Honorius and Conflicts, Part 4

Bernard of Clairvaux was concerned (as just about everyone for several centuries) about the relationship between religious and secular authority and the supremacy of one over the other. Bernard's preaching and devotion inspired the Bishop of Paris, Stephen of Senlis, to try to eliminate the influence of the French kings in the appointment of clergy.

The French king at the time was Louis VI (reigned 1108 - 1137), called "Le Gros" because over time he gained so much weight he could no longer ride into battle (see illustration). Louis was not against religion—his chief advisor was Abbot Suger—but he maintained the tradition of having some say over his bishops. In response to Stephen opposing Louis' authority, Louis seized Stephen's wealth.

Stephen's goal of Church reform (making it independent of the king) also motivated the Archbishop of Sens, Henri Sanglier. Louis charged Henri with simony (selling clergy positions for money) and tried to remove him from his position. Bernard's letter to Honorius was to intercede with Louis on behalf of Stephen of Senlis and Henri Sanglier. Louis was trying to fill bishop and priest positions in Tours as well, after Honorius had just appointed Hildebert of Lavardin to be Archbishop of Tours.

Honorius did not take as hard a line with a king as he had with abbots (see here and here). When the French bishops banded together to place the diocese of Paris under interdict (denying all residents of the diocese from receiving any of the sacraments of the Church), Louis protested to Honorius. Honorius lifted the interdict to save the residents of Paris from this punishment. This took pressure off of Louis to change his ways.

This "soft on crime" approach disgusted Bernard of Clairvaux, who expressed himself to Honorius. Honorius stuck to his guns, however, advising Stephen of Senlis to reconcile with Louis. Honorius must have had some words with Louis, because Louis stopped interfering with Archbishop Henri.

Honorius was also involved in English affairs, particularly in the debate over the Archbishoprics of Canterbury and York: did one have supremacy, or did they have equal authority? Thurstan of Bayeaux in York was pushing his claim, and Honorius wrote to him saying that the pope would settle the matter personally.

By "personally" he meant he would send a papal legate with the authority to act on the pope's behalf. Cardinal Giovanni of Crema went to England and convened a council at Westminster and...you know, this is going to get complicated, because England had been denying entrance to papal legates for years, so why did Giovanni of Crema get in? And what about Scotland? Did York have jurisdiction over Scotland? Let's save all that for tomorrow.