Geographic Catalysts for Secularization in Western Europe

**Ironduke** · 06 Feb 07,, 01:58

Geographic Catalysts for Secularization in Western Europe
by Ironduke

In the 16th century, right on the heels of the Renaissance, came the Reformation and the creation of the Protestant faiths that was bound to change the world forever. This led to a permanent schism in Western Christendom, and laid the groundwork for many other types of “schisms”, for example, that of the “inner”, private religious sphere, and “outer, public sphere”. In Western Europe, the Protestant Reformation finally and irreversibly served to divide the secular and religious realms within man which enabled the founding of the modern nation-state, capitalism, and the scientific revolution.

From the time of Constantine, Western Europe had been dominated by varying degrees by the Catholic Church. The axioms of the Church regulated almost all aspects of life: moral, economic, and governmental. The practice of religion was mandatory, and all were forced to take part in its communal rituals.

According to Casanova, “The Christian 'church' is only one particular historical type of combination of religious community and political community, which emerged out of the complex encounter of the Christian religious community and the Roman imperial state structure” (Casanova 47). In the early days of the Church, prior to Constantine, Christianity followed the same model which it did prior to its adoption as the Roman state religion. Indeed, it was a very decentralized, personal religion. By adopting the structure of the Roman imperial state, it transformed into something much different than it was when it began. Indeed, as it was ascribed to Jesus, the central figure in the Christian religion, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

With the rise of Protestantism in the 16th century under the leadership of individuals such as Luther and Calvin, the door to today's world was finally opened. “As a state church, the Lutheran Church also partook of this sphere, but Lutheranism introduced the principle of a double morality, a secular one for the “outer” sphere of the office and a Christian one for the “inner” sphere of the person, so that the freedom of “inner religion” was assured (Casanova 33). Not entirely accurate, as “Christendom” had already had this separation of “inner” and “outer” spheres for its first three centuries in which there was a “period of clear separation from the Roman political community and confrontation with the Roman imperial structure was adopted by the Roman Empire as its 'community cult' (47).

It was observed by Max Weber “... the higher grades of skilled labour, and even more the higher technically trained personnel of modern enterprises, are overwhelmingly Protestant” (Weber 35). There is little reason to believe that religion in and of itself has anything to do with this. “The emancipation from economic traditionalism appears, no doubt, to be a factor which would greatly strengthen the tendency to doubt the sanctity of religious tradition, as of all traditional authorities” (Weber 36).

The states where Protestantism took the strongest hold were those that were the most geographically distant from the control of the papacy in Rome within Western Christendom. These nations include Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and England, which had also been linked by trade through the medieval Hanseatic League and shared a common Germanic heritage. One somewhat differing example is that of Switzerland, an area though geographically close to Rome and the Papacy, can be considered “geologically” distant, as it is a mountainous area which favors the defense and would be most difficult to subdue by force of arms. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that ethnic and religious factors are really secondary catalysts and do not denote by any means the superiority of these groups or their systems over any other. Really, it was the inability of the universalist Catholic Church to use force to exact conformity among these peoples.

The foundation for the creation of the modern nation-state, the scientific revolution, and modern capitalism already having been laid, these geographic and geological distances, already providing a large degree of emancipation from Rome and the Italian-centric and controlled papacy, were formalized through the work and teachings of Luther and Calvin during the Reformation. The Catholic-Protestant schism in Western Christendom and the creation of the Calvinist, Lutheran, and Anglican churches helped serve as a catalysts. Indeed, it seems that the geographic distance and introduction of Protestantism served as mutually catalyzing factors. By clearly delineating the “private” inner sphere and “public” outer sphere, the conditions for the Protestant work ethic was created (Weber 41). Indeed, in countries where there was no distinction between these spheres, and mass of the people were directly hostile toward religion (Weber 42).

In conclusion, the dualist structure, the separation of the secular and religious realms as had been outlined in the New Testament and later greatly diminished with the appropriation and adoption of the structure of the Roman imperial state by the Catholic Church, which reemerged in the sixteenth century with the advent of the Protestant Reformation, is what made possible the advent of the Modern Age. One should not view the factors that made this possible in any light other than that they served as catalysts which made the advent of capitalism, the modern nation-state, and the scientific revolution possible, that is, mankind's entry into the Modern Age.

Works Cited

Casanova, Jose. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Weber, Max. 1992. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London,: Routledge.

**zraver** · 06 Feb 07,, 17:07

Undoutably geography could have played an important role. But I don't know if it did in fact play a center or pivotal role.

Perhaps most importantly from a military view point was the endless wars that ravaged Italy during this time. The Popes never really had troops they could use to begin with so all other considerations were ultimately moot. While the monarchies of France and Spain were willing to furnish troops for the Holy See, other states were not.

While the ability to move troops to enforce confomity was important. First you had to have the ability to get those troops into the area with the approval of the local nobility and royalty. In England thanks to a Pope stanging on principles and ex-communicating the king this wasn't going to happen. Likewise the long standing fued between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire limited options in Germany unless the local rules allowed papal troops or supporters in.

**Ironduke** · 06 Feb 07,, 21:48

I never meant to infer it played the central role -- just a catalyzing role which was passingly mentioned in Weber's work that I decided to flesh out a bit.

One glaring oversight -- and what I really meant to infer, is the caesaropapist rulers in Western Europe, the kings and emperors who enforced the "will of the Church" to doubly meet the Church's and their own ends.

The rulers in northern Europe had much less to gain by following the Papacy's edicts... they were already quite lax in enforcing Church doctrine, and their distance from Rome and Papal-aligned states is one factor that helped catalyze the introduction and success of the Protestant Reformation.

**zraver** · 07 Feb 07,, 00:16

Originally Posted by Ironduke

I never meant to infer it played the central role -- just a catalyzing role which was passingly mentioned in Weber's work that I decided to flesh out a bit.

One glaring oversight -- and what I really meant to infer, is the caesaropapist rulers in Western Europe, the kings and emperors who enforced the "will of the Church" to doubly meet the Church's and their own ends.

The rulers in northern Europe had much less to gain by following the Papacy's edicts... they were already quite lax in enforcing Church doctrine, and their distance from Rome and Papal-aligned states is one factor that helped catalyze the introduction and success of the Protestant Reformation.

I can completely agree with that, it also synergizes with the Churchs repeated refusals to reform and the absolute anarchy and hedonism under the Renaissance Popes while Northern Europe was still very conservative. Adding to the decline in the papacy's power was introduction of the gospels into local languages which exposed the worst of the offenses to the lay people.

**GVChamp** · 07 Feb 07,, 23:16

Originally Posted by Ironduke

The rulers in northern Europe had much less to gain by following the Papacy's edicts... they were already quite lax in enforcing Church doctrine, and their distance from Rome and Papal-aligned states is one factor that helped catalyze the introduction and success of the Protestant Reformation.

I'm confused on how exactly the geography is a big force for change. The distance makes the areas less intergrated into Rome and thus less vulnerable to "cultural imperialism" and less susceptible to military interventions, I assume?

**Ironduke** · 08 Feb 07,, 09:22

Originally Posted by GVChamp

I'm confused on how exactly the geography is a big force for change. The distance makes the areas less intergrated into Rome and thus less vulnerable to "cultural imperialism" and less susceptible to military interventions, I assume?

Yes. Physical distance was one of the factors that allowed Protestantism to be established in northern Europe. It is not the sole factor, not even the most important, it's a factor I thought worthy of a paper, decided to focus on, and emphasize as one of many catalysts for the secularization of Western Europe.

Prior to the Reformation, the secular and religious realms were mostly intertwined. They had begun to become unbound during the late Medieval Age and the Renaissance, and the Protestant Reformation was the force that allowed for two completely separate realms, that of the public, scientific, irreligious outer sphere, and the private, superstitious, religious inner sphere.

The states that were able to fight off Catholic countermeasures are those that were best geographically shielded... England defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588, the Dutch eventually threw out the Spaniards, and the Prussians were able to resist the Austrians and French in northern Germany. The Scandinavians didn't really have to fend off anything... Protestant northern Germany served as a buffer. As far as Switzerland is concerned, it is very mountainous, thus giving little chance for the success of offensive measures against it.

States that did not undergo the Reformation (Spain, France, the Italian states, the Austrian Empire, Ireland) underwent either actual or relative decline in the aftermath of the Reformation. The intertwined secular and religious realms, hostile to science, capitalism, etc. retarded their modernization to varying degrees. In France, the Church and its allies worked so hard to repress modernity that there was a huge backlash which nearly resulted in its destruction during the French Revolution. Even today there is strong anti-clericalism and irreligiosity in France due to these centuries of repression.

By forcing these two spheres apart, the Reformation allowed for the advent of the Modern Age.

Keep in mind, when I say secular, I don't mean an irreligious society... a society can be very religious on an individual level but very secular as a society.

**Ray** · 09 Feb 07,, 05:37

The Church was a stabilising factor in the medieval times.

The masses were ignorant and poor and were in the 'grip' of the feudal chieftains. The Church was the only social instrument where the masses found solace of equality (even if the pews maintained the hierarchical difference). The communion with God was on the same plane.

Therefore, the Church played an important role in mind control.

It is a fact that the Human psychology prompts individuals to 'prevail' upon others with their point of view. Having indoctrinated some, the more aggressive becomes the leader and the remainder becomes the group of like minded individuals sharing a common point of view. This group then tries to influence others on a variety of issue and like minded groups having many commonality like language, region etc etc, formed a nation pursuing a common agenda for national improvement. The competitive spirit and the desire to dominate of man led to influencing other nations and when impossible to do so, resorted to physical violence to subjugate. As a nation, such physical violence to subjugate was called war.

Initially, it was the leader of the group or Nation (called the King) who decided the fate of the Nation.

However, the indomitable spirit of domination permeated society and the Church realised the potential of using society to enhance their power (hold over society) and thus became the second power centre running the nation. To give a semblance of quality with the temporal rulers, they assigned themselves with the title, 'Princes of the Church', God being the King. This also reduced the supreme position of the actual King and relegated him below God - the powerful and supreme icon that not even the King could contest.

To ensure through a sleight of hand, the all powerful status of the Church over all mankind, it devised the instruments of Inquisition and Excommunication. This ensured total subjugation of the people. Fear of being shunned by society is a very powerful instrument in mind control.

Having totally made itself supreme, the Church simultaneously commenced acquiring of trappings of power i.e. land and money since discernible 'status' awes the mind of those who observe (and in this case the common man) . Through these methods the Church in actuality became more powerful than the temporal leaders or Kings. The inevitable jockeying for supremacy between the temporal and spiritual leaders was bound to come. The Crusades was but an example of the Church manipulating events to establish itself above all. The Crusades had less to do with the Moslems than with Roman-Byzantine rivalry. The Byzantine model had always been that each bishop, or patriarch, was independent and equal. The Roman model was that the bishop of Rome, the Pope, was supreme. An uneasy alliance kept the Church together until 1064, when the eastern Churches flatly refused to submit to the Pope. This split is called the Great Schism. The Church of Rome had become too powerful, corrupt and dictatorial and hence the indomitable spirit of man as an individual rebelled. While the common man had not the power or influence to rebel, it was left to the ‘leaders of society’ to be in the vanguard and since the temporal leaders could not do so for the fear of the wrath of God (religion and spiritual damnation had become so all powerful that none dared challenge the Church or the Pope [Infallibility of the Pope]), internal dissensions and rebellion came from within. Martin Luther was a leading challenger which finally brought in another sect of Christianity. It would be interesting to know that he was temperamental, peevish, egomaniacal, and argumentative, but possessed a single-mindedness and tenacity of purpose.

The Freedom of the Christian," is the theological and ideological core of Luther's thinking; the fundamental term of value, that centre around which every other aspect of his thought rotates, is the concept of Freiheit, "freedom," or "liberty." This led to secularism, concept of freedom, and eventually with the turn of time it gave rise to the notion of "individual freedom," and later "political freedom," and even later "economic freedom." Thus, Luther was a catalyst for the Reformation.

**Ironduke** · 09 Feb 07,, 10:16

Thus, Luther was a catalyst for the Reformation.

Agreed, completely. In my writing I'm focusing on the geographic factors that helped catalyze the success of Luther's work (as well as Calvin).

What are your thoughts on the notion of the "inner" (religious) and "outer" (secular) spheres, once intertwined then finally split during the Reformation?

**Blademaster** · 09 Feb 07,, 10:22

Two words: Printing press.

Enough said.

**Ray** · 09 Feb 07,, 10:28

Ironduke,

You sure are from the past and a reincarnation of Franciscans or Dominicans.

Your diktat is an Inquisition for this poor pagan!

I will try to address the issue since it appears interesting, but immensely difficult to pen since it is a very sensitive issue and because I don't believe in organised religion, I may cause discomfort to people.

Even the last post was very carefully worded!

Added:

Inner religion was the the Blind Faith that the illiterate and ignorant were duped into. Education and worldly awareness prompted debate and realisation of the self with respect to the Creator and the contradictions thereof. It prompted a self search and hence the individual 'entity' rebelled against dogmatic and unscientific rationale doled out by the Church to imprison the mind and the soul. This gave rise to the outer sphere which gave birth to the secular Christianity or thought!

The above is my ideas and not intended to upset anyone.

**Ray** · 09 Feb 07,, 16:03

I have not read the works that you have quoted.

With all respect to the authors who must be experts in their fields and I am hardly a person to comment on their views, yet, I look at the whole issue as a political struggle with geography as a fait accompli. I maybe wrong.

As I see it, it was a mere struggle between two schools of thought within the realm of Christendom, even though culturally they appeared different. The intrinsic percepts were same. It was at the Peace of Westphalia that the divide came into absolute reality. Till then, in my opinion, the lines were blurred.

Just a point of interest.

The Holy See, as the central authority of all Christendom, had long been engaged in a mortal quarrel with the lay power of what was called "The Empire," that is, the Emperors of German origin who had general, but very complicated and varied authority, not only in the German-speaking countries, but over northern Italy and a belt of what is now eastern France, as also over the Low Countries and certain groups of the Slavs.

A lifetime before the Popes left Rome this struggle had been coming to a climax under one of the most intelligent men of Christendom, the Emperor Frederick II, whose power was the greater because he had inherited not only the old diversified rule over the German States and the Low Countries and what we call today eastern France, but also eastern and southern Italy. The whole of central Europe, except the States governed immediately by the Pope in the middle of Italy, were more or less under Frederick's shadow, under his claim to power. He challenged the Church. The Papacy won eventually but the Papacy as a political power had become exhausted in the struggle.

A third party benefited by a violent duel between two others. It was the king of France who now became the chief force, and for seventy years, that is, during all the bulk of the fourteenth century (from 1307 to 1377) the Papacy became a French thing, the Popes residing in Avignon (where their huge palace remains to this day) and the men elected to fill the office of Pope being, after the change, mainly French.

Thus, it will be observed that the Papacy was more of a regional entity depending on the political shifts.

Likewise, the Protestant movement, was also influenced with the political factors of the time and more so with the growth of vernacular literature which replaced Latin as the universal language. The history of England is a case in point of the struggles of the two sects of Christendom being churned by political jockeying.

National and racial feeling took advantage of the confusion in movements like that of the Hussites in Bohemia. Their pretext against the clergy was a demand for the restoration of the cup at Communion to the laity. In the same way opponents of central authority could point to the Papacy as a mere local thing, an Italian, southern thing. The Pope was becoming as much an Italian Prince as he was head of the Church. Grafted on to this quarrel were violent quarrels between laity and the clergy. The endowments of the Church were very large, and corruption, both in monastic establishments and among the seculars, was increasing. Endowment was beginning to be treated more and more as a revenue to be disposed of for rewards or any political programme.

Notwithstanding, I am also intrigued with the line of thought as to how geography influenced the events of Christendom.

All said and done, this subject is very complicated since history and contradictions that creep up on/ on any strain of thought one wants to pursue, makes it a project of very serious study and more so better addressed by academicians.

**Ironduke** · 09 Feb 07,, 18:53

Ray, I'm a non-practicing person. I'll comment more later.

**zraver** · 10 Feb 07,, 01:05

One interesting although modern quirk, is the resolute catholic orthodoxy (modified initally by local custom) of many of the former colonies. Latin America is a great case in point, geographically isolated from Rome yet it remains loyal.

**Ironduke** · 10 Feb 07,, 03:42

Originally Posted by zraver

One interesting although modern quirk, is the resolute catholic orthodoxy (modified initally by local custom) of many of the former colonies. Latin America is a great case in point, geographically isolated from Rome yet it remains loyal.

Just popping in -- weekly attendance at the evangelical churches set up by American missionaries is greater than Roman Catholic church attendance in most Latin American countries -- most Latin Americans are nominally Catholic.

**Ironduke** · 10 Feb 07,, 04:02

As I see it, it was a mere struggle between two schools of thought within the realm of Christendom, even though culturally they appeared different. The intrinsic percepts were same. It was at the Peace of Westphalia that the divide came into absolute reality. Till then, in my opinion, the lines were blurred.

Calvinism and Catholicism are polar opposites within Christianity -- while Lutheranism did not adopt many of Calvinism's teachings (predestination, no forgiveness for sins, etc.), its philosophy on the separation of the secular and religious realms were the same.

Whether through the pope or by "caesaropapist" rulers (borrowing the term from Jose Casanova, IIRC), religion permeated secular institutions quite thoroughly until the Reformation. From what I understand, having an organized, national religions makes it easier for monarchs, etc. to rule when the adherents believe in and observe the principles of that religion. I.E., the Catholic church nominally controlled by the Pope, as dictated by the King of France, the Magrave of Bavaria, the Prince of Bohemia, etc., while paying lip service to the Western Christendom of old.

Whether the Papacy, the Emperor (HRE), or the King of France exercises control over secular institutions is of little consequence when those secular institutions are organized around the religion (in this case, Catholicism). When the person actually exercising power in the secular realm (Frederick, King of France, etc.) uses religion as the means to rule, it makes no difference to 99% of the lay who is exercising secular power.

When Weber or Casanova speak of "inner" and "outer" realms, the "inner" realm is that individual's belief system, the realm of their mind. The "outer" realm is the government and society in general, the public realm. After the Reformation, religion gradually, varyingly, became an intensely private matter and not what a society was built upon. Each person has their own belief system, and while organized religion could still play a role in the secular realm, it was on a competition basis with competing forces and ideologies, which could be secular humanism, capitalism, Marxism, liberalism, other organized religions, etc., and in doing so, they are forced to compete on a secular basis.

One thing I would like people to note -- I'm not discussing or debating the merits of any religion or religion itself by any means. In my opinion, in a secular society as most of us live in, people's religious belief systems are equally valid and they are completely entitled to hold them.

It may also be worth noting -- Roman Catholicism underwent the Counter Reformation (which seems to have been mainly reactionary), as well as further changes in the 1869-1870 First Vatican Council and the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council (which brought Catholicism mostly up to date with modern secularization trends).

There is Reform Judaism (19th century), and the Dutch Reformed, Scottish Presbyterian, and French Huguenot churches are all Calvinist.

Also, I'm not discussing or debating the merits of the northern European peoples who underwent the Reformation and adopted Protestantism (whether by choice or princely decree), just the role (among many, even the printing press) that geography played in aiding the adoption of a belief system that helped catalyze the modern age in the West.

So really, the discussion is of a geostrategic nature -- what role did geography (or even geology) play in the success of the Reformation, and perhaps furthermore, what were the effects of the success of the Reformation on humanity?

Off-topic, related to post #12, I am not practicing and non-religious. I consider myself as a humanist though if stressed I would self-identify as nominally Presbyterian (Scottish national church, Calvinist branch), in the same way a non-practicing Frenchman might self-identify as Catholic.

Here are some links that may be of interest:
Calvinism
Protestant Reformation
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (by Max Weber, recommended read)

And also:
Reform Judaism
First Vatican Council (1869-1870)
Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)

As well as:
Catholic Counter-Reformation
Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy (Anglican Church)

And perhaps:
Thirty Years' War
The Spanish Armada of 1588

And yes, I like Wikipedia, even though it's not considered a "scholarly" source... I would never cite in any writings but it is certainly a good resource.