Did the Church "support" Feudalism?

[FaithBuild18]

If the Church was in support of a form of government as decentralized as the feudalism of the middle ages, for nearly a thousand years, why in the world do her bishops and leaders advocate big government intervention now? I’m under the impression that they never did in the past (until the modern era). Or am I wrong?

Was the Church in the middle ages as outspoken about political matters on the rights of workers/serfs and welfare as they are now? I believe she always advocated concern for the poor, but did she ever suggest that responsibility be placed on anyone other than individuals? Did she ever have expectations of governments to do anything for poor people besides offer military protection?

This is very pre-judgemental for me to say, but I’m going to say it anyways. I am starting to think that modernity’s hatred of hierarchy had at least some effect on Church socio-economic teaching in the last couple hundred years.

 

[JimG]

If the Church was in support of a form of government as decentralized as the feudalism of the middle ages, for nearly a thousand years, why in the world do her bishops and leaders advocate big government intervention now? I’m under the impression that they never did in the past (until the modern era). Or am I wrong?

Was the Church in the middle ages as outspoken about political matters on the rights of workers/serfs and welfare as they are now?

This is very pre-judgemental for me to say, but I’m going to say it anyways. I am starting to think that modernity’s hatred of hierarchy and order had some effect on Church socio-economic teaching in the last hundred years.

Feudalism was a system that developed out of the ruins of Roman civilization after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Church saved western civilization from descending into total chaos. The monasteries and convents had a large part in that effort. But the Middle Ages were not all one monotonous thing. It was a historical period with its own developments. I don’t think I want to use an Internet forum to go through the details of a thousand year period of history. It’s true that the Church didn’t support “big government,” then. On the other hand, there was no big government to support! Even kings were rather limited compared to current presidents and prime ministers.

 

[Byrnwiga]

If the Church was in support of a form of government as decentralized as the feudalism of the middle ages, for nearly a thousand years, why in the world do her bishops and leaders advocate big government intervention now? I’m under the impression that they never did in the past (until the modern era). Or am I wrong?

Was the Church in the middle ages as outspoken about political matters on the rights of workers/serfs and welfare as they are now? I believe she always advocated concern for the poor, but did she ever suggest that responsibility be placed on anyone other than individuals? Did she ever have expectations of governments to do anything for poor people besides offer military protection?

This is very pre-judgemental for me to say, but I’m going to say it anyways. I am starting to think that modernity’s hatred of hierarchy had at least some effect on Church socio-economic teaching in the last couple hundred years.

I wouldn’t say it was completely decentralized. Missi dominici were used to keep watch over remote parts of the kingdom/empire in order to ensure continuing control by the king/emperor. In concert with the monarchy, the Church also supported the divine right of kings which had certain universal/global ramifications (e.g. hierarchy).

The feudal system wasn’t exactly a bad system, though, and remnants of it were used into the 21st century in parts of Europe.

-Byrnwiga

 

[lerapt78]

OP, I’m not very well-educated regarding the topic of feudalism, but I would hesitantly say that the Church did not support the institution of feudalism so much as it supported the institution of a monarchy.

Though most monarchies were represented by a feudal class system during the Middle Ages (to the best of my knowledge), the rights and privileges afforded to the consituents varied region by region. Feudalism may have simply been a product of the times, when a country’s wealth depended upon the physical labor of the people, separate from the theological position of the Church and the subsequent value of the individual. The Industrial Revolution changed that.

One example of a monarch who ruled to the benefit of the individual AND was supported by the Church is Maria Therese of Austria. During her ruling, she introduced several reforms to the tax system, doubled the size of her army, and changed policy in favor of the serfs.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

If the Church was in support of a form of government as decentralized as the feudalism of the middle ages, for nearly a thousand years, why in the world do her bishops and leaders advocate big government intervention now? I’m under the impression that they never did in the past (until the modern era). Or am I wrong?

Was the Church in the middle ages as outspoken about political matters on the rights of workers/serfs and welfare as they are now? I believe she always advocated concern for the poor, but did she ever suggest that responsibility be placed on anyone other than individuals? Did she ever have expectations of governments to do anything for poor people besides offer military protection?

This is very pre-judgemental for me to say, but I’m going to say it anyways. I am starting to think that modernity’s hatred of hierarchy had at least some effect on Church socio-economic teaching in the last couple hundred years.

I’m not an expert but I’ll try my best:

1. I would say it was because the other type of government in the Church’s history was big government under the Romans that persecuted the Church. So feudalism was a big step in the right direction. I’m not aware that they are now; communism, socialism, and the welfare state are condemned. But I suppose the bishops support bigger government than they have in the past because of globalization; everything is less local, so the government has more of a role following the principle of subsidiarity.

Mater et Magistra:

1. The present advance in scientific knowledge and productive technology clearly puts it within the power of the public authority to a much greater degree than ever before to reduce imbalances which may exist between different branches of the economy or between different regions within the same country or even between the different peoples of the world. It also puts into the hands of public authority a greater means for limiting fluctuations in the economy and for providing effective measures to prevent the recurrence of mass unemployment. Hence the insistent demands on those in authority—since they are responsible for the common good—to increase the degree and scope of their activities in the economic sphere, and to devise ways and means and set the necessary machinery in motion for the attainment of this end.

But just because government has more of a role doesn’t mean they have a huge role in the welfare department; the Church calls for churches and unions and other third sector groups to participate in public welfare systems:

Caritas et Veritate 60:

more economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid, thus respecting the obligations that the international community has undertaken in this regard. One way of doing so is by reviewing their internal social assistance and welfare policies, applying the principle of subsidiarity and creating better integrated welfare systems, with the active participation of private individuals and civil society. In this way, it is actually possible to improve social services and welfare programmes, and at the same time to save resources — by eliminating waste and rejecting fraudulent claims — which could then be allocated to international solidarity.

A good example would be Christian Democratic parties in Europe that are largely shaped by Catholic social teaching. An example is (West) Germany, where under Christian Democratic leadership during the Cold War subsidiarity became law. My guess is Catholic social teaching is the reason why Churches and unions participate in the welfare system quite a bit in Catholic dominated Länder.

1. I would assume so.

I thought everyone who could had/has a responsibility to give money to charity for the poor.

Probably not since everything was more local so there was pretty much no need for government except for protection and building cool castles.

1. I’d say your right if you mean the Church has articulated it’s teaching more clearly recently as a result of the Age of Enlightenment. There wasn’t really a need to before then.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Thanks for the responses.

I understand there was no big government at the time to support. But there certainly was opportunity for welfare and social programs that was never taken by the Church. Though there were no “national governments,” in the 1100’s Kings imposed the first income tax on citizens of Europe, largely to fund the efforts of the Crusades. Within the next century the Church even imposed a similar (albeit lower rate) income tax on clergy members for the same reasons. The Church had enough control, as did the Kings, over the continent to impose taxes on citizens for the sake of the lowest classes and the poor. And God knows they needed it a lot more then than they do now. But the Church never did such a thing, nor did the Kings. The Church wasn’t even unanimously supportive of the taxes issued by the kings. The Church now seems to think it’s a great idea to tax people to pay for social welfare programs. This is a seemingly very, very recent idea in Church history. Why should I support it?

Funny story, a bit of a side story, said income tax imposed by the Kings was about 10%, and the Church’s was 2.5%. People flipped at that. Imagine if those citizens had to pay our current tax rates. There were actually rebellions put on by the clergy after Pope Innocent III declared that they must pay a 2.5% tax for the Crusades. And the issue was not the legitimacy of the Crusades, it was the tax itself.

So I sit here wondering, how could this have happened? The Church seems to have done a 180 with regards to its value of tax dollars. For 500 years the Church had a stronger emphasis on the military protection of its citizens than on social welfare, and now it is the opposite.

And no, I do not think feudalism was bad. I actually think it (and the middle ages in general) were a lot better than the way in which it was taught to me during my public education. Most of what inflicted suffering during the era were things out of the control of man at the time, namely illness and disease (though many people still lived into their 70s). And I think a lot of the monarchs were much better rulers than we give them credit for (Americans reject monarchy on principle alone). But what’s more important is that these were stable societies for over a thousand years. America will struggle to make it’s 250th birthday if our deficit doesn’t pull a Houdini quick.

EDIT: I only read the first two responses when typing this so I haven’t seen whatever was brought to light in the other responses yet.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Not so unrelated from Populorum Progressio:

A World of Free Men

1. But these efforts, as well as public and private allocations of gifts, loans and investments, are not enough. It is not just a question of eliminating hunger and reducing poverty. It is not just a question of fighting wretched conditions, though this is an urgent and necessary task. It involves building a human community where men can live truly human lives, free from discrimination on account of race, religion or nationality, free from servitude to other men or to natural forces which they cannot yet control satisfactorily. It involves building a human community where liberty is not an idle word, where the needy Lazarus can sit down with the rich man at the same banquet table. (52)

On the part of the rich man, it calls for great generosity, willing sacrifice and diligent effort. Each man must examine his conscience, which sounds a new call in our present times. Is he prepared to support, at his own expense, projects and undertakings designed to help the needy? Is he prepared to pay higher taxes so that public authorities may expand their efforts in the work of development? Is he prepared to pay more for imported goods, so that the foreign producer may make a fairer profit? Is he prepared to emigrate from his homeland if necessary and if he is young, in order to help the emerging nations?

Bold mine.

 

[Ridgerunner]

OP, I’m not very well-educated regarding the topic of feudalism, but I would hesitantly say that the Church did not support the institution of feudalism so much as it supported the institution of a monarchy.

Though most monarchies were represented by a feudal class system during the Middle Ages (to the best of my knowledge), the rights and privileges afforded to the consituents varied region by region. Feudalism may have simply been a product of the times, when a country’s wealth depended upon the physical labor of the people, separate from the theological position of the Church and the subsequent value of the individual. The Industrial Revolution changed that.

One example of a monarch who ruled to the benefit of the individual AND was supported by the Church is Maria Therese of Austria. During her ruling, she introduced several reforms to the tax system, doubled the size of her army, and changed policy in favor of the serfs.

My impression, though I am not a historian, is that feudalism more or less developed itself. It was a largely secular attempt to bring order out of chaos. I do think the Church modified some of its more unpleasant aspects. But I think the Church always preferred order to disorder and union to disunion.

One of the interesting things about the early Middle Ages were the Church’s laws regarding marriage. They were much more restrictive then than now. They forbade marriage within fairly distant relationships of consanguinity (blood relationships) and affinity (relationships by marriage). The Church did this to break up tribalism, which was an early and more primitive form of feudalism that perpetuated warfare even more than its later forms did. It was very difficult to find someone within one’s own tribe to marry, so suitors would be forced to go to the next tribe or a more distant tribe to find a spouse. This also encouraged travel and the knowledge of others. People were much more mobile during the Middle Ages than we tend to think they were, particularly if they were members of a skilled trade or higher. Over time, fairly limited tribes sort of blended together with others indistinguishably, though remnants of it still remain in place names, local customs and dialects. (Belgium, Lombardy, Picardy, France, Germany, England and many others are all derived from tribal names) That did aid in the formation of nation states which, of course, brought problems all its own.

But I think if the Church could have had anything it wanted, it would have preferred a pan-European or even global governance in the secular realm.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Not so unrelated from Populorum Progressio:

Bold mine.

Thank you for this. Now what I would like to see is a document from the pre-Enlightenment era that says the same thing, or something similar. Then I will shut my mouth and be content with the opinions of our modern leaders.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Thank you for this. Now what I would like to see is a document from the pre-Enlightenment era that says the same thing, or something similar. Then I will shut my mouth and be content with the opinions of our modern leaders.

The opinions of our modern leaders as to what? Many of the opinions of our modern leaders are anything but sanctioned by the Church.

 

[lerapt78]

My impression, though I am not a historian, is that feudalism more or less developed itself. It was a largely secular attempt to bring order out of chaos. I do think the Church modified some of its more unpleasant aspects. But I think the Church always preferred order to disorder and union to disunion.

Interesting viewpoint.

 

[JimG]

Just one more thought. At the time of the French revolution, the Church and monasteries were the primary protectors and providers of the poor. It was the ultimate safety net. When the “enlightened” revolutionaries took over, they closed all the monasteries and made the priests employees of the state. The poor were left devastated and helpless. No help from the monasteries–they had been seized. No help from the state–it was interested in consolidating political power and eliminating every trace of religion.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Thank you for this. Now what I would like to see is a document from the pre-Enlightenment era that says the same thing, or something similar. Then I will shut my mouth and be content with the opinions of our modern leaders.

Two things:

1. What were the taxes in the Western World when Populorum Progressio was written?
2. Western nations are a lot richer than their predecessors were in the Middle Ages, and in the Middle Ages there weren’t really the resources to provide much help in impoverished areas outside of your local community. Not to mention people in general were a lot more charitable with their money back then since they were Catholic. Following the principle of subsidiarity governments have more of a responsibility for poverty since it is on the international level and they get their resources through taxes. But at the same time:

Caritas et Veritate:

1. The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need. This general rule must also be taken broadly into consideration when addressing issues concerning international development aid. Such aid, whatever the donors’ intentions, can sometimes lock people into a state of dependence and even foster situations of localized oppression and exploitation in the receiving country. Economic aid, in order to be true to its purpose, must not pursue secondary objectives. It must be distributed with the involvement not only of the governments of receiving countries, but also local economic agents and the bearers of culture within civil society, including local Churches.

 

[Byrnwiga]

My impression, though I am not a historian, is that feudalism more or less developed itself. It was a largely secular attempt to bring order out of chaos. I do think the Church modified some of its more unpleasant aspects. But I think the Church always preferred order to disorder and union to disunion.

Well, the Visigoths (and other barbarians) had some hand in the military aspects of protection in feudalism. When the standing army evaporated at the fall of the Roman Empire, people (i.e. farmers, craftsmen, etc) needed to look somewhere for safety; the feudal system accomplished just that (in return for military service and taxation of some form).

The Church enters into the equation later on with the emphasis on hierarchy (a la microcosm and macrocosm from feudal relationships) and the completion of the Three Orders (Estates): soldier, peasant, and (finally), monk.

-Byrnwiga

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It would be incorrect to say that the Church favors any form of government. It is idiologically opposed to any Communist form of government but I don’t think that, even in this case, there has ever been any authoritative teaching. The most you can accurately say is that the Church finds itself in the world in many political siturations and it tries to influence these situations ( governments ) to abide or adobpt policies and parctices that are just and moral and are not a hinderance to the salvation of souls or the spreading of the gospel.

 

[teeboy]

I believe their position to be help for poor but not total dependence on gov.

 

[nordskoven]

Barbarians flood Europe. Monasteries become the physical as well as spiritual refuge as Catholics preserve learning, valuables and food stores. Churches take control of land around the monasteries which are protected and managed for the common good. The monasteries provide a theocracy, protecting families and their means of sustenance. Monasteries are targeted for looting by barbarians but defenders rally to their support. Monasteries send out missionaries who make headway.

The barbarians become converted and take control of lands and work with the monasteries. Peasants work the lands of the Church and the barbarians with protection provided by the barbarian oligarchs within a civil legal system; while the Church distributes food, health care, a complementary legal system based on fairness and not the letter of the law/equity, and provides education to rich and poor alike. Common lands are preserved for the use of commoners. Fairs, featuring morality plays for entertainment, offer a chance to profit from selling the surplus.

Military protection and now civil law enforcement is provided by once-barbarian families and trade flourishes. The military/civil law enforcement heirarchy becomes the ruling class of nobles, with clerics working with them to rule lands, levy taxes, enforce laws, and provide for the common defense.

In 1215 the English Magna Charta is hammered out with Church officals, rulers and the ruled having well-defined rights and protections. These rights are nonetheless often contravened by the monarch at will. The jury of 12 peers is formalized. The Black Plague decimates India, China and Europe where the scarce survivors gain a modicum of freedom and security. A middle class of merchants and farmers develops.

Father-turned-Doctor Martin Luther spreads denial of Christ’s authority vested in Peter, sparking a take-over of Catholic lands, the looting of monasteries and churches and their grounds, and later usurpation of common lands. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer as the balance of power is lost in northern Europe and the British Isles where the Church is disenfranchised. More barbarians appear and Catholics repulse the Islamic invaders of the Ottoman Empire. “The peasants are revolting.” Luther urges the slaughter of civil and rebellious peasants alike as God will sort them out.

The Rosary crusade urged by the Pope results in victory over the Ottomans in the decisive sea battle at Lepanto. Catholic Europe gains some stability. Jan Sobieski, Catholic King of Poland, reforms his military, repulses the Ottoman Turks and enforces various treaties with Protestant and Catholic countries with the Rosary also acting as a major devotion in this period. On May 1, 1776 Adam Weishaupt founds the Illuminati and the struggle against chaos goes underground. “Pray the daily Rosary for peace.” --Our Lady of the Rosary, Fatima, Portugal 1917

 

[FaithBuild18]

Barbarians flood Europe. Monasteries become the physical as well as spiritual refuge as Catholics preserve learning, valuables and food stores. Churches take control of land around the monasteries which are protected and managed for the common good. The monasteries provide a theocracy, protecting families and their means of sustenance. Monasteries are targeted for looting by barbarians but defenders rally to their support. Monasteries send out missionaries who make headway.

The barbarians become converted and take control of lands and work with the monasteries. Peasants work the lands of the Church and the barbarians with protection provided by the barbarian oligarchs within a civil legal system; while the Church distributes food, health care, a complementary legal system based on fairness and not the letter of the law/equity, and provides education to rich and poor alike. Common lands are preserved for the use of commoners. Fairs, featuring morality plays for entertainment, offer a chance to profit from selling the surplus.

Military protection and now civil law enforcement is provided by once-barbarian families and trade flourishes. The military/civil law enforcement heirarchy becomes the ruling class of nobles, with clerics working with them to rule lands, levy taxes, enforce laws, and provide for the common defense.

In 1215 the English Magna Charta is hammered out with Church officals, rulers and the ruled having well-defined rights and protections. These rights are nonetheless often contravened by the monarch at will. The jury of 12 peers is formalized. The Black Plague decimates India, China and Europe where the scarce survivors gain a modicum of freedom and security. A middle class of merchants and farmers develops.

Father-turned-Doctor Martin Luther spreads denial of Christ’s authority vested in Peter, sparking a take-over of Catholic lands, the looting of monasteries and churches and their grounds, and later usurpation of common lands. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer as the balance of power is lost in northern Europe and the British Isles where the Church is disenfranchised. More barbarians appear and Catholics repulse the Islamic invaders of the Ottoman Empire. “The peasants are revolting.” Luther urges the slaughter of civil and rebellious peasants alike as God will sort them out.

The Rosary crusade urged by the Pope results in victory over the Ottomans in the decisive sea battle at Lepanto. Catholic Europe gains some stability. Jan Sobieski, Catholic King of Poland, reforms his military, repulses the Ottoman Turks and enforces various treaties with Protestant and Catholic countries with the Rosary also acting as a major devotion in this period. On May 1, 1776 Adam Weishaupt founds the Illuminati and the struggle against chaos goes underground. “Pray the daily Rosary for peace.” --Our Lady of the Rosary, Fatima, Portugal 1917

Everything here is spot on, except the original Islamic invaders weren’t part of the Ottoman Empire, which came later. The Church repulsed Islamic jihad long before the Ottomans came around.

I would have rather lived then than now.

 

[lerapt78]

In 1215 the English Magna Charta is hammered out with Church officals, rulers and the ruled having well-defined rights and protections. These rights are nonetheless often contravened by the monarch at will. The jury of 12 peers is formalized. The Black Plague decimates India, China and Europe where the scarce survivors gain a modicum of freedom and security. A middle class of merchants and farmers develops.

Ah, yes. How could I have forgotten about the Magna Carta! Written in the 14th century (still a time of feudlism), I believe.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Everything here is spot on, except the original Islamic invaders weren’t part of the Ottoman Empire, which came later. The Church repulsed Islamic jihad long before the Ottomans came around.

I would have rather lived then than now.

I wouldn’t given Catholic Europe’s record of dehumanizing treatment towards my ancestors.