I just watched the movie "Becket" again last night...

[Silent3]

...and it had never struck me before the parallels between the main plot conflict in that movie (which, despite plenty of artistic license, matches actual history closely enough for this discussion) and our modern Catholic Church sex scandals.

Then as now, the Church wanted to be left alone to police itself, it did not want to subject itself to external, secular law.

Becket is portrayed as a man who finds his honor in defending the church's position. In the context of the movie, I can allow myself to go along for that ride. I found myself realizing, however, how much I preferred Henry II's position of expecting priests to answer to the same laws as everybody else. Defending the church's position of policing itself hardly seems heroic or honorable anymore.

[Siwsan]

1. That is a wonderful movie

The personal relationship between Thomas Becket and Henry II was so complex. I always thought that it had almost as much to do with what happened, as the religious/secular law dispute.

[thucythucy]

2. Peter O'Toole is amazing in that role.

In fact, he's pretty much amazing in everything he does.

Have you ever seen "The Ruling Class"? Another brilliant performance.

I don't know enough about the history to know where this film deviates, but I do know quite a bit of artistic license was taken. Still and all a very good movie.

And if you want to see another example of how church politics impacted secular politics, check out the opening scene to Henry V. The Kenneth Brannaugh [sic] version of this is particularly good. Essentially, the Church ends up supporting Henry's decision to go to war in France, as long as Henry defers on collecting taxes from the Church. One of the most cynical portrayals of Church/state relations ever.

It's interesting too, isn't it, that the charge against the priest in "Becket" -- as I recall -- was rape? There is indeed nothing new under the sun.

Best wishes.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. it was a dispute over land.

This being the high feudal period of europe, all power was centered on land rights, and the church was in conflict with the nobility, each struggling to expand their control over acreage. Finding much in the way of a just position on either side seems a bit much to me.

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. It was a dispute over supremacy

There was a longstanding issue of lands lost by the archdiocese, but the most immediate cause of the Plantagenet-Becket conflict was the authority of the crown to prosecute priests found to be in violation of secular law. The King felt them under his jurisdiction, while the Vatican claimed a kind of divine diplomatic immunity.

Henry II is by no means my hero, but if I had to evaluate both sides of the argument to determine who was in the right and in the wrong, I would have to say the king has the better position.

[Silent3]

6. The idea of ecclesiastical courts, however, was still there in the mix...

...regardless of whether or not such power struggles, or the real historic conflict between Henry II and Becket, can be traced back to land disputes.

In the movie it was specifically the issue of a priest accused of sexual misconduct, and the events that followed, which brought the conflict between the king and the archbishop to a head.

Edit: I see Act_of_Reparation's post now, and he/she made the point I was going for much better!

[dorkzilla]

4. I've often thought of Becket when...

I hear these reports coming out of Rome. Henry was outraged by rapists and thieves claiming benefit of clergy and suffering no repercussions at all. Since so many commoners joined the clergy for the relative upward mobility it afforded, this was no small problem. Defending thieves and rapists isn't exactly admirable so I've never understood why Becket was canonized; I don't find him to be anything but an upstart and an egomaniac. But just like Ratzinger, he was fond of wearing very expensive and ostentatious clothes, until he was made Archbishop and decided he was going to start a trend in hair-shirts.