Race and Ethnicity: Canon 69

The attempt to limit contact with Jews in public and keep their public authority diminished forced them to wind up being more crucial than ever to society as the money-lenders for which they were reviled.

Canon 69 of the Fourth Lateran Council decreed that Jews should be prevented from exerting any kind of political authority:

Since it is absurd that a blasphemer of Christ exercise authority over Christians, we on account of the boldness of transgressors renew in this general council what the Synod of Toledo wisely enacted in this matter, prohibiting Jews from being given preference in the matter of public offices, since in such capacity they are most troublesome to the Christians. But if anyone should commit such an office to them, let him, after previous warning, be restrained by such punishment as seems proper by the provincial synod which we command to be celebrated every year. The official, however, shall be denied the commercial and other intercourse of the Christians, till in the judgment of the bishop all that he acquired from the Christians from the time he assumed office be restored for the needs of the Christian poor, and the office that he irreverently assumed let him lose with shame. The same we extend also to pagans.

The Third Synod of Toledo in 589CE was organized by Bishop Leander of Seville who had worked to convert the Visigoths and King Reccared from Arianism to Roman Catholicism. It resulted in Visigothic Spain officially becoming part of the Roman Catholic Church. Its14th Canon forbade Jews to take Christian wives or concubines or slaves. Children from such a union were to be baptized. Jews were disqualified from any position that would give them authority over Christians. Christian slaves forced into following Jewish practices were to be freed.

Note that anyone who does hire or appoint a Jew to a position of authority where they make decisions that affect Christians is himself guilty and deserving of punishment. The Jew will be forced to return any material gain he had from Christians during the time in office, the value to be used for poor Christians.

(I apologize for "getting political," but I cannot help thinking of a current situation in the United States where immigrants are castigated for "taking jobs" from Americans, when the "crime"—if there is one—was committed by the business owners who, knowing the law, hired non-citizens in the first place. The workers suffer and the folk responsible are untouched.)

Denied the opportunity for many positions for which a Jew might have plenty of knowledge and skill—was this a reason why some Jews turned to lending money? If this was one profession that you were allowed and  Christians did not generally go for, why not become a money-lender, which in some ways gave you more power over Christians than any public office? There were, of course, other options for employment, as in becoming a scribe as depicted in the illustration above, showing Jewish scribes from a 1283 Spanish work.

In the later Middle Ages, even as Jews were looked on with suspicion if not outright hostility, Jews were sometime valued for the skills they possessed. It was not unknown for the wealthy and nobility to retain Jews as physicians.

The final Canon of the Fourth Lateran, number 70, was concerned with apostasy. We'll wrap this up next time.

Race and Ethnicity: Canon 68

Continuing our look at the final four Canons of the proceedings of the 1215 Fourth Lateran Council, we come to Canon 68, which wanted to make sure everyone knew who a Jew (or Muslim) was, so they could avoid them if desired.

In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses, that this very law has been enjoined upon them.

"The writings of Moses" refers to Numbers 15:37-41, God's commandment to the Israelites to wear tassels with blue thread on the corners of their garments. Like tying a string around your finger to remember something, these tassels (called tzitzit) are supposed to be a reminder to keep all God's commandments.

The segregation of Jews was even more severe during important Christian Holy Days:

Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning.

(Of course there would be times a Passover celebration would overlap Easter.)

This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.

Notice that this does not specify how Jews should be marked differently in their garments. This became in modern times the wearing of the yellow Star of David, a symbol of 20th century oppression in Germany specifically.

In 13th-century England, however, Henry III (who also gave Jews a way to "redeem" themselves) forced them to wear two rectangular patches of a pale color (the assumption is to resemble the tablets of Moses). Earlier, however, the 581CE Synod of Macon specified an oval badge in the center of their garment "the measure of one finger in width and one half a palm in height." In 16th-century Worms they were compelled to wear a yellow ring (illustration).

The next Canon further attempted to keep Jews segregated from others, as we'll see tomorrow.

Race and Ethnicity: Canon 67

Today we look specifically at the institutional racism against Jews established by Pope Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. Of the 70 canons of the council proceedings, the final four were about Jews. It is worth looking at these in their entirety.

Canon 67 blames Jews for the poor planning of the Gentiles who became indebted to Jewish money-lenders and could not repay the debt. This is blamed on the ability of Jews to charge interest, called usury by the Church and considered sinful and un-Christian.

The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses. The Christians also, every appeal being set aside, shall, if necessary, be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to abstain from all commercial intercourse with them. We command the princes not to be hostile to the Christians on this account, but rather to strive to hinder the Jews from practicing such excesses. Lastly, we decree that the Jews be compelled by the same punishment (avoidance of commercial intercourse) to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the Christians were accustomed to supply from their houses and other possessions before these properties, under whatever title, fell into the hands of the Jews, that thus the churches may be safeguarded against loss.

There were several reasons why usury was condemned in the Middle Ages.

Aristotle and Aquinas thought of money as "sterile" in that it was just a thing that did not reproduce or grow. Making money "grow" by charging a fee was considered unnatural and inappropriate.

A loan was not something one did to buy a car or get a mortgage: it was used in time of serious need. In this situation, making the desperate person pay back more when they are financially disadvantaged was considered to be taking advantage of someone at a vulnerable time in their life.

Paying interest was all about tying money to time, making money "worth more" simply because time has passed. Your money does not expand just because time goes by. Usury was seen as "selling time" or taking advantage of time, which was created by and managed by and belonged to God.

Also, quite simply, asking for more money back showed the sin of Avarice, and gaining more money than loaned out could lead to not needing to work, and therefore promote idleness/sloth.

We'll continue with the other canons tomorrow.

Race and Ethnicity, Part 3

Modern ideas of race and racism are largely based on skin color, but the Middle Ages saw many other factors. To quote (again) Regino of Prüm:

"Nor should it be forgotten that, just as different nations of people differ from one another in race [genus], customs [mores], language [lingua], and laws [leges], so the holy universal church spread throughout the whole world, although united in the unity of faith, nevertheless differs from one another in ecclesiastical customs."

There were other factors that distinguished "The Other" from oneself: religion, economic class, geographic origin, even clothing. The illustration you can see if you follow the link in the first paragraph uses a turban and bushy beard to indicate a man from Africa, not skin color.

It would be difficult to argue that religion was a prime factor in distinguishing race, and such a strong part of a cultural identity that those of other religions were a danger to the self and the body politic. Although using factors that indicate a different race did not necessarily lead to racism, religion as a factor led to outright hostility.

Of course the primary example of religion-based race leading to prominent racism is the Western European attitude toward Jews: 

...the periodic exterminations of Jews in Europe, the demand that they mark their bodies and the bodies of their children with a large visible badge, the herding of Jews into specific towns in England to monitor their livelihoods, and the vilification of Jews for supposedly possessing a fetid stench, a male menses, subhuman and bestial qualities, and a congenital need to ingest the blood of Christian children whom they tortured and crucified to death... [source]

For Western Europe, and particularly countries that wholly expelled Jews, religion was the deciding factor.

Jews were not the only religion that came under fire. Bernard of Clairvaux, asked to write a rule for the newly formed Knights of the Order of the Temple (Templars), proclaims that the killing of Muslims was not homicide by malicide, the killing of evil incarnate. The Crusades could be seen as a form of institutionalized racism.

The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 called by Pope Innocent III published Canon 68, cementing racist law against Jews. We'll look at the details and outcome tomorrow.

The Children of Priests

Pope Gregory VII (c.1015 - 1085) tried to establish many reforms in the Church, they did not all "stick." One of his reforms was to prevent priests keeping families in the vicarage, and appointing their children to benefices. This problem remained, and Innocent III tried to tackle it in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215.

Canon 31 was on the sons of parish canons:

In order to abolish a very bad practice that has grown up in many churches, we strictly forbid the sons of canons, especially if they are illegitimate, to become canons in the secular churches in which their fathers hold office. If the contrary is attempted, we declare it to be invalid. Those who attempt to make such persons canons are to be suspended from their benefices.

Illegitimate children were not the stigma that they have become in modern times. A father might acknowledge an illegitimate child because it was a son and all he was having with his wife were daughters. The father would care for them and try to find careers for them. We saw this in noble families all the time. See here and here for examples.

In The Manly Priest, author Jennifer Thibodeaux discusses the difficult attempts to impose clerical celibacy during the period 1066 to 1300. Archbishop Anselm tried twice to prevent priests from having sex with women. One attempt was simply to say priests could not have wives living with them. The priests simply moved their wives to a nearby house.

Innocent's attempt at the Lateran Council was about as effective as Gregory's. His attempts at establishing clerical guidelines regarding dress and morality was one thing, but getting them to give up sex completely was doomed to failure. Thibodeaux calls this "an all-inclusive attempt to formally monasticize the priesthood and to separate them from the laity, while elevating them in status." [link]

In the canons of the Fourth Lateran, number 31 about sons follows number 30, which states:

It is very serious and absurd that prelates of churches, when they can promote suitable men to ecclesiastical benefices, are not afraid to choose unworthy men who lack both learning and honesty of behavior and who follow the urgings of the flesh rather than the judgment of reason. Nobody of a sound mind is ignorant of how much damage to churches arises from this.

It is clear that the two are connected because of the priest's desire to find a career for his son and the only career that the priest knows that he could educate his son about is managing a parish. The opportunity to place one's son in a position for which he was not suited was too great a potential problem.

Tomorrow we'll take a more detailed look at the idea of clerical celibacy and its origins.

The Canons on Responsibility, Part 2

The Fourth Lateran Council called in 1215 by Pope Innocent III had three chief objectives: Church reform, freeing the Holy Land, and eliminating heresy. Part of Church reform was making clear the duties of the clergy to their calling and to their congregation, which you can see in Part 1.

Innocent was not just worried about his clergy being educated and committed to helping their congregation; he also concentrated on their personal behavior. Canon 14 was on clerical incontinence, "incontinence" in the sense of lack of self-restraint:

In order that the morals and conduct of clerics may be reformed for the better, let all of them strive to live in a continent and chaste way, ... Let them beware of every vice involving lust, ... so that they may be worthy to minister in the sight of almighty God with a pure heart and an unsullied body.

Canon 15 became more specific:

All clerics should carefully abstain from gluttony and drunkenness. They should temper the wine to themselves and themselves to the wine. Let no one be urged to drink, since drunkenness obscures the intellect and stirs up lust.

Especially abhorrent were those who engaged in drinking games or competitions:

... abuse is to be entirely abolished whereby in some places drinkers bind themselves to drink equal amounts, and that man is most praised who makes the most people drunk and himself drains the deepest cups.

Clerics were not to indulge in "callings or business of a secular nature" or to "watch mimes, entertainers and actors," nor should they dress ostentatiously, wth gold buckles, for example (Canon 16). Clerics should not spend the night feasting and talking so that they cannot rise early in the morning to begin their duties (Canon 17). They should not store things in their churches that are not church-related; do not store furniture, for instance, and do not allow church vessels or vestments to get soiled (Canon 19).

The next canons involve managing a parish, with rules such not leaving a church without a pastor for more than three months (Canon 23), or keeping Chrism under lock and key (Canon 20), and how to choose a pastor for a particular parish (Canon 24).

Then it gets into the improper election of candidates, and the potential problem with choosing one's son to be a canon (holder of an office) where their father is pastor. Let's take a more careful look at that topic tomorrow.

The Canons on Responsibility, Part 1

The Fourth Lateran Council called in 1215 by Pope Innocent III had three chief objectives: Church reform, freeing the Holy Land, and eliminating heresy. Part of Church reform was making clear the duties of the clergy to their calling and to their congregation.

Canon 6 was about making sure the decisions coming from the Fourth Lateran were followed. It decreed yearly provincial councils:

...in which they consider diligently and in the fear of God the correction of excesses and the reform of morals, especially among the clergy. Let them recite the canonical rules, especially those which have been laid down by this general council, so as to secure their observance, inflicting on transgressors the punishment due.

Clerics themselves were not exempt from examination and correction. Canon 7 decreed:

...that prelates of churches [bishops] should prudently and diligently attend to the correction of their subjects’ offenses especially of clerics, and to the reform of morals.

Of course, this would not be a problem if the clergy are acting appropriately, and Canon 10 tells the bishops:

...are to appoint suitable men to carry out with profit this duty of sacred preaching, men who are powerful in word and deed and who will visit with care the peoples entrusted to them in place of the bishops, since these by themselves are unable to do it, and will build them up by word and example.

And bishops themselves are supposed to be "suitable men." The above is important because bishops might not be able to be everywhere they are needed because of infirmity or war or the size of the diocese:

...or for other reasons-let us not say for lack of knowledge, which in bishops is to be altogether condemned and is not to be tolerated in the future.

Speaking of knowledge, Canon 11 establishes parochial schools for all, including those who could not afford tuition:

Zeal for learning and the opportunity to make progress is denied to some through lack of means. The Lateran council therefore dutifully decreed that in each cathedral church there should be provided a suitable benefice for a master who shall instruct without charge the clerics of the cathedral church and other poor scholars.

Innocent was not only concerned with clergy who lacked knowledge, but more specific grievances. I'll tell you some of those tomorrow.

The Canons on Heresy

The Fourth Lateran Council called in 1215 by Pope Innocent III had three chief objectives: Church reform, freeing the Holy Land, and eliminating heresy. The first Canons addressed the subject of those whose beliefs did not conform to official Church doctrine.

Canon 1 made clear there was only:

...one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, ...

The doctrine of transubstantiation was made official.

Canon 2 addressed the "error of abbot Joachim." Joachim de Fiore (1135 - 1202), called by one modern scholar "The Man Who Invented the Future" (post) was the founder of a monastic order based on St. John, and he wrote on the apocalypse and the Book of Revelation.  His theory was that the ages of the world mirror the Trinity, and that only in a future third age of the Holy Spirit would humankind truly understand Christianity and become spiritual. He submitted his works to Innocent in 1200, but died two years later before Innocent could reflect on them. Innocent since had decided the works were misguided. Joachim had contradicted Peter Lombard, calling Peter a heretic. Aquinas later condemned Joachim. Dante, on the other hand, placed Joachim in Paradise.

We therefore condemn and reprove that small book or treatise which abbot Joachim published against master Peter Lombard concerning the unity or essence of the Trinity, in which he calls Peter Lombard a heretic and a madman because he said in his Sentences, “For there is a certain supreme reality which is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, and it neither begets nor is begotten nor does it proceed”.

Joachim's idea of a progression through history and a lack of understanding of God until some future time did not suit Innocent. A French theologian, Amalric of Bena (see illustration), was likewise condemned in this Canon with a single sentence after about 1000 words against Joachim.

Canon 3 listed what to do about heretics. Suspicion of heresy should lead to excommunication. If a year went by without the person recanting, then they would be called a heretic. Princes were to swear that anyone the Church deemed heretics would be banished from their lands. This Canon was shorter than the one on Joachim.

Tomorrow we will look at more.

The Start of the Fourth Lateran

After years of being pope and asserting his will on the world, Innocent III decided to bring together all the church leaders and establish a new set of rules and policies for unifying the Church's stand on several different matters. To give everyone time to travel to Rome, he announced it in April 1213, to be formally opened on 11 November 1215. It met at the Lateran Palace, and was the fourth such meeting.

The first day began with a Mass, then a plenary session at which Innocent led the song of Veni Creator Spiritus ("Come Holy Spirit"). He also delivered sermons on the need to reclaim the Holy Land and the need to deal with heresy.

Trouble erupted among the bishops because of political issues. Supporters of Simon de Montfort, 5th Earl of Leicester, and those of Raymond VI of Toulouse (whose lands had been granted to Simon by Philip Augustus of France, clashed over the recent hostility between the two nobles. Raymond and his son were there to argue for the return of his lands; Simon's brother Guy and Bishop Foulques objected. Fighting broke out and needed to be suppressed. The outcome was not good for Raymond, who had all his remaining lands confiscated to be held in trust until his death, when they would be granted to his son, Raymond VII.

Innocent also had prepared for the council by refurbishing St. Peter's Basilica, and the fourth day of the Council was to be a celebration of the anniversary of the basilica. It drew so many people that, when Innocent arrived to lead the celebration, he could barely get into the building.

On 20 November, the fifth day, Innocent's sermon about church reform was disrupted by bishops who objected to Frederick II holding the title of King of the Romans (and several other titles).

The Fourth Council of the Lateran finished on the 30th of November. In only two weeks there had been many meetings that produced 71 canons that would be considered law going forward. Tomorrow we'll start looking at some of them.

Transubstantiation

I'm going to start with a quotation from a website about transubstantiation and Paul to the Corinthians:

Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, “This is my Body,” meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so. [source]

The idea that the bread and wine of the Last Supper was not just bread and wine offered symbolically was a powerful image, and it was made official Church doctrine by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. But the bread and wine was considered special as early as the 1st century CE as evidenced by the Didache.

The Didache (Classical Greek, "Teaching") is perhaps the earliest document outside of the Bible that deals with Christianity. Its first line is "The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles (or Nations) by the twelve apostles." It states:

Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, 'Give not that which is holy to the dogs'.

The idea of bread and wine actually converting had its supporters and doubters, of course, and there were works written to support both sides. One of the arguments in favor was that Jesus would not lie, and so when he says "This is my body," it is to be taken as proof that the bread has somehow transformed into his flesh. Berengar of Tours, however, in the 11th century argued against any actual physical change; I mentioned this many years ago when talking about Lanfranc, who was forced to argue against Berengar partially for personal and political reasons.

It has been speculated that Hildebert of Lavardin may have studied under Berengar. Whether true or not, Hildebert did not support Berengar's views on the bread and wine. In fact, Hildebert believed just the opposite, and it is in his writings that the word "transubstantiation" is first used to describe the process spoken of by Jesus at the Last Supper. The Fourth Lateran Council took up this terminology when they said the bread and wine "transubstantiate" during the Mass.

But what about Berengar? He was obviously influential but had different ideas from some of his contemporaries. How important was he? Did he have anything else to say besides his rejection of transubstantiation? Let's talk about him next time.

The Medieval Protestant

Peter of Bruys is known to us because of the writings of two of his enemies. He was born in southeastern France and became a Roman Catholic priest who worked in Provence and Dauphiny about 1117 until 1131. He clashed strongly with the institution of which he was a member, however, and was defrocked.

The reason for the clash was his rejection of much of the trappings of the Roman Catholic Church as they had developed over the centuries, embellishing on practices that were not true to the central spirit of the Gospels. Five of his "erroneous" teachings were described by Peter the Venerable.

The first was about infant baptism. The Petrobusian point was that Jesus said "He who will believe and be baptized" will be saved. Infants did not have the capacity to believe, and baptism should be offered when they are old enough to choose it. St. Augustine of Hippo, however, had declared that baptizing infants and children was essential to save them from Original Sin.

The Petrobrusians also felt that churches and temples were unnecessary, but the Church felt it was important to have a beautiful and impressive building in which the faithful could gather.

Spurning idolatry, the followers of Peter destroyed and burned crosses, because this was the mechanism by which Jesus was killed. It should therefore not be venerated.

The Sacraments also came under fire. Communion was derided. In the words of Peter the Venerable:

They deny, not only the truth of the body and blood of the Lord, daily and constantly offered in the church through the sacrament, but declare that it is nothing at all, and ought not to be offered to God. They say, 'Oh, people, do not believe the bishops, priests, or clergy who seduce you; who, as in many things, so in the office of the altar, deceive you when they falsely profess to make the body of Christ and give it to you for the salvation of your souls.'

The idea of transubstantiation, the conversion of simple bread and wine into something more, the body and blood of Christ, was not declared official until the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, but it had already been accepted belief for a couple centuries.

The fifth point made against them was that they rejected the idea that prayers of the living could somehow aid the dead; once dead your spirit could no longer improve.

This simplicity of devotion—washing away all the additions made by the Church to what the Gospels offered—has made him appear to be an early example of the Protestant Reformation.

I've already written how Henry of Lausanne took up these ideas and preached them himself after Peter's demise to such widespread effect that followers were called Henricians after Henry as well as Petrobrusians. The two would have been a powerful pair of preachers, except for what happened to Peter.

About the year 1131, on Good Friday, Peter of Bruys was being true to his message and burning crosses to make a cooking fire in St. Gilles near Nîmes. Apparently he had not been there long enough to have a following, and his actions outraged the population so strongly that they seized him and threw him onto the fire of burning crosses, killing him. (Enjoy the illustration of Jan Hus being burned from a 1485 Chronicle.)

I've written about transubstantiation before, but I want to revisit it and share that the first use of that term was by someone we've talked about in the past week. See you tomorrow.

Trial by Ordeal

Trial by Ordeal took many forms in the ancient world and the Middle Ages. In a sense, it was an appeal to God to reveal the culprit. In Old English it was called Godes dōm, "God's doom/judgement"; in Latin it was known as jūdicium Deī.

One simple method was cruentation, from Latin ius cruentationis, "law of bleeding," used in Germanic law. The belief behind cruentation was that the corpse of a murder victim would indicate the presence of its murderer by moving or spouting blood. It was used into the 18th century, even though after the Lutheran Reformation the application of a religious test in law was rejected in Denmark and Norway.

Another approach to Trial by Ordeal was the idea that God would not allow an innocent person to suffer. The accused would plunge his or her hands into boiling water, or carry red hot iron. Ordeal by fire was also tried, with the person walking at least three paces or walking across nine feet of coals. Of course this would produce burns, but they would be bandaged and re-examined in three days' time. A priest would then judge whether God had chosen to heal the innocent person's burns or let the guilty person's worsen and fester.

In Constantinople, before Michael VIII Paleologos (1224 - 1282) became emperor, he was accused of treason by Emperor John III Vatatzes and was ordered to go through trial by fire. He said he would hold the red-hot iron if the metropolitan bishop Phokas would take the hot iron from the altar with his own hands and place it in Michael's. This the bishop refused to do; the idea that innocents would not also be harmed by red-hot iron helped to discredit the practice. In fact, when Michael became emperor, he abolished the practice.

Pope Innocent III at the Lateran Council of 1215 forbade priests to take part in such things, and promoted compurgation instead.

The Byzantine Empire got the idea of trial by ordeal from the West, as the Crusades brought Western Europe ideas to Constantinople. One example they would have witnessed was the French mystic Peter Bartholomew, who submitted himself to ordeal by fire to prove his sincerity about a claim considered outlandish by others. What was he trying to prove, and how did it turn out? I'll tell you tomorrow.

The Barnacle Goose Myth

One piece of evidence that supported the idea of Spontaneous Generation in the Middle Ages was the case of the barnacle goose. (See the third part of the triptych to the left.)

The barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis*) is a diving bird that flourishes in England and Northern Europe. It weighs from about three to five pounds, and is quite edible. The "myth" part springs from a riddle in the Exeter Book.

My nose was in a tight spot, and I beneath the water,

underflowed by the flood, sunk deep

into the ocean-waves, and in the sea grew

covered with waves from above, my body

touching a floating piece of wood.

I had living spirit, when I came out of the embrace

of water and wood in a black garment,

some of my trappings were white,

then the air lifted me, living, up,

wind from the water, then carried me far

over the seal's bath. Say what I am called.

The answer is, of course, the barnacle goose.

The belief was that the goose, observed coming out of the water after a dive for food, was actually being birthed from the barnacle (see the middle illustration above) which was attached to the "floating piece of wood" of the riddle and whose coloring seemed to be a precursor to the markings of the goose. Barnacles were formed on pilings of docks that were underwater, and no one saw anything creating them, so they must have arisen spontaneously from the rot experienced by wood exposed to water. This matched the theories about Spontaneous Generation.

I alluded in yesterday's post that a pope got involved in a case of Spontaneous Generation. Because the barnacle goose was thought to come from a barnacle that generated underwater, they were fair game (ha!) during Lent. Giraldus Cambrensis (Gerald of Wales) recorded:

Bishops and religious men (viri religiosi) in some parts of Ireland do not scruple to dine off these birds at the time of fasting, because they are not flesh nor born of flesh... But in so doing they are led into sin. For if anyone were to eat of the leg of our first parent (Adam) although he was not born of flesh, that person could not be adjudged innocent of eating meat.

At the Fourth Lateran Council, Pope Innocent III forbade the eating of these geese during Lent, claiming that despite their generation they lived and fed like ducks and so were to be treated as other birds during Lent. (Was this the start of the phrase "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck..."?)

There was also an idea that they could be born on trees (see the first part of the illustration). In Judaism, Rabbeinu Tam (1100 - 1171) declared that, even if born from trees, they were kosher and should be slaughtered properly like other animals.

I find that I have mentioned and quoted Gerald of Wales many times without giving him his due. We know a lot about his time period (late 12th - early 13th centuries) because of his reporting, which I'll talk about tomorrow. See you soon.

*Quick side note on the scientific name: branta is Latinized from the Old Norse Brandgás, "burnt (black) goose"; the Latin leucopsis = "white" + "faced."

The Yellow Badge

King Henry III's Statute of Jewry demanded (among other things) that Jews wear a badge conspicuously on their clothing. This was not a new idea. Designating "others" by a badge was already common in the Middle Ages. The Muslim and Christian worlds both found ways to distinguish those not of their faith.

In 717, Caliph Umar II ordered that non-Muslims (dhimmi) wear distinguishing marks on their clothing. The Pact of Umar, attributed to his father, had many injunctions against non-Muslims. In 847-861, Caliph Al-Mutawakkil had Christians wear honey-colored patches, on both the front and back of their clothes. In 887, the governor of the Emirate of Sicily had Jews wear special hats and yellow belts.

The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 said Jews should at all times be denoted by their clothing, and in 1222, Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton ordered English Jews to wear a white band. Distinguishing marks were ordered for Jews by the Synod of Narbonne (1227), by James I of Aragon (1228), and by Alfonso X of Castile (1265).

In 1274, King Edward I in England enacted a second Statute of Jewry, which ordered a badge of yellow felt six inches long by three inches wide to be worn. The yellow color was used in 1315 for the Jews of Granada, in 1321 by Henry II of Castile, and decreed in 1415 by a bull of Antipope Benedict XIII (men wore it on their breast, women on their forehead).

Jews in Venice wore yellow, but in 1528 a special dispensation was given to the physician Jacob Mantino ben Samuel to wear a regular black doctor's cap instead of anything yellow.

In 1710, King of Prussia Frederick William I abolished the mandatory yellow badge in Prussia. This was not an act of charity: he required 8000 thaler (the equivalent of over $75,000 today) from each person who wished to no longer wear the badge.

So what was the deal with Jacob Mantino ben Samuel? I'll explain next time.

The Waldensian Movement

The Waldensians are a Christian protestant group that originated in the Middle Ages and still exists, having survived—sometimes through severe persecution—for 800 years.

There was a time when they claimed to be older, claiming that they were established when St. Paul traveled to Spain. (Romans 15:15:23-28: “But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions , and since I have been longing for many years to visit you,  I plan to do so when I go to Spain.") Some Waldensian groups believed they were founded in the tome of Constantine. Others claimed their origin with certain known reformers such as Claudius of Turin (a Carolingian reformer and iconoclast) or Berengarius of Tours, an intellectual at the cathedral school of Chartres in the 11th century. These have been debunked in favor of the real founder, Peter Waldes (although there are questions about him, as well).

Waldensians started in the 1170s in Lyon in France, supposedly when Waldes, a wealthy merchant, had a personal conversion moment and decided to give away all his personal property and started preaching "apostolic poverty" as the true way to perfection in Christianity. The Church agreed with their choice of poverty, but did not like that Waldensians rejected the authority of local bishops. Nor did Waldensians care for the Church's opinion on who was fit to preach. They also rejected many of the trappings of the Church not found in the Bible: indulgences, the Mass, purgatory, and the papacy.

The Waldensians were declared heretical by 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council (Canon 3 of the Council was about them and the Albigensians and Cathars). Persecution had already: more than 80 of the sect had been burned in Strasbourg. Pope Innocent III offered them (and the Cathars) to return to the Church's good graces by giving up some of their more radical ideas; those who did were renamed "Poor Catholics." Those who did not were subject to persecution, along with any other reform-based movement that did not conform.

1251 saw Waldensians in Toulouse massacred and the town burned down. Twenty-two villages in Provence were massacred when King Francis I of France decided to punish religious dissenters.

Later centuries saw worse treatment of the Waldensians. Pope Innocent VIII issued a bull for their extermination in 1487. The archdeacon of Cremona organized a crusade in the Piedmont that devastated the area and caused many to flee, until the Duke of Savoy intervened to prevent the further turmoil in his lands.

Besides persecution, however, they also embodied perseverance. These "proto-Protestants" are distinguished from the Protestant movements o the Renaissance because they did not record formal arguments against established Church doctrine, choosing to keep their practices simple and Bible-based. They persisted, and the 16th century found them most closely aligned with Calvinism.

Even after that, in January 1655, a less-admirable Duke of Savoy tortured and killed hundreds of Waldensians in what is called the Piedmont Easter. Twenty years later Louis XIV of France began a campaign to force Waldensians to become Catholics. A few years later, three days of combat resulted in 8000 surviving Waldensians (2000 were killed) thrown into prison.

It was not until 1848 that the Edict of Emancipation gave the Waldensian Church legal and political freedom. Pope Francis visited the Waldensian Church in Turin, Italy and apologized for the past actions of the Church.

Their logo (shown here) has a Latin motto that means "a light shining in darkness."

Tomorrow I want to tell you more about their origin, and their founder.

The Fifth Crusade

Were the Crusades successful? If the objective as stated was to put Jerusalem under Christian rule and maintain that rule, then the Crusades were a failure. Some of them never even made it to Jerusalem.

The Fifth Crusade was called by Pope Innocent III during the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, intending it to start in 1217. It lasted until 1221, but although it was carefully organized and well-staffed, its strategy was flawed.

To be fair, the strategy seemed like a good idea at the time: sail to Egypt and attack, conquering what they believed to be an easier Muslim-controlled target. The Crusaders could then use Egypt as a staging area to attack the Holy Land. To make a long story short, the first of the Crusading fleet reached the Nile harbor town of Damietta on 27 May, 1218, and waited a few days for others to catch up. (It was not unusual that storms separated the ships, and so they did not all arrive simultaneously.) The most dynamic defender of that part of the world, Saladin, had died in 1193; his brother al-Adil took up the role of defender. al-Adil preferred to manage non-Muslims with treaties rather than jihad, and was disappointed in the Crusaders' next action.

The Siege of Damietta began on 23 June, but the town of Damietta had strong stone walls and a large stone tower that secured a chain across the mouth of the harbor to defend against ships. The first assault failed when scaling ladders collapsed and the town defended itself with a barrage of stones. The next day, however, the main tower was breached, the chain was cut, and ships could enter the Nile. al-Adil's son, al-Kamil, scuttled several ships upriver from the mouth of the Nile, preventing the Crusader ships from sailing further.

The Crusaders then built a floating fortress to use on the river, but a storm on 9 November blew it toward the Egyptian camp, whereupon the Egyptians overtook it and slaughtered all but two Crusaders. The two survivors were executed by the Crusade leaders for cowardice, having managed to escape the assault.

At this point, al-Adil's sons, al-Kamil and al-Mu'azzam, made an offer: we will give up Jerusalem to you (with two small exceptions) if you evacuate Egypt. You would think this was a direct route to their goal, but something—or rather someone—stood in the way. I will address that next.

The Holy Land Decrees

Desiring with an ardent desire to liberate the Holy Land from the hands of the ungodly, we decree with the advice of prudent men who are fully familiar with the circumstances of the times, and with the approval of the council, that all who have taken the cross and have decided to cross the sea, hold themselves so prepared that they may, on June 1 of the year after next (1217), come together in the Kingdom of Sicily, some at Brundusium and others at Messana, where, God willing, we (the Pope) will be present personally to order and to bestow on the Christian army the divine and Apostolic blessing. [link, bottom of the page]

Thus begins the Holy Land Decrees at the end of the Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. Pope Innocent was extremely motivated to call for a Crusade, not only because he was the pope, and restoring Jerusalem to Christian rule was important to him, but also because of the disaster that was the Fourth Crusade that got sidetracked and ransacked Constantinople in 1204. The Crusade effort needed to be carefully organized to avoid that outcome. The Decree continues:

Moreover, that nothing connected with the affairs of our Lord Jesus Christ be omitted, we wish and command that patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots, and others who have the care of souls, diligently explain the meaning of the crusade to those committed to them...

The Council wanted to make sure the Crusaders were absolutely committed to the goal, in order to prevent being sidetracked. The Decree went a little further, and you have to give them credit for thinking ahead. Getting to the Holy Land from Europe meant going by water (an overland march would take many months), and travel by water had its own dangers:

Since the corsairs and pirates too vehemently impede assistance to the Holy Land by capturing and robbing those who go there and those returning, we excommunicate them and their principal abetters and protectors, 

...and because no one wants any global distractions:

But, since for the success of this undertaking it is above all else necessary that princes and Christian people maintain peace among themselves, we decree with the advice of the holy council that for four years peace be observed in the whole Christian world,

So...with all this preparation, why does the graphic above show no Crusade taking place in 1217? What happened to the Fifth Crusade? See you tomorrow.

Jews and the Fourth Lateran

The Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages did not invent persecution of the Jews, but it worked hard to perfect it. The final four of the 70 Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 dealt specifically with Jews (and Saracens; pagans also get an honorable mention).

Canon 67 intended to protect "Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews," by which they meant being charged interest. The charging of "immoderate interest" would result in being denied the custom of Christians. Christians would likewise be compelled by "ecclesiastical censure" from doing business with Jews.

Canon 68 insisted that Jews and Saracens wear clothing that distinguishes them, so that there could be no mistake of a Christian, say wooing a non-Christian. The Synod of Narbonne in 1227 ruled:

That Jews may be distinguished from others, we decree and emphatically command that in the center of the breast (of their garments) they shall wear an oval badge, the measure of one finger in width and one half a palm in height. [link]

This was also justified by quoting Numbers 15:37-41, the rule to wear tassels with blue cords on the corners of garments as a constant reminder of the Lord's commandments.

Canon 69 forbade a Jew from holding any office that would give him authority over Christians.

The final Canon addresses Jews who have converted, declaring that they must not be allowed to return to their former lives. It "cleverly" quoted the Old Testament in junction against wearing clothing made from two different fibers [Deuteronomy 22:2], comparing it to the converted trying to live two lives by not completely abandoning the old one.

And that wrapped up the Fourth Lateran, except for an "Epilogue"—a series of decrees about the Holy Land—which was of particular importance to Pope Innocent because of what happened a decade earlier; but that's for tomorrow.

Consanguinity

The word "consanguinity" comes from Latin consanguinitas ["blood relation"], and refers to having a close kinship with someone through a common ancestor. Laws of consanguinity—determining the degree of consanguinity allowed for marriage—varied from time to time and place to place

The early Catholic Church followed Roman civil law, which stated that couples within four degrees of consanguinity were forbidden to wed. This was determined by generations: you would count up the family tree to a common ancestor, and then down to the intended spouse. In the 800s this was changed to seven degrees by the church, and was determined by counting back seven generations. This meant that you could not marry if you had the same grandfather (or grandmother), great-grandfather, g-g-grandfather, etc., back seven generations. You could not marry a cousin, second-cousin, third-cousin, right up to seventh-cousin.

This made finding. spouse increasingly difficult, and dispensations by the church were becoming more and more frequent. The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 decided to deal with this by pulling back so that fourth cousins could marry at will.

Which brings me to Canon 50 of the Fourth Lateran, where the above change is stated and defended. But here's the funny part. In order to make a change to the rules of consanguinity, the Canon begins by stating that human statutes change over time, and after all God Himself changed things in the New Testament from what had been decreed in the Old Testament. With this reasoning, they state the change in the rules, after which it is stated:

Since therefore the prohibition of conjugal union is restricted to the fourth degree, we wish that it remain so in perpetuum, notwithstanding the decrees already issued relative to this matter either by others or by ourselves [Canon 50]

So...statutes can change, and that's why we can change this one, but it better never change again!

And speaking of laws that have changed, they also made some laws concerning Jews, which we will look at next.

The Fourth Lateran

Debate during the 4th Lateran Council

Despite Peter Lombard's Sententiæ making the case for marriage not needing an officiant or consummation, the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 changed all that.

Pope Innocent III spent years arranging the Council. His purpose was to make necessary reforms, and to commit to liberating the Holy Land from non-Christian rule. Innocent wanted to make sure that the changes made were disseminated across all of Christendom, so hundreds of representatives were invited from all dioceses and abbeys. Seventy Canons resulted, covering topics from Jews not holding office to marriage to not appointing competent persons to the priesthood. The decisions on marriage are today's topic.

It is not until Canon 50 (of a total of 70) that marriage is first discussed, regarding consanguinity. Canon 51 is our focus today, however, since it addresses the idea of clandestine marriage. A brief summary says:

Clandestine marriages and witness to them by a priest are forbidden. Marriages ... must be published in the churches by the priests so that, if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. If doubt exists, let the contemplated marriage be forbidden till the matter is cleared up. [link]

The canon declares that any children of a union not properly contracted/announced/witnessed be considered illegitimate. Also, a priest who performs such a union without first assuring that no impediment to the union exists should be suspended for three years. On the other hand, if someone were to try maliciously to create or falsify an impediment, the perpetrator should be punished.

Tomorrow we will go back to Canon 50 and the consideration of consanguinity.