Local authority In the long term, the decline of imperial power would divide Germany until the 19th century. Similarly, in Italy, the investiture controversy weakened the emperor's authority and strengthened local separatists. While the monarchy was embroiled in the dispute with the Church, its power declined, and the localized rights of lordship over peasants increased, which eventually led to: • Increased serfdom that reduced rights for the majority • Local taxes and levies increased, while royal coffers declined • Localized rights of justice where courts did not have to answer to royal authority
Selection of leaders The papacy grew stronger, and the laity became engaged in religious affairs, increasing its piety and setting the stage for the
Crusades and the great religious vitality of the 12th century. occurred several centuries after the Concordat, and indicated that there was continued interference in the papacy by kings. German kings still had
de facto influence over the selection of German bishops, though over time, German princes gained influence among church electors. The bishop-elect would then be invested by the Emperor (or representative) with the scepter and, sometime afterwards, by his ecclesial superior with ring and staff. The resolution of the Controversy produced a significant improvement in the character of men raised to the
episcopacy. Kings no longer interfered so frequently in their election, and when they did, they generally nominated more worthy candidates for the office. The Concordat of Worms did not end the interference of European monarchs in the selection of the pope. Practically speaking, the German kings retained a decisive voice in the selection of the hierarchy. All kings supported
King John of England's defiance of
Pope Innocent III ninety years after the Concordat of Worms in the matter concerning
Stephen Langton. In theory, the pope named his bishops and cardinals. In reality, more often than not, Rome consecrated the clergy once it was notified by the kings who the incumbent would be. Recalcitrance by Rome would lead to problems in the kingdom. For the most part it was a
no-win situation for Rome. In this, the Concordat of Worms changed little. The growth of canon law in the
Ecclesiastical Courts was based on the underlying Roman law and increased the strength of the Roman Pontiff. Disputes between popes and Holy Roman Emperors continued until northern Italy was lost to the empire entirely, after the wars of the
Guelphs and Ghibellines. Emperor
Otto IV marched on Rome and commanded
Pope Innocent III to annul the Concordat of Worms and to recognise the imperial crown's right to make nominations to all vacant benefices. The church would crusade against the Holy Roman Empire under
Frederick II. As historian Norman Cantor put it, the controversy "shattered the early-medieval equilibrium and ended the interpenetration of
ecclesia and
mundus". Indeed, medieval emperors, which were "largely the creation of ecclesiastical ideals and personnel", were forced to develop a secular bureaucratic state, whose essential components persisted in the
Anglo-Norman monarchy. Kings continued to attempt to control either the direct leadership of the church, or indirectly through political means for centuries. This is seen most clearly in the
Avignon Papacy when the popes moved from Rome to Avignon. The conflict in Germany and northern Italy arguably left the culture ripe for various Protestant sects, such as the
Cathars, the
Waldensians and ultimately
Jan Hus and
Martin Luther.
Authority and reform Though the Holy Roman Emperor retained some power over imperial churches, his power was damaged irreparably because he lost the religious authority that previously belonged to the office of the king. In France, England, and the Christian state in Spain, the king could overcome rebellions of his magnates and establish the power of his royal
demesne because he could rely on the Church, which, for several centuries, had given him a mystical authority. From time to time, rebellious and recalcitrant monarchs might run afoul of the Church. These could be excommunicated, and after an appropriate time and public penance, be received back into the communion and good graces of the Church. Of the three reforms Gregory VII and his predecessors and successor popes had attempted, the most successful had been that in regard to celibacy of the clergy. Simony had been partially checked. Against lay investiture they won only a limited success, and one that seemed less impressive as the years passed. During the time following the Concordat of Worms, the Church gained in both stature and power. The wording of the Concordat of Worms was ambiguous, skirted some issues and avoided others altogether. This has caused some scholars to conclude that the settlement turned its back on Gregory VII's and Urban II's genuine hopes for reform. The emperor's influence in episcopal matters was preserved, and he could decide disputed elections. If the compromise was a rebuke to the most radical vision of the liberty of the Church, on at least one point its implication was firm and unmistakable: the king, even an emperor, was a layman, and his power at least morally limited (hence,
totalitarianism was unacceptable). According to the opinion of W. Jordan, the
divine right of kings was dealt a blow from which it never completely recovered, yet unfettered authority and
Caesaropapism was not something the later Mediaevals and Early Moderns understood by the phrase "by the grace of God" (which many of them ardently defended). If anything, a blow was dealt to subconsciously remaining pre-Christian Germanic feelings of "royal hail".
Unifications of Germany and Italy It was the consequence of this lengthy episode that a whole generation grew up in Germany and Northern Italy in an atmosphere of war, doubt and scepticism. The papal backers had been busy propounding arguments to show that royal power was not of divine origin. They had been so successful that the
moral authority of the Emperor had been undermined in the minds of many of his subjects. Serious divisions existed from this battle over the Investiture Controversy, which fractured large portions of the
Holy Roman Empire in Germany and Italy. Davis argues these rifts were so deep and lasting that neither Germany nor Italy were able to form a cohesive nation-state until the 19th century. A similar situation arose from the French Revolution, which caused fractures in France that still exist. The effect of Henry IV's excommunication, and his subsequent refusal to repent left a turbulence in central Europe that lasted throughout the Middle Ages. It may have been emblematic of certain German attitudes toward religion in general, and the perceived relevance of the German Emperor in the universal scheme of things.
German culture The catastrophic political consequences of the struggle between pope and emperor also led to a cultural disaster. Germany lost intellectual leadership in western Europe. In 1050, German monasteries were great centres of learning and art and German schools of theology and canon law were unsurpassed and probably unmatched anywhere in Europe. The long war over investiture sapped the energy of both German churchmen and intellectuals. They fell behind advances in philosophy, law, literature and art taking place in France and Italy. In many ways, Germany never caught up during the rest of the Middle Ages. Universities were established in France, Italy, Spain and England by the early 13th century. Notable are the
University of Bologna, 1088,
Oxford University, 1096, the
University of Salamanca, 1134, the
University of Paris, 1150, and the
University of Cambridge, 1207. The first German university, the
Heidelberg University, was not established until 1386. It was immediately steeped in medieval
nominalism and early
Protestantism.
Development of liberty and prosperity in northern Europe The political scientist
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita argues that the Concordat of Worms contained within itself the germ of
nation-based sovereignty that would one day be confirmed in the
Peace of Westphalia (1648). The Concordat of Worms created an incentive structure for the rulers of the Catholic parts of Europe such that in the northern regions, local rulers were motivated to raise the prosperity and liberty of their subjects because such reforms helped those rulers assert their independence from the pope. With the Concordat of Worms, the pope became the
de facto selector of bishops, as his recommendations all but guaranteed a candidate's nomination. Instead of myriad local customs, it all came down to negotiations between the pope and the local secular ruler. Therefore, the influence of the pope in the region became the common deciding factor across the Catholic parts of Europe. As a consequence of the Concordat, if the local ruler rejected the pope's nominee for bishop, the ruler could keep the revenue of the diocese for himself, but the pope could retaliate in various ways, such as: ordering the local priests to not perform certain sacraments such as marriages, which would annoy the ruler's subjects; forgiving oaths made by the vassals to the ruler; and even excommunicating the ruler, thereby undermining his moral legitimacy. Eventually, the ruler would have to give in to the pope and accept a bishop. The longer a local ruler could hold out against the pope, the more leverage the ruler had to demand a bishop who suited his interests. In a region where the pope's influence was weak, the local priests might have performed sacraments anyway, having calculated that defying the pope was not as dangerous as angering their parishioners; the ruler's vassals might have honored their oaths anyway because the pope could not protect them from their lord's wrath; and the subjects might still have respected their ruler despite excommunication. If the pope's influence in a diocese was weak, the local ruler could force the pope to choose between getting the tax revenue and appointing a loyal bishop. If said diocese was relatively poor, the pope would stubbornly hold out until the local ruler accepted the pope's choice of bishop. During this standoff, the pope would not get any money from the diocese, but this was fine with him because the diocese didn't yield much money anyway. But if said diocese was prosperous, the pope wanted to resolve the dispute more quickly so that he could sooner get that ample revenue flowing into his coffers, and so he was more inclined to let the local ruler pick the bishop. A local secular ruler could stimulate the economy of his domain, and thereby collect more tax revenue, by giving his subjects more liberty and more participation in politics. The local ruler was required to raise enough tax revenue so that he could provide sufficient rewards to his essential supporters in order to secure their loyalty. But liberalization and democratization would also make his subjects more assertive, which in itself made the ruler's hold on power less secure. Generally, a shrewd ruler would permit his people just enough liberty that he could raise sufficient tax revenue to provide his essential supporters with just enough rewards to keep them loyal (see
selectorate theory for a thorough explanation of these trade-offs). In this specific context, the ruler of a diocese also had to consider whether to raise additional money, by risking liberalization, to convince the pope to compromise on the choice of bishop. Under this incentive structure, if the pope's influence in a region was strong, the local ruler would see little point in liberalizing his state. He would raise more tax revenue, but it would not be enough to get out from under the pope's thumb which was just too strong. Liberalization would make his people more assertive and the pope would incite them to revolt. The pope would get both the money and his choice of bishop. Thus, the local ruler decided that oppressing his people was the sounder strategy for political survival. On the other hand, if the pope's influence in the region was weak, the local ruler calculated that liberalizing his state, thereby making it more prosperous, could give him enough leverage to get his choice of bishop. The pope would try to incite the people to revolt, but to weak effect. Thus, the local ruler could hold out for longer against the pope, and the pope would concede. The local ruler would get his preferred bishop, and the pope would get the money. In the Catholic regions of Europe, the pope's influence was weaker the further away a region was from Rome because in general it is difficult to project power over long distances and across difficult terrain such as mountains. This, Bueno de Mesquita argues, is why the northern regions of Europe, such as England and the Netherlands, became more prosperous and free than the southern regions. He further argues that this dynamic is what enabled the
Protestant Reformation, which mostly happened in northern Europe. The northern parts of Europe were so prosperous and the influence of the pope there was so weak, their local rulers could reject the pope's bishops indefinitely. ==See also==