christians, to be prosecuted, especially at the Papal Court. We can
see that in this document a whole legion of abuses was attacked. The necessity
for such a step met with general recognition ; the Bull was accepted by an
overwhelming majority—130 votes against 10; nor was the opposition made with
any great show of conviction. Searching as the Bull appeared to be, yet it did
not go far enough. In many instances it stopped short with half measures ; what
was still worse, most of its prescriptions remained on paper and were never put
into practice.
It was not long before symptoms appeared in
the Council which made it evident that the hopes of a radical restoration of
the Church to its pristine integrity must be abandoned. Throughout the
remainder of the sessions the attention of the Fathers was engrossed by the
scandalous strife between the Bishops and Regulars. This unholy quarrel had
lasted for centuries ; it had been a source of the greatest weakness and
discredit to the Church, but never before had the waters of controversy risen
so high as now. The Episcopate was gathering together all its strength to make
an end, once and for all, of the privileges, especially the Mare Magnum, which
thwarted its action at every step : in spite of their utmost resistance, the
Regulars threatened to succumb, a situation which would have entailed
incalculable results. “We are in the heart of a terrific storm”, relates the
General of the Augustinians, Egidio Canisio. “The attack upon us and all the
mendicant orders by the Bishops in the Lateran Council has now raged furiously
for three years. During this period we have had no rest, no truce ; day by day
we have been subjected to examination, day by day we have been summoned,
sometimes to listen to our accusers, some times to plead our cause. Now our
appeal is to the Holy Father, now to the Cardinal Protector, now to other
Cardinals, now to the Ambassadors of the princes ; first on this hand and then
on that we turn for counsel, help, and support”. Leo X himself was unwilling to
check the free course of things by flinging into the scales, as his predecessor
had done, the whole weight of his apostolic authority, from which alone the
monastic orders could still receive support ; a proceeding which Egidio
ascribes solely to the mildness and gentleness of the Pope’s character.
As in the contest between the Bishops and
the Cardinals, Leo's policy consisted in an adroit mediation between the two
parties, with each of whom he liked to treat separately. With regard to the
misuse by the Minorites of the right to proclaim the Indulgence of St. Peter's,
he sanctioned a compromise with the Bishops. When he also, towards the end of
the Council, agreed that the two points on which the monks were most
sensitive—exemptions and freedom from taxation—should no longer be interfered with,
it was on the distinct understanding, by which he held fast, that in other
matters they should be compliant. To this impartial attitude towards the
contending parties it is mainly due that the practical result of the
controversy was an earnest determination on the part of the monastic orders,
thus brought to bay, to undertake their own reform and to enforce strongly the
observance of their rules.
On both sides the debate was carried on
with great ability. The Bishops' attacks were levelled in the first place at
the vicious lives of many of the Regulars and then at their encroachments on
the cure of souls and the constituted jurisdiction. The Orders replied in their
defence with eloquence and much dialectical skill, laying great stress on the
superiority of the Pope over the Council, and making fiery appeals to the “sagacious
piety of their Papal protector”. The chief object of their defence was cleverly
to cause division among their opponents by a reference to the considerable
number of Bishops who were not in agreement with the proposals of their
colleagues. The complaints of relaxed monastic discipline they strove to
neutralize by calling attention to scandals in the Episcopate and among the
parochial clergy. “Before you call upon us to observe the laws of right common
to man, see that you observe them yourselves”, they exclaimed to their
antagonists. On the other hand, the religious orders did not omit to set forth
their services to Christian people, especially their assiduity in preaching and
in hearing confessions. In Italy especially, which was the chief seat of
opposition, had it not been for the Regulars, the name of Christ would hardly
have escaped oblivion, so few Italians were there, outside the cloister, who
had any knowledge of theology. No enticements, they further insisted, had kept
them back, no danger had dismayed them from visiting hostile lands, confronting
princes, and exposing their bodies to ill-usage in order to defend the See of
Peter and the Council of the Lateran : and was that same Council now to bring
its own champions to ruin ! Yet another point of view was turned to account. “Those
who are hankering after the great wealth of the Church will, in order to avoid
the suspicion of acting as the enemies of religion, as soon as they hear that
the monastic orders have been attacked and worsted by the Bishops, see an
excellent and creditable opportunity for taking up the cause of the former,
which previously they would not have done out of goodwill.”
A suspension but not a conclusive settlement
of this embittered controversy was reached in the tenth session of the Council,
on the 4th of May, 1515. Once again the call for reform rang from the pulpit.
The knowledge, declared the Archbishop of Patras, how to effect a swift reform
of the whole Church, belonged to the Apostolic See alone. If the all-embracing
authority of the Pontiff were more cordially supported by the combined members
of the Episcopate, fewer contraventions of the Church's law would be possible.
But, as already four patriarchal churches had been severed from the body, so he
also who sat on Peter's chair could not escape judgment if he did not obey his
eternal Judge. Great was the danger that yet other portions of Christendom
would be lost through dis obedience to God and the Holy See. Therefore, Pope
and Council must work together for the true reform and re generation of
Christendom.
A single Bull comprised the enactments
relating to the limitation of exemptions, the strengthening of the Bishops'
authority, and the maintenance of ecclesiastical liberties. Of importance was
the transference, in the case of negligence on the part of the special visitor,
of suits against exempts to the Bishop, who was to sit as judge-delegate with
apostolic powers ; this provision was again adopted by the Council of Trent ;
the episcopal privilege of visiting convents, in immediate obedience to the
Pope, once a year, was renewed, also the refusal to allow an appeal to Rome in
matters concerning benefices pending the judgment in the Bishop's court. The
Bishops were ordered to hold provincial and diocesan synods, the former every
three years, with the participation of the exempts. This institution, which was
to have such a wholesale influence on church reform, was also one of the
measures anticipated by the Lateran Council.
Of not less capital importance were two
other decrees passed in this session. The first gave sanction to the pawnshops
or Monti di Pieta, which had been called into existence as a protection for the
necessitous poor against extortionate interest on loans. As a matter of fact
these agencies, introduced into Italy under Pius II, had already been
recommended by many strictly orthodox preachers, and had in many instances
received Papal approbation. This was the first occasion on which the payment of
interest was recognized as permissible in theory. Leo recalls the theological
and juridical controversies on the subject, and pronounces, in view of his
obligations to support useful and modern institutions, that such loan offices
are to be recommended ; all who teach the contrary are excommunicate. He
evidently regards the Monti which lend without interest as the more deserving.
The influence of the second constitution on
the new era that had dawned was trenchant and purifying. The power of the
printing press had surpassed all expectations and was proving in many cases a
blessed, and in many cases a baneful, gift to man. In highly enthusiastic terms
the Pope celebrates the benefits to mankind and the Church conferred through “the
favour of heaven” by this discovery which had come down as a gift from God to
earth. By means of printing everyone for little money can buy many books, the
study of gifted minds is made easy. Catholic scholars too (and the Catholic
Church prays that they may be many) can be educated thereby and thus win over
unbelievers to the truth. But in different countries many masters of this new
craft misuse it by the circulation of works containing errors of faith and
attacks on persons in high station, which are not only unedifying to their
readers, but injurious to their religious and moral life, as experience has
shown and in the time to come will show more clearly still. But the Head of the
Church must take heed that that which was invented for God's glory, for the
exaltation of the faith, and for the diffusion of art and learning, does not
become a curse instead of a blessing, and endanger the salvation of the
faithful, that the good seed and the cockle, the medicine and the poison, are
not mingled together. Therefore the Pope forbids, with the approval of the
Council, under pain of excommunication and of heavy fines, the printing of any
book without the approbation of the Bishop and the Inquisitor, and in Rome of
the Cardinal Vicar and the Master of the Palace. Every book printed contrary to
these regulations shall be burned.
Yet another weighty question had been
reserved for decision in this session : the reform of the Calendar.At the
beginning of his reign Leo had bestowed much attention on this important
subject as on so many other scientific inquiries. In February, 1514, he had
invited the learned scholar, Paul von Middelburg, the author of an exhaustive
treatise on the computation of Easter, to Rome; in July, 1514, special letters
had been addressed to the Universities of Europe and to the leading princes
requesting them to send reports on the reform of the Calendar to Rome. Answers
were received from Vienna, Tubingen, Louvain, and Ingoldstadt. In Italy Antonio
Dolciati, Raggio, Giovanni Maria Tolosani, Antonio Albizzi, Basilio Lapi, and
Cipriano Beneti dedicated writings on this topic to the Pope. J The opinions,
however, were so divergent that Leo had to withdraw the question, as not yet
ripe for discussion, from the agenda of the tenth session. But he did not on
this account dismiss the matter altogether. A special commission made most
careful scrutiny of the reports forwarded, and made use of them in the
preparation of new proposals which were to serve as the foundation for a
further treatment of the question. These propositions were sent in July, 1516,
to many princes, bishops, and universities, with the request that fresh reports
should be sent in or scholars despatched to Rome to confer. No decision on the
matter, however, was then reached ; nor was this the fault of Leo X; on the
contrary, his exertions on behalf of the reform of the Calendar
form a pleasing episode in the history of his Pontificate.
After the leading measures of importance
had been settled in the tenth session, the adjournment of the Council until the
end of the following year became possible. The interval was filled with
political agitation, the conclusion of the Concordat with France, the
negotiations with the Eastern churches—all things which diverted men's minds
from the Council as the centre of interest.
A project fraught with danger to the
constitution of the Church, but in which many of the fathers of the Council
were then implicated, must not pass unnoticed. The latter formed the idea of
uniting themselves more closely in a fraternal sodality for the purpose of
safeguarding their common interests. This confraternity, which was to be
represented by a standing committee, was directed in the first instance against
the regular clergy. But how easily might this have developed by an inevitable
sequence into a sort of oligarchical constitution, and have led, through a
system of episcopalianism, to the weakening of the apostolical authority ? That
this was foreseen by the Curia is shown by the reply to the twelve points which
the Bishops advanced on behalf of their sodalitium. At the head of all
stood the statement that “the Pope is Bishop of the Universal Church, and has,
in the first place, the oversight of the collective churches committed to him”.
But this proposition means nothing else than that the individual churches would
be better governed, and the rights of their diocesans more strictly defended,
by bishops with plenipotentiary powers than by the Pope, who, along with the
Sacred College, cares best for the interests of the Church. “If the violator of
episcopal rights cannot be kept within bounds by the majesty of the Roman
Bishop and the most sacred General Council, is it likely that he will allow
himself to be bridled by the efforts of a couple of bishops who are the
deputies of an association?” Let the inferior clergy once attempt to obtain
permission from the Pope and Council to set up associations of this sort in the
Bishop's own city, and it will very soon become plain what the object of such
an attempt is.
The danger of the situation did not escape
the Pope ; the Cardinals were against the scheme from the beginning, as one
that would only give rise to divisions among the Bishops. Leo X told the envoys
of the Bishops in plain language that if they insisted on their demands, he
would postpone the next session from year to year, and in the meantime maintain
the privilege of the monastic orders to the fullest extent ; the Bishops
Assistant at the Papal throne sufficed to bring before him the wishes of their
colleagues in the Episcopate. The Bishops now begged the Pope to grant them
leave to hold meetings for the discussion of their affairs and to have a
special fund of their own, also that he would appoint as assistants at the
throne some prelates not of Italian birth. Leo was not indisposed to grant the
last request, but he thought the establishment of a special fund superfluous.
He returned the petition and ordered the Cardinals to make a thorough
examination of all writings for and against the scheme. After these had given
their opinion, the unanimous verdict of the Consistory was declared : that the
interests of the Episcopate had been largely cared for by the canon law and by
certain decrees of the existing Council ; if any things remained over, the Pope
and Cardinals were more competent to settle them than any sodalitium. It
was made plain to the petitioners that they must accept as their answer that
which, under like circumstances, they would have given to their own clergy. That
in this way, on the eve of the disruption of Christendom, a decentralizing
tendency should have been arrested, marks a victory of the monarchical
principle on which Christ founded His Church, the importance of which is not to
be lightly prized.
These disagreements had taken up so much
time that the eleventh session could not assemble before the 19th of December,
1516. The preliminary general congregation (on December 15th) had witnessed the
appearance of the first American member of the Council, Bishop Alessandro Gerardini
of San Domingo, who nine years later, after a life of assiduous literary
labour, died in the odour of sanctity. The eleventh session also saw the visit
of three envoys from the Maronites, who came to offer obedience. They presented
a letter of homage from their Patriarch, Simon Peter, dated the I4th of
February, 1515, which was at once read to the assembly. In the previous year a
representative of the Patriarch had already visited Rome. His arrival was
closely followed by a letter in which the latter, after certain dogmatic and
liturgical discussions, requested the Pope to ratify his position, and to
confer upon him Papal marks of distinction and other favours ; he also invited
his mediation in the affairs of the Maronites in Cyprus and Venice. This new
embassy was the result of the conciliatory letters which Leo had sent to the
Patriarch and his flock for purposes of instruction, and to the guardian of the
Minorites at Beyrout. The Patriarch thanked the successor of St. Peter for his
costly gifts and for the instruction tendered through his envoy on the subjects
of the chrism, the deferment of baptism, the sacrament of marriage,
ordinations, the words of consecration, the procession of the Holy Ghost,
purgatory, confession, and Easter Communion. The Pope gave a cordial assent to
the Patriarch’s requests in accordance with the assurance he had given him in
August. The correspondence between Leo and the Emperor of Ethiopia, David III.,
which was carried on at the same time, was less productive of results. The
Russians also remained outside the Roman influence : that they were not, at any
rate, neglected is shown by the report which the Archbishop of Gnesen prepared
for the ninth session on the errors of the Ruthenians in White and Red Russia.
The eleventh session, which was of especial
importance as regards the establishment of the Concordat with France and the
repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction, was also occupied with questions affecting
the pastoral work of the Church. In a constitution, which was passed unanimously
and was exceedingly well timed, the leading principles were laid down of a
system of preaching calculated to bring forth fruitful results. Starting from
the necessity for a united and authoritative ministry of preaching, the
constitution began by setting forth how many preachers, unmindful of their
mission and often contrary to the spirit of the Apostles and Fathers, sought
only their own reputation, flattered the multitude, seduced their hearers from
the truth, misinterpreted Holy Scripture, prophesied falsely, indulged in
personal abuse, weakened the authority of the Church, and set an example of
violent and senseless zeal. For the future, accordingly, none were to be
allowed to preach who had not first been tested by the authorities and had given
proof of competency. Each one was to be satisfied with preaching the pure
Gospel according to the interpretation of the Fathers, and to refrain from
prophesying the time of the evils to come. God, it cannot be denied, reveals in
extraordinary ways the destinies of the Church : but, since all spirits cannot
be trusted, matters of private revelation ought, before they are divulged, to
be submitted to the judgment of the Holy See, or, if the case is urgent, to
that of the Bishop. In case of disobedience to this ruling the offender shall
be deprived of his license to preach, and come under excommunication. These
extremely opportune restrictions were applied to a wide spread mischief to
which, as the constitution declared, the pulpit was, from its very nature, exposed
; the superstitious belief in apocalyptic messages, the prevalence of
unlicensed preachers and persons claiming to have a mission from God, were used
as powerful weapons against the authority of the Church.
It was also of advantage to the pastoral office
that in this same session certain limits were drawn, so far as the still open
question of the privileges of the religious orders permitted, between the
secular and the regular clergy. To the Bishops were given the power of
visitation over clergy belonging to religious orders, the examination of
candidates for holy orders, the conferring of ordination, and much besides ;
the dispensation of the Sacraments and the administration of burial were, in
the case of the regular clergy, accompanied by certain specified limitations,
and mutual respect and charity were enjoyed on both parties. On this occasion
also the session closed with the Te Deum. After that Leo spent some
time, with marks of deep devotion, in the baptistery of S. Giovanni in Fonte,
adjoining the Lateran basilica, the oldest baptismal chapel in Rome. His
prayers were a thanks giving, for, with the abolition of the Pragmatic
Sanction, the Holy See had won a momentous victory after passing through many a
stormy time.
The strained condition of politics decided
the Pope to take into consideration the early closing of the Council. The
Emperor was, on the whole, in favour of its prolongation, but the vehemence
with which he had expressed his wishes, seems to have been the direct cause of
its immediate dissolution. The question came up for discussion in Consistory on
the 1st of February, 1517. Cardinal Grimani made a determined opposition, but
Leo X. would not give way. On the 4th of March, in a protracted Consistory, the
decision was taken. According to the Venetian Envoy, the fear of the Emperor's
interference weighed so strongly in the scales that it was definitely settled
that the Council should forthwith be closed. The motion, which, along with
three draft decrees, was placed before the Council, in the name of the
Cardinals, on the I3th of March, also met at first with opposition, and a fresh
summons of the Bishops was called for. At last, however, all, with the
exception of the Bishops of Imola and Salamanca, expressed their concurrence,
which encouraged the hope that, as soon as peace should be restored to
Christendom, the prelates who had hitherto been prevented from attending, would
participate in much greater numbers. The Governor of Rome, on his own account,
expressed a wish that marriages privately contracted should be disallowed, as
was later effected by the Council of Trent.
Shortly before the close of the Council,
Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola delivered before the Pope and the assembled
fathers his remarkable speech on the reform of morals, in which he drew a
frightful picture of existing conditions among the clergy. Pico confines his
demands within the narrowest compass ; he only asks that the priest hood shall
not be altogether as salt that has lost its savour. He does not even require that
they should be men of learning, so long as they at least understand the duties
of their office; he does not call upon them to do penance and mortify their
bodies in the manner of a Jerome or a Benedict, but at least to withdraw their
presence from voluptuous banquets and to refrain from decking their concubines
with precious stones; he would rather have them clothe the naked with their
garments, as did Martin, than cover their horses and mules with costly
trappings; he wishes to see the Houses of God no longer like hovels or stables,
while the dwellings of His priests glitter with gold and are spread with
purple. From Leo, who had mounted to the summit of priestly dignity, not, as
many supposed, by evil arts and shameful intrigues, he had hoped better things.
“If we are to win back the enemy and the apostate to our faith, it is of more
consequence to us that we should restore fallen morality to its ancient rule of
virtue than that we should sweep with our fleet the Euxine Sea”. It is the
Popes task to quell the grievous intestine strife, to bar the way against
wickedness, to stem by strict continence of life the luxury, the ambition, the
greed, the self-indulgence, the corrupt practices of the clergy. His it is to
demand restitution of the squandered property of the Church, to chastise or
remove the guilty, to abolish the accumulation of ecclesiastical offices; for
“the so-called dispensations had had the effect of conferring not many, nor a
plurality, but a very host of benefices on men who were not worthy even to
receive the office of a deacon”. Ceremonies also and daily offices called for
revision, and “true historical narrative ought to be separated from apocryphal
fable.” Thus would the Pope rescue the Church from destruction and win for
himself not a fleeting but a permanent renown. If, however, reform was
neglected, heavy and searching would be the judgment which would visit the
Church. In his speech, which preceded the final sitting of the Council on the
16th of March, 1517, Bishop Massimo Corvino of Isernia spoke in the same sense
but in tones of greater encouragement. He acknowledged how much the clergy owed
to the Church, but also how much the Church was indebted to the clergy. In
their combat with the dis loyalty and wickedness among Christians who,
unthankful towards God and His Church, placed the wisdom of the heathen before
the wisdom of Christ, they urged a return to the Gospel, which contained the
only true wisdom and was the well-spring of right knowledge and every virtue.
In this way, after the example of the Apostles, the Church should be protected
and adorned with might, grace, and freedom and restored to its authority and
dignity. The orator saw in the teaching of the Council the whole mind of
heaven, of Christ, and of the Spirit. Nevertheless, the gravity of the
situation could not be dissembled under such fair-sounding phrases.
In this twelfth and final session of the
Council on the 1 6th of March, there were present, besides the Pope and
eighteen Cardinals, three Patriarchs, thirteen Assistants at the Throne, ten
Archbishops, sixty-four Bishops, and six heads of religious orders, while
Germany, Spain, Portugal, Venice, Mantua, and Bologna sent their
representatives. The programme announced by Leo was approved. Only one Bull
remained to be published ; it was directed against the disorderly custom of the
Roman populace in breaking into and looting the houses of the Cardinals during
a vacancy in the Holy See. The Patriarch of Aquileia then read out the Bull
imposing a tithe for three years for the Turkish wars; this having been
confirmed, the Council proceeded to close. After a short review of the history
and purpose of the assembly, the chief tasks with which it had been engaged
were recited : the Schism had been ended, the disputes among the princes were
being brought near a settlement, the congregations had finished their work, the
Bishops were desirous of returning to their dioceses ; the Pope ratified the
decisions of the Council and would give heed to their being carried out. He
forbade any alterations in them without special permission, and dismissed the
members of the Council. The majority gave their “placet”, only the titular
Bishop of Krain (Granea), who also on other occasions appears as leader of
opposition, spoke against the dissolution. After the Te Deum and the
Pontifical blessing, Leo X returned with great pomp to the Vatican.
Was the closing of the fifth Council of the
Lateran really premature, as so many have asserted, in view of the tempest
which broke loose in the following autumn ? In answering this question,
attention has been justly called to the hopeless prospects of a really larger
attendance at the Council, to the insistent demand of many of the princes for
the return of the members, to the threats of war, and the unsettled condition
of Italy. Certainly all this weighed in the scale, as well as Leo’s fear of
intervention and uncertainty as to the part the Emperor would take. But it
cannot be denied that, as far as securing practical reform was concerned, there
was very little else that could have been done. Most of the enactments were
only old regulations in a more stringent form, while the needs of the Church
called for measures of a much more decisive character. If so far the Lateran
Council fell short of a root-and-branch reform, yet it produced many laws of a
most opportune character on which the Council of Trent was afterwards able to
enlarge and improve. But the exaltation of the Primacy gave to this Council,
even in the field of practical action, a much higher importance than the Synods
of Constance and Basle, with their many reforming decrees, were able to reach.
The decrees of the Lateran Council contain besides such ample reforms that the
whole moral and religious condition of the clergy and laity in Rome and Christendom
might have been elevated by them. But of what avail were all these laws if they
were allowed to remain a dead letter? In this respect, unfortunately, the
omissions were many.
The reform decrees of the Council were
despatched far and wide, but only in Spain and Portugal, and in some parts of
Italy, were they practically administered, but even there only partially ; the
example set by the Roman Curia stood in the way of reform. In spite of the
conciliar decrees, the gross abuse of giving benefices and church dignities to
children in the fullest sense of the word continued. Candidates with good
recommendations were dispensed from the laws, which prescribed that no one
should be raised to the Episcopate who had not fully attained his
twenty-seventh year ; children continued, as before, to hold the highest
ecclesiastical offices, even the Cardinalate. In like manner the scandalous
pluralism of benefices and the obnoxious system of in commendam remained
almost unaltered, even in the Roman Curia itself. If, in con sequence of the
decrees passed in the ninth session, many resignations of livings were tendered
by the Cardinals, “yet, on the whole, these decrees failed to be observed”.
Laxity of discipline and indolence were far too deeply rooted ! Leo X himself, in particular cases,
repeatedly disregarded the enactments of the Council. |No wonder that the un
principled among the Bishops, especially the large number who had not even
appeared at the Council, should have gone on in their accustomed way, without a
twinge of conscience. An honourable exception was Cardinal Giulio de' Medici,
the Archbishop of Florence, who endeavoured forthwith, by the holding of a
provincial council (15171518) to give practical effect to the rulings of the
Lateran. Ximenes took the same course in Spain, as did also Christoph von
Stadion, Bishop of Augsburg, and Konrad III von Thüngen, Prince Bishop of Würzburg.
In Rome Leo certainly
allowed the civic officials to insist, especially within the boundaries of the
city, on the observance of the decrees of the Council, but the proceedings were
not carried out in a thorough way. The authorities were satisfied with half
measures and external observance ; although, especially at the beginning of the
German revolt, far-seeing men urged the removal at least of those abuses which
were deplored by good Catholics themselves. “Would to God”, wrote Aleander in
the middle of December, 1520, “that we might make an end at last of these many
innovations, such as reservations, dispensations, derogations from the German
Concordat, the com positions, and suchlike ; the insatiable pluralists also,
who would seize the German benefices too, if they could have hold of the reins
; for the German people associate all these things with Luther's business, and
in this way we suffer grievous injury to the Catholic faith, which is our chief
concern.”
THE FRENCH CONCORDAT.— ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY.—
CHARACTER AND PONTIFICATE OF LEO X.
|
---|