Assessing Thomas Becket

Tomorrow is the 850th anniversary of Thomas Becket's death. Over the years I have heard mixed things about him.

These are the following arguments given forward to removing Becket from the saint list.

1) He wasn't a martyr to the faith in the sense that we might think of martyrdom. His biggest quarrel with King Henry II was over whether clergy should be held accountable to secular courts. Today, he might be dismissed as an extreme clericalist for insisting that the earthly political realm should not have authority over clergy when they commit crimes.

2) Becket's sainthood was more due to the fact that his shrine had a reputation for miracles and not because the laity of the time thought he was a great saint. Today at least in the CofE, saints are honoured because they have led exemplary lives and not because of miracles attributed to his intercession after death (Low church anglicans themselves would object to the very notion of the intercession of the saints)
«13

Comments

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Tomorrow is the 850th anniversary of Thomas Becket's death. Over the years I have heard mixed things about him.

    These are the following arguments given forward to removing Becket from the saint list.

    1) He wasn't a martyr to the faith in the sense that we might think of martyrdom. His biggest quarrel with King Henry II was over whether clergy should be held accountable to secular courts. Today, he might be dismissed as an extreme clericalist for insisting that the earthly political realm should not have authority over clergy when they commit crimes.

    I've always found it rather amusing that T.S. Eliot thought he was presenting his audience with some disquieting moral dilemma when he had one of the murderers say something like "You might be shocked by what we have just done, but if you support the subordination of the Church to the State, well, we're the guys who got that started."

    To which I would reply: "Damn right I support the subordination of
    the Church to the State, and since political killing was an accepted fact of life in those days, good job, boys."
  • Tomorrow is the 850th anniversary of Thomas Becket's death. Over the years I have heard mixed things about him.

    These are the following arguments given forward to removing Becket from the saint list.

    1) He wasn't a martyr to the faith in the sense that we might think of martyrdom. His biggest quarrel with King Henry II was over whether clergy should be held accountable to secular courts. Today, he might be dismissed as an extreme clericalist for insisting that the earthly political realm should not have authority over clergy when they commit crimes.

    2) Becket's sainthood was more due to the fact that his shrine had a reputation for miracles and not because the laity of the time thought he was a great saint. Today at least in the CofE, saints are honoured because they have led exemplary lives and not because of miracles attributed to his intercession after death (Low church anglicans themselves would object to the very notion of the intercession of the saints)

    My favorite authority on Church/State relations is John Courtney Murray, S.J. ...

    His thesis was that the authority of the Church is purely Spiritual rather than Secular, but therefore is the superior authority with the right and duty to command the State to do its duty ...
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    I'm just thankful for the collateral benefit of Chaucer.
  • The most interesting thing I read about Becket was in John Guy's biography.
    Despite his youthful and intense relationship with Richer de l'Aigle (which worried his Mum and various others) ... if he had been gay it would have been well known and used against him by his many opponents.
    But it wasn't.
    So he wasn't.
    His sexual restraint, propriety, modesty (or what ever you want to call it) with both women and men was remarkable and worthy of imitation. Even today.
  • Why is it worthy of imitation?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    I guess your question, Quetzalcoatl, makes Galilit's point.
  • Because ... men
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Not good enough as an answer. It's simply a projection.

    This raises another question, in that I would suggest that saints are, in fact, inherently focuses of projection. They receive the projections of our best selves, and reflect those projections back to us, as one means of our being reminded that we are at least capable of good as well as evil.

    So maybe I would expend the answer to be "because of the evil of which men are capable, and which they too frequently commit," and extend the question to " Why is sainthood a useful and powerful concept in spiritual life?"
  • Galilit wrote: »
    Because ... men

    As opposed to women?
  • At least he wasn't gay.
  • "because of the evil of which men are capable, and which they too frequently commit,"

    Yes, that's it

  • EigonEigon Shipmate
    One of the three knights who murdered Becket eventually retired to a village near here, according to legend. They were apparently sentenced to 20 years fighting in the Holy Land as penance for the murder, and when they came back, they'd pretty much been forgotten about.
  • Why is it worthy of imitation?

    It's preferable to promiscuity.
  • What's wrong with promiscuity, provided it's carried out in a specific and limited way?
    :wink:
  • Telford wrote: »
    Why is it worthy of imitation?

    It's preferable to promiscuity.

    How do you know?
  • :lol:

    I didn't like to ask...
    :naughty:
  • :lol:

    I didn't like to ask...
    :naughty:

    Are there photos?
  • O I do hope so...
    :innocent:
  • O I do hope so...
    :innocent:

    I don't. :confounded:
  • Ah, but I didn't say I wanted to see them...
  • 1) He wasn't a martyr to the faith in the sense that we might think of martyrdom. His biggest quarrel with King Henry II was over whether clergy should be held accountable to secular courts. Today, he might be dismissed as an extreme clericalist for insisting that the earthly political realm should not have authority over clergy when they commit crimes.

    2) Becket's sainthood was more due to the fact that his shrine had a reputation for miracles and not because the laity of the time thought he was a great saint. Today at least in the CofE, saints are honoured because they have led exemplary lives and not because of miracles attributed to his intercession after death (Low church anglicans themselves would object to the very notion of the intercession of the saints)
    1. I'm not seeing a huge difference between being "a martyr to the faith" and "being killed for upholding the doctrine of the faith (as it existed at the time)".
      -
    2. Why is the opinion of the laity important? The church isn't a democracy, and the twelfth/thirteenth century church was even less so. No one runs for saint. It's not an elected position.
  • Parenthetically, think Jean Anouilh's Beckett is vastly superior to Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral.
  • Archbishop - tick
    Murdered - tick
    Murdered for standing up for the church - tick
    Murdered in a church - tick

    ... I'd be surprised if anyone fulfilled all those four criteria and didn't become a saint, it's kinda inevitable.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    yohan300 wrote: »
    Archbishop - tick
    Murdered - tick
    Murdered for standing up for the church - tick
    Murdered in a church - tick

    ... I'd be surprised if anyone fulfilled all those four criteria and didn't become a saint, it's kinda inevitable.

    That's really only three criteria. If you tick off boxes 3 and 4 you're automatically going to tick off box 2.

    An even more pedantic question is whether today (29 December 2020) is actually the 850th anniversary of the [ murder / assassination / martyrdom ] of Becket. The date given is in the Julian calendar. If the Gregorian calendar had existed at the time, Becket's death (however classified) would have fallen on 5 January 1171. Calendar reform makes such a mess of concepts like "anniversaries".
  • One could argue that Henry's real punishment was the way his sons grew up.

    Stating that clergy should not be subject to secular authority is not a matter of faith but of order, whatever interpretation you give to the commands to Peter and the disciples about keys, loosing, binding and so on. It was designed to protect the Church from rulers who wanted to control their local hierarchy which, in France and elsewhere, was regularly done. Why else were the Papal States invaded so often, or the Papacy moved to Avignon where the French King could keep an eye on passing Popes (some time later, I know, but also consider wars with the Holy Roman Emperor).

    I know nothing of his supposed exemplary lifestyle, and the speed of his canonisation seems to reflect a political decision rather than a careful and cautious examination of Becket's other claims to sanctity. However, I'm sure that worse decisions were made in the 12th century.
  • What on earth got into Trump? Doesn't he have the getting rid of turbulent troublemakers personality himself?

  • Well, sighs of relief all round - especially from Thomas B in Heaven (if there he be, and if such a place there be). but not perhaps from Henry II (where're he be).

    Good to know that Mr Trump has nothing more pressing to do with his time.

    Like packing his bags...
  • Caissa wrote: »
    Parenthetically, think Jean Anouilh's Beckett is vastly superior to Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral.

    Fun question for historians: Which is worse in terms of historical accuracy, Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral or Shakespeare's Richard III?

  • Well, sighs of relief all round - especially from Thomas B in Heaven (if there he be, and if such a place there be). but not perhaps from Henry II (where're he be).

    Good to know that Mr Trump has nothing more pressing to do with his time.

    Like packing his bags...

    This is the kind of thing that gets suggested by the resident intellectual at the White House, maybe someone hired away from a think-tank, or an intern recently graduated from some right-wing Catholic university.

    And while I am not an expert on medieval religion(so correct me if I'm wrong)...

    The proclamation makes it sound as if Becket was comparable to someone like a house-church leader being persecuted by the Chinese Communists in the contemporary era. But I don't think that's really accurate, since the Church in Becket's day was not simply a bunch of independent actors going about their own business and trying to worship God in their own way: they enjoyed a privileged connection with the state to begin with.




  • No, you're right - though there was a considerable amount of persecution of various groups going on in Becket's time (the Cathars spring to mind).


  • Well, sighs of relief all round - especially from Thomas B in Heaven (if there he be, and if such a place there be). but not perhaps from Henry II (where're he be).

    Good to know that Mr Trump has nothing more pressing to do with his time.

    Like packing his bags...
    NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 29, 2020, as the 850th anniversary of the martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket.

    What was the point in proclaiming an anniversary that has been marked for over 800 years? Perhaps he was annoyed that Alexander III got there before him?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Who can tell? The man is barking mad...

    If someone presented him with a proclamation to the effect that the Moon is made of green cheese, he'd probably sign the paper (as long as it had his name on it).
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    [*] Why is the opinion of the laity important? The church isn't a democracy, and the twelfth/thirteenth century church was even less so. No one runs for saint. It's not an elected position.
    Well, seems to me it’s the opinion of the laity that usually gets the ball rolling, and certainly did then. The faithful treated the deceased as a saint, and the bishop noticed and advanced the cause to Rome—especially if there was money to be made through pilgrimage.

  • I think that Becket was a martyr for religious liberty in the important sense that, once your enemies decide the best way to answer you is to chop your head off they have, in a fairly important sense, conceded the argument. He clearly wasn't a martyr for religious liberty in the "I do not believe in what you say..." sense. Macaulay speaks somewhere of people who were great men, regardless of party. Personally, I am completely team Henry II on the criminous clerk question but I believe that Becket was brave and honourable and should not have been murdered. To paraphrase Churchill on Neville Chamberlain he may have been wrong but he marches, always, in the ranks of honour.

    My faith is not always what it could be these days, but, Holy Thomas, Pro Nobis.
  • It's hard to appreciate the late-12th C *world view* from the first quarter of the 21st C!
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    [*] Why is the opinion of the laity important? The church isn't a democracy, and the twelfth/thirteenth century church was even less so. No one runs for saint. It's not an elected position.
    Well, seems to me it’s the opinion of the laity that usually gets the ball rolling, and certainly did then. The faithful treated the deceased as a saint, and the bishop noticed and advanced the cause to Rome—especially if there was money to be made through pilgrimage.

    In this case, canonisation took place on 21 February 1173, either 14 or 26 months after Thomas' death. It was one of the fastest canonisations in history. Hardly time for a popular movement to reach the ears of the Pope in Rome, I would have thought.
  • I guess Trump's proclamation is designed to appeal to the religious right; that is how it looks as though it is meant to be taken. But I wonder if it really does? I guess right-wing Catholics might be fans. But it's not obvious that evangelicals would be super-keen on a world-view emphasising the overarching international authority of the Catholic Church.
  • It's hard to appreciate the late-12th C *world view* from the first quarter of the 21st C!

    One of the facebook commentators wrote that the Becket controversy was a "battle between the tyranny of the King and the tyranny of the Church." Hardly an attractive controversy from a modern liberal democratic perspective.
  • Callan wrote: »
    I think that Becket was a martyr for religious liberty in the important sense that, once your enemies decide the best way to answer you is to chop your head off they have, in a fairly important sense, conceded the argument. He clearly wasn't a martyr for religious liberty in the "I do not believe in what you say..." sense.

    Right. But someone reading the White House proclamation and nothing else would assume that Becket was a martyr in the second sense.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    [*] Why is the opinion of the laity important? The church isn't a democracy, and the twelfth/thirteenth century church was even less so. No one runs for saint. It's not an elected position.
    Well, seems to me it’s the opinion of the laity that usually gets the ball rolling, and certainly did then. The faithful treated the deceased as a saint, and the bishop noticed and advanced the cause to Rome—especially if there was money to be made through pilgrimage.

    In this case, canonisation took place on 21 February 1173, either 14 or 26 months after Thomas' death. It was one of the fastest canonisations in history. Hardly time for a popular movement to reach the ears of the Pope in Rome, I would have thought.
    Sounds like plenty of time to me, depending on how quickly that popular movement began and was noticed. From what I’ve read, the Via Francigena could generally be walked in 3 months or less, and boat would be faster.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    I guess Trump's proclamation is designed to appeal to the religious right; that is how it looks as though it is meant to be taken. But I wonder if it really does? I guess right-wing Catholics might be fans. But it's not obvious that evangelicals would be super-keen on a world-view emphasising the overarching international authority of the Catholic Church.

    Well, it's interesting, because this proclamation is the sort of thing that, for obvious reasons, appeals to intellectuals. And while the evangelical community is not totally bereft of intellectuals, it remains the case that the more intellectual you are, the more likely you are to know that Becket's status as a martyr is very much rooted in the interests and worldview of the Catholic Church.

    Sure, there are a lot of middle and low-brow con-evos who, if given only a thumbnail sketch of Becket's story, would think "Wow, he was being persecuted just like we're being persecuted today by de gayz and de Demokrats", but those people are unlikely to ever hear about Becket to begin with.

    Probably the envisioned target for this was Catholics with a parochial school or other religious education, people who would have been taught about Becket, or at least heard his name.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Why is the opinion of the laity important? The church isn't a democracy, and the twelfth/thirteenth century church was even less so.
    For the first thousand years or so of the church people were considered saints based on popular acclamation. As part of the centralisation of the church and separation of the church from the control of lay rulers the Popes tried to rule that only the Pope and suitably delegated councillors had the authority to declare saints. The attempt to clean up the Roman calendar to an officially respectable standard was I believe ongoing until well into the twentieth century. (Local congregations tended to disregard the news that the holy woman they'd been revering as a saint for a century wasn't properly authorised.)
    Crœsos wrote: »
    The date given is in the Julian calendar. If the Gregorian calendar had existed at the time, Becket's death (however classified) would have fallen on 5 January 1171. Calendar reform makes such a mess of concepts like "anniversaries".
    Looking at your date I presume you've allowed for the fact that the Julian calendar hadn't drifted quite as far off the equinoxes in Becket's time as it had by the time the Gregorian calendar was actually introduced?
  • I guess Trump's proclamation is designed to appeal to the religious right; that is how it looks as though it is meant to be taken. But I wonder if it really does? I guess right-wing Catholics might be fans. But it's not obvious that evangelicals would be super-keen on a world-view emphasising the overarching international authority of the Catholic Church.
    Right-wing evangelicals seem to have no problem making common cause with right-wing Catholics in opposing their secular enemies, and they'd all be very enthusiastic about Becket's position on religious exemptions from laws of general application.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    [*] Why is the opinion of the laity important? The church isn't a democracy, and the twelfth/thirteenth century church was even less so. No one runs for saint. It's not an elected position.[/list]

    A huge difference between east and west. In the east, very often the laity will start venerating someone, create an icon and appropriate hymns (troparion and kontakion) and eventually the bishops catch up and the person is declared a saint. Then again we have no Bollandists and no Congregation for the Causes of Saints.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    [*] Why is the opinion of the laity important? The church isn't a democracy, and the twelfth/thirteenth century church was even less so. No one runs for saint. It's not an elected position.[/list]

    A huge difference between east and west. In the east, very often the laity will start venerating someone, create an icon and appropriate hymns (troparion and kontakion) and eventually the bishops catch up and the person is declared a saint. Then again we have no Bollandists and no Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

    Wonder if the Eastern Orthodox have ever weighed in on Thomas Becket?
  • Dave W wrote: »
    I guess Trump's proclamation is designed to appeal to the religious right; that is how it looks as though it is meant to be taken. But I wonder if it really does? I guess right-wing Catholics might be fans. But it's not obvious that evangelicals would be super-keen on a world-view emphasising the overarching international authority of the Catholic Church.
    Right-wing evangelicals seem to have no problem making common cause with right-wing Catholics in opposing their secular enemies, and they'd all be very enthusiastic about Becket's position on religious exemptions from laws of general application.

    In a similar vein, the Wee Free nutters who control Comhairle Nan Eilean-Siar have found one point of agreement with the RCC - commending the RC sex ed materials (which, among other things, don't even give children vocabulary for their own body parts until P6) and denouncing those endorsed by the Scottish Government. Fortunately they have no ability to dictate to schools on this.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Callan wrote: »
    I think that Becket was a martyr for religious liberty in the important sense that, once your enemies decide the best way to answer you is to chop your head off they have, in a fairly important sense, conceded the argument. He clearly wasn't a martyr for religious liberty in the "I do not believe in what you say..." sense.

    Right. But someone reading the White House proclamation and nothing else would assume that Becket was a martyr in the second sense.

    Yeah, well, if you take your history from politicians you deserve to be ignorant. Someone on Twitter posted a proclamation by King Henry VIII, on the murder of Becket and the responsibility of Henry II, the gist of which was that my client regrets his unchivalrous behaviour but the witness for the prosecution was, to be fair, wearing a very short skirt.

    Whatever TAB died for it wasn't to be a useful party to a controversy centuries after his death.

  • mousethief wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    [*] Why is the opinion of the laity important? The church isn't a democracy, and the twelfth/thirteenth century church was even less so. No one runs for saint. It's not an elected position.[/list]

    A huge difference between east and west. In the east, very often the laity will start venerating someone, create an icon and appropriate hymns (troparion and kontakion) and eventually the bishops catch up and the person is declared a saint. Then again we have no Bollandists and no Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

    Wonder if the Eastern Orthodox have ever weighed in on Thomas Becket?

    We don't presume to consecrate people who weren't Orthodox.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    [*] Why is the opinion of the laity important? The church isn't a democracy, and the twelfth/thirteenth century church was even less so. No one runs for saint. It's not an elected position.[/list]

    A huge difference between east and west. In the east, very often the laity will start venerating someone, create an icon and appropriate hymns (troparion and kontakion) and eventually the bishops catch up and the person is declared a saint. Then again we have no Bollandists and no Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

    Wonder if the Eastern Orthodox have ever weighed in on Thomas Becket?

    We don't presume to consecrate people who weren't Orthodox.

    Or to clarify, would they have sided with the King over the Archbishop, am thinking particularly of the view by the west, that the Orthodox would believe the clergy to be subject to the authority of the emperor?
Sign In or Register to comment.