Louis XIV and the Catholic Church

Louis XIV ran into several problems as he began to develop and execute his absolutist reign. One of the obstacles he encountered was the church and its role in his role as supreme leader of France. Recalling that absolutism named Louis XIV ruler in matters of temporal and spiritual matters without the interference of limitation, Louis XIV came into conflict with the papacy concerning who reigned over France’s Catholic community. As a result, Louis XIV began to compromise in his role in France’s Catholic Church, known as the Gallican Church and subsequently began to treat France’s Protestant population, or Huguenots, more severely.

Louis XIV’s right to rule in France was a right given from God. Moreover, it was believed that as a recipient of God’s graces to rule, he was not subject to obedience to the See of Rome. Consequently his desire to rule in an absolutist fashion came into direct conflict with the role of the pope as head of Europe’s Catholics. He was allowed to appoint France’s bishops from a right known as regale. By choosing his own bishops, Louis XIV was allowed to place loyal subjects into positions of power which gave the crown access to vast sums of money and land. In order to continue this control over Catholic money and land, Louis XIV needed to appease the pope in Rome.

The first way that the French crown appealed to papacy’s favor was by the Declaration of the Clergy of France, 1682. According to the declaration, “That Saint Peter and his successors, vicars of Jesus Christ [the popes], and the entire church have received their power from God alone in spiritual matters that concern salvation matters, that concern salvation, but not in temporal and civil matters…” (Beik 177). Not only did the Gallican Church now have clear outlined dispensation to treat the spiritual matters of the French people, Louis XIV was free to concern himself with only matters of state. In addition, the declaration also stated, “…that the church of France does not condone the opinions of those who attack these decrees or weaken them by saying that their authority is not well established…” (Beik 177).

Drawing simple lines that distinguished the Catholic Church’s authority from that of the Sun King was not enough to pacify the pope. Pope Innocent XI required that France proactively persecute France’s non-Catholics in order to force their conversion. Louis XIV began his attack on the Huguenots by dissolving temples and nunneries that promoted the Protestant faith. One important piece of legislation put into law was the repeal of Edict of Nantes on 25 October 1685. This act repealed the tolerance afforded to France’s protestant population by King Henry the Great. The act stated specifically that, “…subjects of the R.P.R. are not to assemble for worship in any place or house for any reason.” (Beik 194). In addition, converts to the Catholic Church were given specific incentives for their conversion such as becoming lawyers or doctors without any required schooling. The repeal also addressed the teaching of Protestant doctrines by stating, “Children of R.P.R. parents are to be baptized by the chief priests of their parishes and raised as Catholics, and local judges are to oversee this.” (Beik 195). Lastly, French Protestants were forbidden to leave the country or sell their land without proper permission.

To summarize, Louis XIV in order to function in an absolutist way needed to compromise his authority over France’s Catholics in order to retain the support of the papacy. Although Louis XIV maintained a tolerance of Protestantism in his laws, Protestants were anything but unprosecuted. Armed men known as Royal Dragoons were charged with harassing Protestants by invading their homes and consuming their food until conversion was settled. Before he died, Louis XIV was convinced to prosecute Protestants in order to attain absolution and gain entrance to heaven. One of the most interesting points taken from the document is when French Protestants fled to places such as London. The influx of Protestants in areas of know support such as England and Sweden demonstrate the threat perceived by the papacy.


Works Cited:
Beik, William. Louis XIV and Absolutism. Boston: Bedford, St. Martins, 2000.

The Fronde

The Fronde refers to the civil war that took place in France between 1648 and 1653. Although the causes for this great civil unrest are numerous, one of the factors that led to this conflict was the conflict between French Catholics and Protestants. For years religious tension had been growing in France as Protestant influences in politics and economics continued to growth throughout Europe. Coupled with an inconsistent and weak dynastic change during the years of the Fronde, French nobility began to move against the monarchy to assert their influence and promote their goals.

One of the documents that illustrate the extent the French aristocracy was willing to venture in order to control the monarchy is An Intimate Discussion between the King and the Queen Regent. In this dialogue, the king questions the queen regent one some of the political decisions that were made on his behalf which led to further turmoil in France. The figure in this discussion that is under scrutiny is Cardinal Mazarin. When asked why Cardinal Mazarin is given such a large degree of authority in French matters the queen responds, “…because I love him [Cardinal Mazarin] and he does everything I want.” As the conversation continues, however, it will become obvious that Cardinal Mazarin’s influence over the queen makes her the puppet and himself the puppeteer.

Further evidence of Cardinal Mazarin’s control over the regent queen is shown when she states that several preachers had been imprisoned and or banished for speaking, “…too frankly and openly against Cardinal Mazarin concerning matters of state.” To further illustrate the depths of Cardinal Mazarin’s manipulation of the crown, the regent queen explains Cardinal Mazarin’s “henchmen” are powerful men who, “…advise him and who own all the property in France.” From previous readings it is clear that those who owned the lands had the ability to exercise great influence and authority in France. Moreover, it would appear that the queen regent and the king would be at the mercy of these “henchmen” should they had chosen to incite further popular risings against the crown.

Thus it is clear from this brief conversation that the throne Louis XIV was to inherit was plagued with corruption. Cardinal Mazarin’s actions relate greatly to that of Cardinal Wolsey of England. Cardinal Wolsey, like Cardinal Mazarin, was notorious for manipulating the crown into gaining personal favor and political influence.

Immanuel Kant and the Enlightenment

Immanuel Kant’s essay “What Is Enlightenment?” explores the significance of the enlightenment period as it relates to the evolution of man’s place in society and the universe. Kant states very specifically what his purpose of the essay is outlining that the, “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage.” (203) Moreover, Kant goes on to explain how man’s inability to have thoughts exclusive from guidance hinders his ability to truly experience life.


One of ways that Kant mentions how an enlightenment can usher in change and new ways of thinking is in a revolution. To this extent, Kant states, “This enlightenment requires nothing but freedom…freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters.” (204) Reason is one of the key elements to an enlightenment movement that Kant explores. The example that best demonstrates the role of reason in thought process is the example of the officer. Kant states that it is the role of an officer to follow his orders and complete his duty. He does, however, state that an officer, “…as a scholar has full freedom, indeed the obligation, to communicate to his public all his carefully examined and constructive thoughts concerning errors in that doctrine…” (205). Thus although an officer needs to fulfill his duty to the best of his ability, he has the need to question those duties which threaten his morality.


A second and important hindrance to the enlightened experience is religious nonage. Religious constitutions that were not able to be criticized or questioned were some of the worse forms of hindrance that Kant outlines. To this extent, Kant states that such a hindrance, “…must be absolutely forbidden.” (206) In summary, Kant believes that the enlightenment is a necessary part of man’s spiritual evolution. In order to truly appreciate the experience of the enlightenment, man must first criticize the doctrine of what is unknown in order to truly understand the perceived.





Discussion questions:
1) Kant’s belief that rejecting some of one’s religious identity can influence whether or not he had an enlightenment evolution in thought. What can the contrasts from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam mean to reject religious nonage? Was Christianity the only religious nonage Kant was referring to in his essay or could this also pertain to other religious movements?
2) From a philosophical perspective, is it possible for someone to truly reject the teachings of others in decision making, or does human intuition not allow a rejection of historical reference in decision making?