Sabrah WashingtonCJUS 4870
The relationship between Henry II and the Church was sometimes fractious and sometimes amicable. Through the use of examples and cases discuss the bipartisan relationship with the courts spiritual and secular as lay judges and bishops jointly administered justice across the realm.
In Medieval England the Church was almighty. The dread of going to Hell was genuine and individuals were informed that just the Catholic Church could spare your spirit with the goal that you could go to Heaven. The leader of the Catholic Church was the pope situated in Rome. One of the highest positions in the congregation in Medieval England was the Archbishop of Canterbury and both he and the King typically cooperated.
The king of England couldn’t expel a pope from his position yet popes guaranteed that they could evacuate a king by banishing him – this implied the ruler’s spirit was sentenced to Hell and individuals at that point had the privilege to defy the lord.
For individuals in England, there was dependably the genuine issue – do you comply with the king or the pope? Indeed, this was an issue as the two lords and popes tended to act together as both needed to stay ground-breaking. On several events they fell out – one of these instances included the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, and King Henry II (1162).
. Henry II additionally controlled a great deal of France also. At the point when Henry was in France dealing with issues there, he declared Becket accountable for England – such was his trust in him. Becket turned into Henry’s chancellor – another high position in England after the ruler.
At the point when the Archbishop of Canterbury passed on in 1162, Henry saw the opportunity to give his dear companion considerably more power by naming him Archbishop of Canterbury – an important church position in England. In Henry’s rule, the Church had its own courts and any clergy from the Church could choose to be tried in a Church court as opposed to an illustrious court. He thought with Becket as Archbishop, he would keep his loyalty to the king and provide all power to him, thus the government would not have to struggle for control with the church in decision making.
His faultfinders likewise, expected that as Becket was a dear companion of Henry II, he would not be an autonomous pioneer of the congregation. At first Becket denied the post: “I know your plans for the Church, you will declare claims which I, in the event that I were diocese supervisor, should needs contradict.” Henry demanded and he was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury on the second of June, 1162, and blessed minister the following day. Case 409 shows examples of the growing tension Beckett and Henry II had after Beckett was appointed cleric following his archbishop position the next day. In this example Henry wanted a cleric to be tried in his court, because the man had sexual activity with a girl and even killed her father, but Beckett refused.
In January, 1163, after a long spell in France, Henry II touched base back in England. Henry was informed that, while he had been away, there had been an emotional increment in genuine wrongdoing. The lord’s authorities guaranteed that over a hundred killers had gotten away from their legitimate discipline since they had asserted their entitlement to be attempted in chapel courts. Those that had looked for the benefit of a preliminary in a Church court were not solely priests. Any man who had been prepared by the congregation could be attempted by a congregation court. Indeed, even agents who had been instructed to peruse and compose by the Church yet had not proceeded to wind up ministers had a privilege to a Church court preliminary. This was to a guilty party’s favorable position, as chapel courts couldn’t force disciplines that included viciousness, for example, execution or mutilation. There were a few models of pastorate discovered blameworthy of homicide or theft who just got “profound” disciplines, for example, suspension from office or expulsion from the sacred place.
The King chose that priests discovered liable of genuine violations ought to be given over to his courts. At first, the Archbishop concurred with Henry on this issue and in January 1164, Henry distributed the Clarendon Constitution. Subsequent to conversing with other church pioneers Thomas Becket altered his opinion. Henry was irate when Becket started to state that the congregation ought to hold control of rebuffing its own pastorate. The ruler trusted that Becket had double-crossed him and was resolved to acquire exact retribution.
Not long after Thomas denounced the Constitution of Clarendon, which were 16 articles which denounced the intensity of the congregation courts and the degree the intensity of the ecclesiastical specialist in England at the time, Henry had oust Thomas. The constitutions implied to reestablish the traditions of the domain saw in the rule of Henry I (1100– 35), however their strict explanation surpassed all point of reference. By their arrangements, the King’s assent was required for priests to leave the domain or for legal interests to be made to Rome. The congregation was limited in its forces of expulsion and prohibition and taboo to act against laymen on mystery data. The lord was given the incomes from every empty see and religious communities and permitted tact in the filling of opening. Instances of advowson (church support), church obligation, and land held in lay expense were saved to common courts. The denouement of the Constitution of Clarendon was exceptionally noteworthy in light of the fact that Henry began English custom-based law and its implied law that was connected all through the domain that was basic to all individuals and class.
In case 410, Henry stated that a cleric who was accused of stealing from the church of St. Mary-le-Bow, London, appear before the king’s court. Once again Beckett refused and the man was tried in the church’s courts. After Beckett yet again differ went along case 411 with more inconveniences between the two. De Broi was canon of St. Paul’s, Bedford who had allegedly murdered a knight and went to claim his clergy and successfully cleared himself before the bishop. Simon Fitz Peter, a secular judge of the region was shocked at the outcome and wanted the matter reopened with a vision to prosecute de Broi before the secular court. De Broi refused to stand trial at the secular court because he was stated, “he was not answerable to that court and secondly, his matter had already be resolved.”After Fitz Peter reported the incident to the king he instantly came outraged. Henry confirmed de Broi request, but Beckett pronounced, “That will not be done, for a layman cannot be judges by clerics.” However Beckett did permit a meeting with bishops and lay judges at Canterbury. At this conference it was held that de Broi ought to surrender his prebend for a long time and that in spite of the fact that this added up to discipline more than he merited it was forced on account of the lord’s peace and respect.
Even though Henry II and Beckett fell out after Henry appoint Beckett to the archbishop position it represented more than an argument between the two large egos; it represented the power struggle that was taking place between the Church and State that changed the entire medieval Europe. Which resulted in pope Innocent III decreeing that clergy shall not participate in any judicial proceedings that would cause the spilling of blood. However, he did invent the pivotal division between English common law and continental European civil law that we use today.
Alexander Murray, Excommunication and Conscience in the Middle Ages (2017) <http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198208839.001.0001/acprof-9780198208839-chapter-6> accessed 9 October 2018.
Alixe Bovey, Church in the Middle Ages: from dedication to dissent (2015) <https://www.bl.uk/the-middle-ages/articles/church-in-the-middle-ages-from-dedication-to-dissent> accessed 9 October 2018.
C N Truman, The Medieval Church (2015) <https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval-england/the-medieval-church/> accessed 9 October 2018.
Chris Oehring, King Henry II (2017) <https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/King-Henry-II-of-England/> accessed 10 October 2018.
David Crowther, The Constitutions of Clarendon, 1164 (2012) <https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/resource/the-constitutions-of-clarendon-1164/> accessed 8 October 2018.
Dr Mike Ibeji, Becket, the Church and Henry II (2011) <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/becket_01.shtml> accessed 10 October 2018.
Herbert Thurston, St. Thomas Becket. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. (2018) <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14676a.htm> accessed 10 October 2018.
John Simkin, The Monarchy, the Church and the Barons (2017) <https://spartacus-educational.com/U3Ahistory7.htm> accessed 10 October 2018.
Michael David Knowles, Henry II KING OF ENGLAND (2018) <https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-II-king-of-England> accessed 8 October 2018.
Peter Johnstone, Getting Away with Murder (n.p.: Kendall Hunt, 2017), p. 66.
Simon Newman, Popes in the Middle Ages (2017) <http://www.thefinertimes.com/Middle-Ages/popes-in-the-middle-ages.html> accessed 10 October 2018.
The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, Constitutions of Clarendon (2018) <https://www.britannica.com/event/Constitutions-of-Clarendon> accessed 9 October 2018.
Thomas K. Keefe, Henry II: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-12949;jsessionid=CD92F66932B35DF3585DFB431FBF0B81?docPos=2> accessed 10 October 2018.
Margaret Wood, Constitutions of Clarendon (2014) <https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2014/12/constitutions-of-clarendon/> accessed 10 October 2018.