The papacy also took more control of indulgences. Lateran IV limited the abilities of bishops, plenary indulgences being a prerogative of the pope. The papacy then created the Jubilee ibdulgence. The Council of Basel issued its own indulgences, but no later council attempted to do so.
Tom Izbicki
An often overlooked third motivation for legislated prohibition by both religious and secular institutions is to reserve the prohibited behavior or activity for the exclusive use of the prohibiting authority. Consider, for example, homicide, forbidden to all but the governing authority for capital punishment and war. Consider also taxation, a legitimate activity of the governing authority but generally forbidden to the populace and violators are called extortionists. The exclusive right to create money (coins and banknotes) is another example.
In the medieval Christian context a very interesting case study is the history of canonization of saints. Originally a prerogative of bishops, eventually bishops were prohibited from conferring sainthood and the process was centralized under the exclusive decision making authority of the Pontiff. A good review of the history with an extensive bibliography is Jason A. Gray’s The Evolution of the Promoter of the Faith in Causes of Beatification and Canonization: a Study of the Law of 1917 and 1983. See: http://www.jgray.org/docs/Promotor_Fidei_lulu.pdf
Cheers,
Richard J Legault
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and cultureThere seems to be a presumption, or perhaps it is a hermeneutical principle, that repeated prohibitions of certain behaviour indicate that the behaviour in question is an ongoing problem. So, for example, if the legislation of a religious institution repeatedly provides punishments for homosexual behaviour or the possession of private property, it is safe to conclude that homosexual activity or private wealth are common misbehaviours in that institution or in that period.********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: subscribe medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: unsubscribe medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/medieval-religion
I'm wondering if a particular author or authors proposed this interpretation? Ot is it simply a common-sense assumption? Could anyone direct me to relevant bibliography?
Do you think there is any merit in an alternative explanation that such legislation may be not so much -- or not only -- a response to recurring offences but an expression of fears and anxieties. In other words, that such legislation might have a character that is more deterrent than reactive? In the above cases could it be an expression of homophobia, or anxieties about inequality, as much as clear evidence of infringements? Is there bibliography along these lines?
Just wondering. I'd be most grateful if anyone has any comments. -- Paul Chandler
--
Paul Chandler, O.Carm.
Holy Spirit Seminary | PO Box 18 (487 Earnshaw Road) | Banyo Qld 4014 | Australia
office: (07) 3267 4804 | mobile: 044 882 4996
[log in to unmask]