# Were Papal States the worst-governed in 16th century Europe? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 4, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521 "2010-07-04T15:30:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/1 "2010-07-04T15:30:06Z")
Re-reading William Roberton’s 18th century book _The Progress of Society in Europe_, I was struck by this passage on page 103: > [@](#): > > As their power and dominions could not descend to their posterity, the Popes were less sollicitous than other Princes to form or to encourage schemes of publick utility and improvements. Their tenure was only for a short life; present advantage was all that they attended to; to squeeze and to amass, not to meliorate, was their object. They erected, perhaps, some work of ostentation, to remain as a monument of their Pontificate; they found it necessary, at some times, to establish useful institutions, in order to sooth and silence the turbulent populace of Rome; but plans of general benefit to their subjects, and framed with a view to futurity, were rarely objects of attention in the Papal policy. The patrimony of St. Peter was worse governed than any part of Europe; … What do today’s historians think of Robertson in general? How about this particular paragraph? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/2 "2010-07-04T17:18:26Z")
It’s not really surprising that a prominent eighteenth century Scotsman would write negatively about any aspect having to do with Roman Catholicism. Protestant Britons viewed Catholicism as being the antithesis of everything it meant to be a Protestant Englishman, Scotsman, or whatever. This wasn’t something new, mind you. When the colonist settled Jamestown, VA in 1607 they made it illegal for a Catholic to hold any kind of public office and illegal for a Catholic Priest to remain in the area for more than three days. This anti-Catholic attitude would remain for a long time…in the United States up until the second World War though some of it still lingers. So during the eighteenth century you can find all sorts of examples of Protestants dogging the Catholics including Payne’s _Common Sense_ in the American Colonies. Many of them like to point to the middle ages as a time of ignorance and place the blame squarely on the Catholics. Now that the Catholics weren’t in control look at how much progress in science and politics had been made? At least that was their argument and it was pretty unfair. The long and the short of it is that you have to be careful what you read about Catholics when it’s written by Protestant historians because they have a serious axe to grind. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/3 "2010-07-04T22:30:37Z")
The Papal States tended to be governed fairly conservatively, and there wasn’t much investment put into technology or industry, so they tended to remain poor and the economy was mainly based on peasant farming and religious pilgrimage/tourism, but they weren’t very different than most of the Italian states. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/4 "2010-07-05T01:08:21Z")
Gosh, I don’t want to defend the governance of the Papal States, about which I know little, but in the sixteenth century there would have been some pretty stiff competition for the “Worst Governed Country in Europe” title. Close enough to Robertson’s home, the English attempt to subjugate and govern Ireland was certainly not undertaken for the “general benefit” of the Irish. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/5 "2010-07-06T16:10:21Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > It’s not really surprising that a prominent eighteenth century Scotsman would write negatively about any aspect having to do with Roman Catholicism. Protestant Britons viewed Catholicism as being the antithesis of everything it meant to be a Protestant Englishman, Scotsman, or whatever. This wasn’t something new, mind you. When the colonist settled Jamestown, VA in 1607 they made it illegal for a Catholic to hold any kind of public office and illegal for a Catholic Priest to remain in the area for more than three days. This anti-Catholic attitude would remain for a long time…in the United States up until the second World War though some of it still lingers. > > So during the eighteenth century you can find all sorts of examples of Protestants dogging the Catholics including Payne’s _Common Sense_ in the American Colonies. Many of them like to point to the middle ages as a time of ignorance and place the blame squarely on the Catholics. Now that the Catholics weren’t in control look at how much progress in science and politics had been made? At least that was their argument and it was pretty unfair. The long and the short of it is that you have to be careful what you read about Catholics when it’s written by Protestant historians because they have a serious axe to grind. OK, so what denomination are _you?_ :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/6 "2010-07-06T16:34:34Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Now that the Catholics weren’t in control look at how much progress in science and politics had been made? At least that was their argument and it was pretty unfair. Wait, wait, how is that, so stated and in an 18th-Century context, unfair? Martin Luther would have been horrified, I’m sure, by the scientific revolution of the 17th Century and the industrial and political revolutions that followed; but how would any of it have been possible without him? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/7 "2010-07-06T17:03:29Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > OK, so what denomination are _you?_ :dubious: What difference does that make? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/8 "2010-07-06T17:23:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Wait, wait, how is that, so stated and in an 18th-Century context, unfair? Martin Luther would have been horrified, I’m sure, by the scientific revolution of the 17th Century and the industrial and political revolutions that followed; but how would any of it have been possible without him? It’s unfair because it ignores the brutish anti-intellectualism that was present in various Protestant denominations throughout the Renaissance and and the Early Modern period. During the Middle Ages the RCC helped to established what has become the modern university system throughout many European nations. Thanks to Thomas Aquinas the RCC has also been fairly good about embracing “science” because it doesn’t bother them that man can learn the truth about the world without consulting a divine source. That’s why the RCC as a whole didn’t have a big problem with Evolution in the 19th century. I’m not a cheerleader for the RCC but I also don’t think it’s fair to vilify them either. Or would you care to make an argument that Catholics are ignorant because they’re under the papist yoke? Odesio I put science in quotes only because they didn’t have the same concept of science that we do today. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/9 "2010-07-06T18:14:37Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Or would you care to make an argument that Catholics are ignorant because they’re under the papist yoke? Not exactly, but, to put this in context, see this article: [Which Civilisation?](http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2001/which_civilisation) by Michael Lind, Prospect, 10/25/01: > [@](#): > > The most influential attempts to define the post-cold war world have been those of Francis Fukuyama in The End of History and the Last Man (1992) and Samuel P Huntington, in his essay “The Clash of Civilisations” (1993). Fukuyama famously argued that liberal democracy is the final stage of human political evolution. Huntington emphasises the persistence of pre-modern linguistic, cultural and religious divisions, like those between western and eastern Christendom and Confucian and Hindu Asia. > > Each of these schemas captures aspects of reality. But an alternative that deserves consideration is one that defines “civilisations” in terms, not of technological development or culture, but of world view. This approach gives us fewer civilisations than those listed by Huntington – but more than the single end-stage civilisation proposed by Fukuyama. From this perspective, the most important civilisational divide – one that seems even more important after the events of 11th September – may be the one between supernatural civilisations and secular civilisations. The divide is roughly, but not completely, correlated with the divide between pre-modern agrarian societies and industrial societies. Of the supernatural civilisations, the most significant have been the Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and the Indic (Hinduism and Buddhism). The two major Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam, conquered most of the world’s territory and people, including south Asia and the Americas. Only China and Japan, among the major non-western nations, escaped Muslim or Christian rule. Today Muslim theocracies like Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia are the most extreme examples of societies based on supernatural religion. > > On the secular side of the civilisational divide, there have been three major traditions: humanism, rationalism and romanticism. These three traditions originated in Europe but now have adherents around the world. All three are essentially secular worldviews which do not need to invoke the authority of divine revelation or mystical gnosis (though some romantics are mystics or pantheists and some humanists have been religious believers). In respects other than their common secularism, the three traditions are fundamentally different from one another. > > Humanist civilisation crystallised in Renaissance Italy, before spreading to the Netherlands, Britain, and the US. This liberal, commercial, increasingly democratic civilisation has spread to other nations by emulation (Lafayette’s France, Atatork’s Turkey, Yeltsin’s Russia) and by conquest and conversion (post-1945 Germany and Japan). Humanists seek to ameliorate the problems of social life with the guidance of practical wisdom, derived chiefly from history, literature and custom, with little or no reference to supernatural religion or natural science, with the possible exception of the emergent sociobiology. Humanists tend to be modest as philosophers and cautious as reformers. Examples of great humanist thinkers and statesmen are Petrarch, Erasmus, Bacon, Montaigne, Voltaire, Franklin, Hume, Burke, Smith, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison. > > Rationalism, a world view underlying a number of secular creeds, first crystallised in 17th and 18th-century France. Rationalists reject the humanist distinction between practical wisdom and natural science. The goal of rationalists of all kinds is to devise a science of society, modelled on natural science, which can serve as the basis for the construction of a “rational” social order. Stephen Toulmin makes a useful distinction between the “reasonableness” of Renaissance humanists and the “rationality” of Enlightenment philosophes. The rationalist pantheon includes social engineers like Condorcet, St Simon, Comte, Fourier, Bentham, Marx, Lenin and Ayn Rand. (The “secular humanists” who support world federalism and utopian social reform are really rationalists). > > Romanticism, the third major secular world view, has spread widely from its original homeland, late 18th and early 19th-century Germany. Romantics reject both reasonableness and rationality, they exalt the inspired unreason of the artistic genius, the child, the primitive uncorrupted by civilisation. Rousseau, Emerson, Wagner, Nietszche and Frantz Fanon should be on a list of romantic prophets, and idealist philosophers like Kant and Hegel arguably are closer to romanticism than to humanism or rationalism. Now, while modern secular humanism first emerged in a Catholic setting – Renaissance Italy – the Catholic Church was somewhat leery of it at the time, and officially remained so – and was often in actual practice **fiercely** so --until the Second Vatican Council. If the Protestant Reformation – which quite unintentionally **put some cracks in religious authority as such, within which cracks secular humanism could take root** – had never happened, then, in a West remaining under the spiritual rule of an undivided Catholic Church, I expect the predominant world-view of the West would have remained the pre-secular, supernatural one. And, if so, the scientific, political, commercial and industrial developments of the 17th and 18th Centuries simply would not have happened. In that sense, any 18th Century Protestant who said, in effect, “Now that the Catholics aren’t in control look at how much progress in science and politics have been made,” would have been making a fair judgment. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/10 "2010-07-06T18:58:36Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I put science in quotes only because they didn’t have the same concept of science that we do today. No, they didn’t, and the difference is **all-important.** ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/11 "2010-07-06T19:39:30Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > What difference does that make? You’re claiming bias on someone else’s part, but are apparently trying to hide a potential source of bias on you own. You’re dismissing criticism of the Catholic Church is part of a pattern of anti-Catholic bias, but in so doing you’ve become part of a pattern of dismissing criticism of the RCC as anti-Catholic bias. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/12 "2010-07-06T22:50:31Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > You’re claiming bias on someone else’s part, but are apparently trying to hide a potential source of bias on you own. > > You’re dismissing criticism of the Catholic Church is part of a pattern of anti-Catholic bias, but in so doing you’ve become part of a pattern of dismissing criticism of the RCC as anti-Catholic bias. I provided examples of anti-Catholic bias in other areas. I certainly don’t think the RCC is immune from criticism but when reading documents from eighteenth century British Protestants you have to take into account their anti-RCC bias. I’d say the same thing written by Catholics in regards to the Protestants. So far as my religion goes; I’m not going to answer you. If you really feel the need to find out you can do a search of my posts here on the SDMB. Odesio ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/13 "2010-07-07T14:54:20Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I provided examples of anti-Catholic bias in other areas. I certainly don’t think the RCC is immune from criticism but when reading documents from eighteenth century British Protestants you have to take into account their anti-RCC bias. And when reading documents criticizing the critics, you have to take into account any pro-RCC bias in “other areas”. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/14 "2010-07-07T15:02:42Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > And when reading documents criticizing the critics, you have to take into account any pro-RCC bias in “other areas”. **sqweels** , this is the most clear-cut **ad hominem** argument I’ve ever seen. His denomination has absolutely nothing to do with the strength of his argument. If you think his posts show bias, then support your claim. Currently all you’re doing is moving what could be a very interesting thread into some stupid pissing match about whether **Odesio** is biased, which is a singularly uninteresting question. Me, I’m interested in this because I’m running a game set in 17th-century Spain, and I figure knowing about the underpinnings of 17th-century Spanish society could be very helpful to me. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/15 "2010-07-07T15:23:29Z")
Putting aside the question of whether anyone on here is biased, it’s clear to me that **Odesio** is right, and there was significant anti-Catholic bias in 18th century England. I mean, that’s the century that saw the Gordon Riots due to the passage of a bill that didn’t do much beyond let Catholics own land and serve in the army. In terms of literary work, you had Thomas Paine criticize monarchy by calling it “popery of government”, you had Gibbon blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on Catholicism, and in general, there’s a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/16 "2010-07-07T16:44:20Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Me, I’m interested in this because I’m running a game set in 17th-century Spain, and I figure knowing about the underpinnings of 17th-century Spanish society could be very helpful to me. Perhaps sadly, Spanish society after the Reconquista developed oddly. Colonization took many fo the best and brightest to the Americas, while aristocracy at home slowly expanded their power. While Spain was a modern society for the time, the elites were able to dominate life in a way unlike France, let alone Italy or England. They didn’t like, for example, that converts were getting rich and doing well _gasp_ _horror_ and forced the monarchy into passing various ancestry laws, which made only :old" Christian families eligable for certain professions. The aristocracy then dominated these. Furthermore, while many low-born priests went to the Americas, the nobles further dominated the priesthood and forced much of Spain into a stronger quasi-serfdom. Despite that, it was an very interesting time. Spainw as a major player in European - and global - politics, and her cities were considered to be quite impressive. While the seeds of economic decline were sewn during this age, there was a lot of growth, too. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/17 "2010-07-07T18:03:28Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Perhaps sadly, Spanish society after the Reconquista developed oddly. Colonization took many fo the best and brightest to the Americas, while aristocracy at home slowly expanded their power. While Spain was a modern society for the time, the elites were able to dominate life in a way unlike France, let alone Italy or England. They didn’t like, for example, that converts were getting rich and doing well _gasp_ _horror_ and forced the monarchy into passing various ancestry laws, which made only :old" Christian families eligable for certain professions. The aristocracy then dominated these. Furthermore, while many low-born priests went to the Americas, the nobles further dominated the priesthood and forced much of Spain into a stronger quasi-serfdom. > > Despite that, it was an very interesting time. Spainw as a major player in European - and global - politics, and her cities were considered to be quite impressive. While the seeds of economic decline were sewn during this age, there was a lot of growth, too. Concurrently with all that, the kings drastically curtailed the powers of the [Cortes Generales](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortes_Generales#The_Catholic_Monarchs_.2815th_century.29) (parliament), establishing absolutism and forestalling any natural development of the system into a constitutional monarchy. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/18 "2010-07-07T18:10:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Concurrently with all that, the kings drastically curtailed the powers of the [Cortes Generales](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortes_Generales#The_Catholic_Monarchs_.2815th_century.29) (parliament), establishing absolutism and forestalling any natural development of the system into a constitutional monarchy. It’s actually kind of interesting how close Spain and Poland were at one time to establishing republican-style governments which might have developed into very positive examples, not to mention avoiding a lot of the troubles which befell them. In both cases they sort of rotted from within as some factions kneecapped the nation as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/19 "2010-07-08T01:11:26Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > OK, so what denomination are _you?_ :dubious: Looks like Robertson was deep in the Presbyterian Church, and an anti-Jacobite to boot. I may have missed the threads where Odesio is a hardcore Catholic apologist, but it seems that Robertson’s neutrality is a valid thing to question. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521/20 "2010-07-08T01:56:53Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > Looks like Robertson was deep in the Presbyterian Church, and an anti-Jacobite to boot. I may have missed the threads where Odesio is a hardcore Catholic apologist, but it seems that Robertson’s neutrality is a valid thing to question. Flashing on a cartoon I once saw: A guy in coat and tie is sitting at a bar and a bunch of rednecks at the other end are smirking in his direction, saying, “Shoot! That must be one o’ them Presbyterians!” “Yep, one o’ them Presbyterians!” “One of them Presbyterians, all right! I can smell 'im from here!” Caption: “Religious prejudice hits a new low.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-papal-states-the-worst-governed-in-16th-century-europe/545521.md?page=2)