Monks etc

[martin goddard]

Conn Iguldden (Dunstan), Bernard Cornwell (priest killer) and others often portray Dark ages  clergy as corrupt, perverted and possessing other "bad characteristics". Some notable exceptions, but their good character is the exception.

Is this a simple plot device or a fair generalisation of dark ages clergy?
Friar tuck was a good man, but the rest of the clergy in the stories are seriously bad.
Even the bishop of Bath and Wells in Black Adder is a colossal pervert by his own admission.

The popes down the ages are a pretty rum lot too; but of their time?
Of course the uncovering of crimes committed by church men of the present helps support this?

martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

Maybe only the bad guys made it into the history books?

I quite like the idea of deploying a berserker band of mad bishops though!

Simon

[Mike6t3]

Bernard Cornwell had an unhappy upbringing in a religious establishment which no doubt coloured his opinion of the church. I'm sure other authors have had similar experiences.
Most large organisations have bad apples in their respective barrels so I would imagine that the church was no exception. Most senior church appointments were political rather than spiritual so being holy/good wasn't a requirement. The genuinely "good" clergy were most likely the unsung lower ranks who dilligently went about their duty and received no acknowledgement.
Like politicians we expect the church to be holier than holy and are outraged when this isn't the case. We forget that they are just human and have the same failings as everyone else. Not that it justifies abuse of power etc
So to answer the question, yes probably a plot device but not always an inaccurate one.



Mike

[mellis1644]

I suspect much of the lay clergy - the village priest etc were at times good for the locals. After all they lived with the people and without some level of decent people the church would have struggled a lot more than it did. However, many of these guys would likely not be that literate so what they actually taught may be quite different than the Christianity that we know today...

But the church was the destination for a lot of lower order (3rd 4th etc.) sons of nobles who did not want a military lifestyle in the Dark ages/medieval period. I suspect some of those were more in it for the career and what they could get from the lifestyle than as a calling. After all the church was getting a lot of political power, property and wealth. So, how good those were and much they played politics etc well...

We know there was a lot of politics even in the early church and it's always been there so I suspect the higher you got in the orgs the more questionable you my find the majority of the people. 

That said the monk life etc was fairly harsh and so you would need to do the right services and the charitable duties of being a member. I haver never seen comments of mass faking of that type of thing.