The dispute over which he was killed makes King Henry seem like the good guy, especially given our own experience with the Church protecting violators in the clergy. Assassination was the wrong remedy, but the king was on the right side.
"The position of Thomas, that a guilty clerk could be degraded and punished by the bishop but should not be punished again by lay authority—“not twice for the same fault”—was canonically arguable and ultimately prevailed. Henry’s contention that clerical crime was rife and that it was encouraged by the absence of drastic penalties commends itself to modern readers as a fair one. But it must be remembered that the king’s motives were authoritarian and administrative rather than enlightened. Nevertheless, it may be thought that Thomas was ill-advised in his rigid stand on this point.
"The issue was joined in a council at Westminster (October 1163), but the crisis came at Clarendon (Wiltshire, January 1164), when the king demanded a global assent to all traditional royal rights, reduced to writing under 16 heads and known as the Constitutions of Clarendon. These asserted the king’s right to punish criminous clerks, forbade excommunication of royal officials and appeals to Rome, and gave the king the revenues of vacant sees and the power to influence episcopal elections. Henry was justified in saying that these rights had been exercised by Henry I, but Thomas also was justified in maintaining that they contravened church law. Thomas, after verbally accepting the Constitutions of Clarendon, revoked his assent and appealed to the pope, then in France, who supported him while deprecating precipitate action.... --Brittanica.com
Looks like the Middle East question, eh? Who's "right"? Damned if I know.
A difference is that the British approach to ‘a common law’ led to protection of everyone’s rights as well as a potential to hold criminals to account; whereas the Church’s approach to ‘a special law unto ourselves’ continues to protect violators and prevent victims from obtaining justice. That’s because the Church approach violates an ordinary principle of justice known since Ancient Greece, to whit, that no one and no class should be the judge in their own case.
(Plato dissents, with the Guardian class; but Aristotle affirms the principle though he admits exceptions for monarchs etc. In both cases the exceptional virtue of members of the class is supposed to justify the exception; but as the class of priests demonstrates a thousand years ago as well as today, even a class founded on commitment to virtue cannot escape the danger.)
2 comments:
Hmmmm.
"The position of Thomas, that a guilty clerk could be degraded and punished by the bishop but should not be punished again by lay authority—“not twice for the same fault”—was canonically arguable and ultimately prevailed. Henry’s contention that clerical crime was rife and that it was encouraged by the absence of drastic penalties commends itself to modern readers as a fair one. But it must be remembered that the king’s motives were authoritarian and administrative rather than enlightened. Nevertheless, it may be thought that Thomas was ill-advised in his rigid stand on this point.
"The issue was joined in a council at Westminster (October 1163), but the crisis came at Clarendon (Wiltshire, January 1164), when the king demanded a global assent to all traditional royal rights, reduced to writing under 16 heads and known as the Constitutions of Clarendon. These asserted the king’s right to punish criminous clerks, forbade excommunication of royal officials and appeals to Rome, and gave the king the revenues of vacant sees and the power to influence episcopal elections. Henry was justified in saying that these rights had been exercised by Henry I, but Thomas also was justified in maintaining that they contravened church law. Thomas, after verbally accepting the Constitutions of Clarendon, revoked his assent and appealed to the pope, then in France, who supported him while deprecating precipitate action.... --Brittanica.com
Looks like the Middle East question, eh? Who's "right"? Damned if I know.
A difference is that the British approach to ‘a common law’ led to protection of everyone’s rights as well as a potential to hold criminals to account; whereas the Church’s approach to ‘a special law unto ourselves’ continues to protect violators and prevent victims from obtaining justice. That’s because the Church approach violates an ordinary principle of justice known since Ancient Greece, to whit, that no one and no class should be the judge in their own case.
(Plato dissents, with the Guardian class; but Aristotle affirms the principle though he admits exceptions for monarchs etc. In both cases the exceptional virtue of members of the class is supposed to justify the exception; but as the class of priests demonstrates a thousand years ago as well as today, even a class founded on commitment to virtue cannot escape the danger.)
Post a Comment