Laity vs Clergy in St Catherine of Siena's Day?

[LaramieHirsch]

So, for one reason or another, my mind is opened, and I’ve found myself reading The Dialogues.

I am particularly interested in the part where God tells St. Catherine of Siena that the laity should not “assume the right to punish My ministers.”

These are my annointed ones, and therefore it has been said through Scripture: “Dare not to touch my christs.” Therefore, a person can do no worse violence than to assume the right to punish my ministers.

So, it is my understanding that laity in St. Catherine’s day were behaving negatively towards the clergy.

My question is: what was the laity doing? What is it that they did which caused God to even mention it as a problem?

I know that the time was the 1300s, and there was some friction between the government of Italy and the pope.

But what was the source of the friction, and what did the friction resemble? Why were the laity tempted to “assume the right to punish” God’s ministers? What was happening?

Is anyone here a historian?

UPDATE: Here is the unabridged version of Thorold’s translation from the late 1800s.

archive.org/stream/seraphicvirginca00cathuoft/seraphicvirginca00cathuoft_djvu.txt

If you are looking for where to start searching for text on this matter, do a phrase search for:

Do not touch My Christsj no greater ruin can come upon man than to constitute him
self their punisher.

Yes, the j comes after “Christs” in the text. It’s a typo they forgot to fix in this online version.

 

[GEddie]

There was no conflict between “the Italian government” and the Church in the 1300s. Italy was not reunited as a nation until 1861.

And in SCS’s time, the Pope didn’t even live in Italy. The Papacy had moved to Avignon in France, and SCS was instrumental in bringing it back (although for some time, this led to confusion as to which city held the true Pope).

ICXC NIKA

 

[powerofk]

In general, during the Middle Ages, there were many conflicts between state leadership and Church leadership. Even though the state leaders were Catholic, they often asserted that they came to power through Divine Right. Of course, the Church was also extremely powerful. But due to their individual powers, the Church often tried to meddle in State affairs (kings were crowned by either the Pope or by the Primate of their country; if there was a dispute as to who the rightful heir to the crown was, the Pope chose sides) and kings often tried to meddle in Church affairs. Kings would often demand the authority to name who the next bishops would be (in fact, even into the late 1800’s/early 1900’s, the Austrian emperor Wilhelm II wielded veto power in Papal elections - if not directly, then through the Austrian Primate). Often, kings would imprison priests and/or bishops for defying them - or even have them killed (see Henry II ordering his thugs to assassinate St. Thomas of Beckett at the altar - a man who Henry handpicked to be Archbishop of Canterbury). Of course, at this time, in general, the laity and the clergy/religious were subject to separate criminal justice systems. In theory, the laity were subject to the justice of the crown, while clergy and religious were subject to the justice of the Church.

St. Catherine of Sienna is stating here that the clergy and religious are not to be considered subject to the justice of the crown or state, regardless of their offense. She is saying that they should all be considered “ambassadors for Christ” - and therefore subject to diplomatic immunity. They should only be subject to the justice of the Church, which at the time had the power to imiprison, execute, etc. In today’s world, however, outside of excommunication and stripping priests of their faculties, the Church only retains sentencing power in the Vatican. So in regards to priests/bishops committing crimes today (such as the sex abuse scandal), the only institutions that can bring justice are secular institutions.