- Becket was NOT FULLY JUSTIFIED
- Was partly justified beacuse...
- As Archbishop it was his responsibility to support/ maintain a respectible authority for the church.
- Henry's treatment of Becket and imposition of the theocratic principle provoked Becket to act with his sacremental theology.
-He was not fully justified because...
- Becket enforced the sacremental theology more than any oher English church leader. He refused to make any compromise unlike the balance created by Theobald and his harmonious relations with Henry.
- His stubborn character can be blamed for this.
JUSTIFIED SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY
- Describe the sacremental theology
- First introduced durning the georgian reforms- church became more independent.
- Henry opposed this principle with his theocratic priniple-describe
- 'triangular relationship' (Mortimer) -complex
Becket had to act in defense of his principles
Council of Westminster 1163: - Major clash in principles.
After Becket excommunicated William,Lord of Eynsford-Becket did not notify/consult Henry
- Henry wanted to reform the judicial system from the time of William the conquerer.
Why?: Henry had to change this as 1/6 of the population were clergy and he had no control over their crimes--> led to minor punishments such as penance as the church could not 'SPILL BLOOD'
- Double trial would go against Beckets sacremental principle- Nahum 1:9 prevents double trial. Would also take away church independence.
Underlying personal incentives which would make Beckets action unjustified
HOWEVER: moreso did it to defend his prnicples- did compromise with Henry-increased severity of punishment.
Henry put forward 'ancient customs' at constituations of Clarendon 1164
Undermined the churches authority
- Clauses such as the crown having control over ecclesiastical elections.
- Appeals to Rome
- Churches judicial rights-CRIMINOUS CLERKS
Extreme imposition of power from Henry.
- Becket naturally through principle rejected 10/16 clauses in favour of sacremental prinicple.
WILLIAM FITZSTEPHEN: Henry saw Beckets actions as an 'AFFRONT'
PUNCH: Becket was Provoked by Henry to oppose him as he pushed the thocratic ideals beyond the bounds of custom - Bishops also refused to sign which shows their was important issues at stake.
NORTHAMPTON / DURING EXILE
Henry mistreated Becket at Northampton:
- Henry accuses Becket of embezzling funds-Henrys Barons forced to support.
- Becket found gulity and flees into exile.
This partly justifies Becket opposing Henry as would no longer trust him after the events at Northampton, it partly justifies a reason for Becket stalling negotiations durning his exile-LACK OF TRUST.
ACTING OUT OF STUBBORNNESS AND PRIDE.
LOA: Becket was NOT FULLY JUSTIFIED, as he to fuelled the opposition with his pride preventing negotiation.
Never had the church's theology been pushed furthur- Beckert showed little evidence of compromise which contrasts with Henry's harmonious realtions with Theobald.
Like of compromise led to an increase in tension.
Reson why Becket did not compromise was becuase of his stubborn nature:
Barlow argues the disputes at CLARENDON WERE OUT OF PRIDE NOT PRINCIPLE..
Barlow argues the Exile of Becket was 'CAUSED BY THEIR OWN CHARATCER'
- Conflict driven by Becket failing to negotiate- added 'SAVING MY ORDER' onto the end of the oath of alligience to Henry at Montrail
- This led to an increase in conflict as negotions broke down.
BECKET WAS NOT FULLY JUSTIFIED, BOTH HENRY AND HE ARE BLAMED FOR THE OPPOSITIONS DURING THEIR RELATIONSHIP.