Extravagant Bishops

[dominikus28]

During the Middle Ages Jabłonna was the property of the Bishops of Płock, who built a summer residence here in the 15th century

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jab%C5%82onna_Palace

I was wondering, is it justified (or was it justified) for clergy to have such extravagant palaces for themselves?

Today people will argue that we ‘spend too much on churches’ (or we did, with huge extravagant churches like St Peter’s basilica, etc), but as Catholics, we know that those expenses were justified because we build churches not for ourselves but for God. Is there a justification for priests or bishops having extravagant mansions like this?
Maybe it is justified because it was to reflect the authority and importance of their office, or something? But there must have been some justification since it was done as long as the Church had power/influence.

And just a bonus question: where did the bishops/clergy/Church in general, get all this money from? Donations? Business enterprise? I heard that some bishops ran brothels…

 

[valentino]

the church has acknowledges that there were deeds committed by the clergy during the middle ages that were wrong.ex;selling of indulgences.)dont qquote me on this but I dont think the Pope sanctioned such things.There were other abuses which today to us seem unthinkable that happened during those times such as popes having mistresses, homosexual affairs,many wives,ect.Also there were wholesale murderings of heretics,murderings of Jews all sanctioned by the Pope.I didnt live during those periods so i cant judge the justification fjor such actions.All i can do and most Catholics do I believe is just admit these things happened,they were bad and scandalous,maybe try to forget if we can and go on living out the gospel in our lives today.Hope this helps but im sure you’ll be able to find someone who knows much more about all this than I do .Good luck,

 

[JRKH]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jab%C5%82onna_Palace

I was wondering, is it justified (or was it justified) for clergy to have such extravagant palaces for themselves?

Today people will argue that we ‘spend too much on churches’ (or we did, with huge extravagant churches like St Peter’s basilica, etc), but as Catholics, we know that those expenses were justified because we build churches not for ourselves but for God. Is there a justification for priests or bishops having extravagant mansions like this?
Maybe it is justified because it was to reflect the authority and importance of their office, or something? But there must have been some justification since it was done as long as the Church had power/influence.

And just a bonus question: where did the bishops/clergy/Church in general, get all this money from? Donations? Business enterprise? I heard that some bishops ran brothels…

You are asking a very broad question that has many answers and aspects.

For many centuries and in particular during the so called middle ages, the Church was a secular as well as spiritual power. In Fact the Church still politically controlled much of what is today Italy up until the mid 1800’s.

The palaces that you refer to were a normal thing in those times for governing officials.

As for where the monies came from, it came from many sources. Donations, taxes, and business enterprises all contributed…

Peace
James

 

[Warrenton]

Although the Church afforded more social mobility in general in the middle ages and renaissance, many of the bishops were nevertheless drawn from the aristocracy. They had, therefore, resources at their disposal to build palaces.

In places ruled by bishops (eg, Durham in the north of England, Magdeburg in Germany) the palaces were built with a combination of family money and taxes, which came from the rents for the land they held. The bishops could be the temporal lords of secular nobility, none of whom were going to give the peasants a break under any circumstances.

Also, the Church served as the diplomatic corps of civil government at the time. An example is Cardinal Wolsey. A commoner by birth, he rose to become Henry VIII’s chancellor, which was a quasi secular function (chancellor = keeper of the king’s chancel, or chapel). His wealth was obtained mostly from his “pay,” which consisted of charging people for access to the king, or bribing him to turn the king’s disfavor. They felt it corrupt in the same way that we feel the money and privileges of our federal officials, from the president to the congress, is corrupt: it was equal parts legal spoils and unfair advantage. Wolsey’s palace is Hampton Court.

One thing to remember about the palaces is that they were places of business, unlike modern mansions. All those scores of rooms were actually used, and employed a small army of servants to keep them running. To shut down a palace in 1500 would have struck the people as strange as closing the department of motor vehicles today. Palaces, before the phone and even reliable mail, were where the work got done. In part, they were large because everything was accomplished manually.

Palaces were also very public. Ordinary people could, and did, wander in to gawk at their betters, or ask for a coin or blessing.

Try that at a modern day billionaire’s house, and see what happens!

 

[dominikus28]

So would there be anything wrong if a priest today, who just happened to inherit wealth from his family, were to build a mansion? Would that be against their vows or something? Since the middle ages, has the church added that rule that ‘priests must take a vow of poverty’ or something?

 

[JRKH]

So would there be anything wrong if a priest today, who just happened to inherit wealth from his family, were to build a mansion? Would that be against their vows or something? Since the middle ages, has the church added that rule that ‘priests must take a vow of poverty’ or something?

I am not sure, but I believe that there are different vows taken by religious priests and secular (dioceson) priests.

If there WERE a situation where a bishop came from a wealthy family and that family decided to donate monies to build a new home for the bishop somewhere, I’m sure the Diocese would not turn it down…but it is unlikely they would build a “palace”…

Peace
James

 

[Newbie2]

Correctomundo. Diocesian priests are not required to take a vow of poverty.