Summary of "Rowan Williams on "Saving our Order: Thomas Becket, Henry II and the Law of Church and State""
Summary of Rowan Williams on “Saving our Order: Thomas Becket, Henry II and the Law of Church and State”
This lecture by Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury, explores the historical and legal conflict between Thomas Becket and King Henry II in 12th-century England. It focuses on the complex relationship between church and state law, clerical immunity, and sovereignty. The discussion situates Becket’s resistance not merely as a clash over clerical privileges but within broader medieval legal, theological, and political contexts, with resonances for contemporary church-state issues.
Main Ideas and Concepts
Context and Background
- Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, is primarily remembered for his violent death (murdered in 1170), but his life and legal struggles reveal much about medieval church-state relations.
- The lecture marks the 850th anniversary of Becket’s murder and is organized by the Ecclesiastical Law Society with support from Villanova University.
- Rowan Williams emphasizes the importance of ecclesiastical law and canon law in the church’s public mission and its interaction with secular authority.
The Core Conflict: Clerical Immunity vs. Royal Sovereignty
- Becket insisted on qualifying his oath of allegiance to Henry II with the phrase “saving our order” — preserving the rights and legal liberties of the clergy.
- The conflict centered on whether clergy accused of serious crimes (“criminous clerks”) should be tried in secular courts or only in ecclesiastical courts.
- Henry II sought to extend royal jurisdiction and codify customs that limited clerical immunity, asserting the sovereign’s right to define legal custom.
- Becket and his allies defended the church’s legal autonomy, based on canon law and ecclesiastical custom, resisting the king’s attempts to impose royal authority over clerics.
Misconceptions and Historical Complexity
- The traditional narrative of Becket as a defender of universal legal rights against arbitrary monarchy is oversimplified.
- Medieval political thought did not conceive of civic identity or law as universally applicable in the modern sense; jurisdictions overlapped and were contested.
- Becket’s position was not a defense of modern human rights but a defense of the church’s autonomy as a distinct legal polity (“municipality”).
- Henry II’s legal reforms were not innocent moves toward equality but attempts to assert royal supremacy over ecclesiastical matters including elections, appeals, and finances.
Legal and Theological Dimensions
- The debate involved the role of “custom” as law and who had the authority to define it.
- Canon law codification was advancing rapidly in this period, emphasizing the church as a self-contained legal system under papal authority.
- Clerical immunity was tied to theological concepts about the cleric’s ontological distinctiveness and the penitential/reformatory purpose of punishment within the church.
- Punishments for clerics were meant to reform the sinner, not to satisfy the rights of victims or public justice as understood in secular courts.
- Becket’s stance was absolutist, insisting on ecclesiastical trials and reformatory penalties for clerics, which clashed with royal demands for accountability.
Implications and Parallels for Today
The historic debate sheds light on contemporary issues such as:
- The relationship between religious bodies and secular law (e.g., employment law, same-sex marriage, child abuse scandals).
- The limits of religious autonomy when it conflicts with state law and public protection.
- The problem of clerical accountability, especially in cases of abuse, where ecclesiastical penalties have sometimes failed to protect victims or satisfy justice.
The lecture calls for a re-examination and reform of ecclesiology to better balance church liberty with accountability and public responsibility.
Sovereignty and Political Theology
- Henry II’s claim to sovereignty was absolutist, aiming to subordinate all other obligations to royal authority.
- Rowan Williams highlights the complexity of sovereignty, emphasizing that it should be accountable to law and precedent, and must recognize intermediate communities (churches, universities, trade unions) rather than imposing totalizing control.
- The state is ideally a “community of communities,” mediating between diverse loyalties and identities.
Historical Personalities and Outcomes
- Becket was a complex figure, intellectually engaged with cutting-edge legal thought but politically uncompromising and dramatic.
- Henry II was pragmatic and opportunistic rather than ideologically driven.
- The conflict might have been avoided or resolved differently, but personalities and historical circumstances converged to produce a crisis.
- Becket’s absolutism on clerical immunity ultimately lost ground after the Reformation, notably with Henry VIII’s statute restricting appeals to Rome.
Methodology / Key Points in the Lecture
Outline of Becket-Henry II Conflict
- Becket’s oath with reservation: “saving our order.”
- The issue of “criminous clerks” and jurisdiction.
- The Council of Clarendon (1164) and the king’s attempt to codify customs.
- Becket’s inflexible stance on immunity and reformatory punishment.
- The role of canon law codification and ecclesiastical autonomy.
- The king’s claim to create and define legal custom.
- The theological basis for clerical distinctiveness and immunity.
- The consequences for church property, appeals, and finances.
- The broader question of sovereignty and law’s authority over rulers.
Contemporary Relevance
- Church-state legal conflicts today echo medieval issues.
- The need for ecclesiological reform to address accountability and public trust.
- Sovereignty as a concept requiring balance with community and law.
Q&A Highlights
- The conflict was part of a wider European trend but was accelerated by personalities and English political context.
- Clerical immunities largely persisted until the Reformation.
- The medieval understanding of priesthood emphasized ontological difference and legal distinctiveness.
- Modern parallels exist with concerns about executive power and sovereignty.
- The role of scripture in the debate was limited; more emphasis on canon law and legal theory.
- The personal dynamics between Henry and Becket influenced the conflict’s course.
- The church’s disciplinary power over laity was significant but contested.
- Historical legacies influence current church-state relations, including safeguarding and abuse issues.
Speakers and Sources Featured
Primary Speaker
- Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury, theologian, and academic.
Moderator / Chair
- Mark Hill, Chairman of the Ecclesiastical Law Society.
Other Participants / Questioners
- Christopher (likely Christopher Hill, Bishop)
- Matthew Rhodes
- Nicola Moxie
- Elizabeth Jordan
- Matthew Opley
- JP Holmes
- Jane Strands
- Roger Wilson
- Father David Terwilliger
- Francis Gray
- Michael Moorland (Professor, Villanova University, gave closing remarks)
Historical and Scholarly References
- John Guy (historian, author of a biography on Becket)
- John of Salisbury (Becket’s intellectual advisor)
- Beryl Smalley (historian)
- Gerhard Ladner (medievalist)
- Neville Figgis (historian and political theorist)
- Adrian Lane Cool, James Alexander (historians)
- MKHitaryan (medievalist scholar)
- Anselm and St. Elfage (historical ecclesiastical figures referenced)
- Henry VIII (later monarch who curtailed clerical immunities)
This lecture provides a nuanced understanding of medieval church-state legal conflicts, challenging simplistic narratives and offering insights relevant to modern debates on law, sovereignty, and religious authority.
Category
Educational
