 Online College and University Degree Guide
| It would be easy to see the Counter-Reformation as a failure. However, the issue of the Counter-Reformation's success or otherwise needs to be studied more closely before a conclusion is made and a definition of 'success' needs to be given -as does 'failure'. The role played by the Jesuits, specific individuals and the Council of Trent all need to be assessed.
In 1500 the Catholic Church was supreme in Europe. The power of the pope was total and this was supplemented by the power the Holy Roman Emperor had as the temporal defender of the Catholic Church. Any act that merely hinted at defiance was dealt with swiftly and with severity. John Hus was burnt in Constance for heresy after his safety had been guaranteed and the writings of Erasmus were so vague that they did not attract the attention of the Church hierarchy.
By 1600 the Catholic Church had lost large tracts of land in northern Europe to Protestantism and the major Protestant faiths (John Calvin and Martin Luther) had firmly established themselves and were a direct challenge to the Catholic Church.
During this time the Catholic Church had initiated the Counter Reformation which was aimed at reforming the Church to win back "lost souls". If during the lifetime of the Counter Reformation there were no inroads into the strength of the Protestant faiths then it would be easy to conclude that the Counter Reformation was a failure and if the criteria used to assess failure or otherwise is the extent to which the Church won back lost souls then the Counter Reformation was a failure. However, it would be unwise to use this as the only way of assessing "success" or "failure" as the Catholic Church in 1600 was arguably in a far better condition than it had been in 1500.
In 1500 the Church was riddled with corruption. Those at the top indulged in nepotism, power politics and failed to give the Church a lead. The priests at the bottom were frequently very poor in terms of quality and had to attend to more than one parish and as such could not attend to their "flock" with any degree of success or commitment. By 1600 the Church was in a much better position to fulfill its role to those who remained Catholic. Nepotism had been all but eradicated, priests had to serve just one parish as pluralism was ended and the quality of the popes as spiritual leaders has vastly improved. All this a occurred as a result of the Counter Reformation and more especially the Council of Trent.
This series of meetings upheld the power of the pope and in theory if the pope was a poor leader exhibiting the ‘qualities’ of past popes the Church would have suffered accordingly. However, from 1560 on the overall quality of the popes meant that the church itself benefited as more money was invested in projects that benefited the people as opposed to keeping the pope and his advisors in a luxurious lifestyle. Money was invested in new seminaries so that new priests were educated thus emphasising the drive towards a quality Church with quality personnel.
New organisations (though small in scale) also helped those who had frequently been ignored by the Church or used purely as a source of revenue - the poor. These organisations went into the poorest communities to help educate the young and give medical assistance to those who needed it. Even leper colonies were attended to. This helped re-establish the church in the minds of the poor in Rome but it has to be stressed that this was a small-scale venture based on the input of individuals or small orders rather than a wholesale campaign by the Catholic Church - though it was the latter that benefited in terms of its reputation improving in certain regions.
The most successful of the new orders was the Jesuits founded by Ignatius Loyola. This order rejected past standards and started with a fresh outlook. The Jesuits put themself at the disposal of the pope and its many successes boosted the status of the popes who could take credit for these successes as the order would not have existed without papal approval. The establishment of Catholicism in the Far East and Latin America was all but entirely due to the Jesuits - though the Church could claim that the increased size of its "flock" demonstrated that the church itself was in a strong position to attract such numbers - Xavier himself is said to have converted 750,000 people in the Far East.
The organisation of the church greatly improved as a result of the Counter Reformation. Its structure was greatly modernised and clarified. The modernised Missal and Breviary gave the church a very clearly stated organisation which left everyone connected with the running of the church very clear as to what had to be done and when. The doctrine of the Church was also clarified during the Council of Trent. That this had not been done pre-1500 was symptomatic of the state of the Church then. By 1600, there was a clearly stated doctrine and rules of organisation which greatly benefited the church even if it did emphasise the differences between the Catholic Church and Protestantism and as such the "lost souls" were not won back.
The authority of the church was also greatly enhanced by the use of the Inquisition though this did enable a pope of ability to enforce his authority which would benefit the Church as a whole if reforms were progressive and aided the Catholic world.
By 1600 the Church had lost large sections of Europe to the Protestants. Therefore an initial assessment of the Counter Reformation would be that it was a failure in that it had not achieved its original aim of eradicating Protestantism and winning back "lost souls".
However, the Church was in a much stronger position to govern the areas still in its control and give the people in that area the spiritual guidance they required. In many senses the Church was smaller in size and authority but ‘leaner and fitter’ in its ability to tend to the Catholics that remained in Europe and who had been converted in the Far East and Latin America. In this sense the Catholic Reformation was far from a failure if it is judged in terms that ignore its geographical extent and compare this last aspect between 1500 and 1600.
If you have any enquiries or notice any problems please contact me at enquiries@historylearningsite.co.uk | |
| © 2000-2008 historylearningsite.co.uk | ||