This is an edited version of an essay I wrote previously for university. I hope it fits well.

Introduction

The Pope’s authority in shaping international politics was significant, much of that came from the respect the Papacy had gained through a mixture of strong leadership, effective policy, and religious dogma. Innocent III is a perfect example of a strong Pope, his actions leading to the sacking of Constantinople, the changing of the Imperial dynasty in the Holy Roman Empire, as well as acting as a mediator and arbiter of many European conflicts. I’m more focused on Innocent III’s policies towards King John and the conflicts going on in England and France due to their relation to the perception of the Papacy and Roman Church during the central Middle Ages. I will show that through the reactions of the Kings to Papal decisions, and in particular King John’s surrendering of the English and Irish Kingdoms to the Pope to be run by John as a fief, it can be intuited the role the Pope had in the European hierarchy was major. While Kings during this period were part of the nobility of the regions, many only differing in title, the Pope was the head of faith and spiritual leader for the Roman Church. While the Pope had little in terms of army or direct supply from his territories, the influence he held in political matters was not to be underestimated.

The essay will begin by introducing Pope Innocent III and the backdrop to the conflict with King John of England. The main body will be split thematically between the Papal control derived from religious authority and privileges, and its position in the European hierarchy and how it was perceived in comparison to the European monarchs.

Pope Innocent III

Pope Innocent III was born Lothar in the year 1161, his early education in Rome, he studied theology in Paris becoming adept at the subject while adopting many of the theological ideas evolving in Paris. He returned to Rome to become an active member of the Papal administration. Historians’ understanding of Lothar’s yearly years working for the Papacy have changed, with Papal acts showing a much higher involvement in Papal administration than previously understood. Lothar’s pre-Papal years are a useful study for an understanding Innocent III. Historian John C. Moore used pre-papal writing as well as later sermons and other documents to write his book, an acclaimed study on Innocent III.

European Context

While it will not be a major aspect of my answer it is important to note that Pope Innocent III had intervened in France before, as King Philip-Augustus’ had refused to marry a papally supported bride. King John had also supported Otto, his nephew, in the war against Frederick, the Papal candidate, over the throne of the Holy Roman Empire.

King John’s relation to Otto is especially relevant as by the time that John would come into conflict with the Papacy, it would have been clear to him the result of opposing the Pope, as Otto had lost his throne and had been excommunicated from the Church. While the Pope in many cases may not have intended for his actions to have such dramatic effects, notably the assassination of Philip of Swabia, it was useful as it added a real, substantial, power behind the Pope’s words. The people of Europe revered the Papacy which gave Papal decrees influence across Europe. In 1212, when there were false rumours that the Pope had broken King John’s subject’s oaths of allegiance it weakened the King’s position. The Pope had broken the oaths of allegiance of rulers before, including the aforementioned Otto of Brunswick.

Innocent III and King John

While the Pope’s most absolute method of dealing with hostile monarchs was to break the oaths of allegiance, he could also impose interdicts upon regions and excommunicate rulers. The Pope used both when dealing with King John. There had been a dispute over the Pope’s appointed of an Archbishop of Canterbury without consultation with the King, John blocked Langton from entering England and banished the monks of Canterbury. The Pope retaliated with an interdict, however common it may have been to use by this point, kingdom wide interdicts having been used multiple times in the past decades, it failed to provide any positive effects and instead caused King John to harden his stance against the Pope. As the general attack of the interdict had failed, the Pope went for John personally, and excommunicated him, which on a basic level prevented John from taking sacrament and attending services, but for society at the time being excommunicated was tantamount to being made a social outcast. The dispute between Papacy and King John highlights the difficulties in the Pope’s attempts to hold influence in Europe. While it was successful eventually, after the excommunication of King John in late 1209, it took nearly three years until the King came to the negotiation table with the Pope. Via Papal prerogative the Pope could set interdicts, excommunicate rulers, and break the oath of allegiance between vassal and liege lord. Innocent III’s usage of these powers in his efforts to get King John to submit show how the Pope used his powers to extend his influence and deal with monarchs who in terms of army were much more powerful.

The Papacy was seen as to the spiritual as a King was to the temporal. The Papacy was the head of the Roman Church and by this point the Popes had been claiming increasing connection to the Divine. However the Pope had not only command in the spiritual realm, as his influence in Europe also had a temporal aspect. The Pope was the Bishop of Rome and as such wore a mitre, however his coronation mitre was adorned with a crown to represent his rulership over the Papal States. The Pope ruled over land, commanded troops and by 1214 it had been made precedent that he could rule over Kings. In 1213, with Philip-Augustus amassing an invasion force and baronial discontent rising, King John finally sat down with Papal envoys to settle the issues which had caused the dispute. As well as making Langton the Archbishop of Canterbury, he gave the kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope for John to manage as King in his stead. King John also began to pay a thousand mark sterling per year to the Papacy, seven hundred for England, three hundred for Ireland. John’s deal with the Pope realised the Pope as a ‘feudal’ leader, both a blessing and a curse for the Pope as Innocent III would have to act in defence of his new fiefs against the French and baronial threats. The reasons for the Papal annulment of the Magna Carta by Innocent III is a topic of much debate. One argument is that the Pope was forced to act in defence of his subject, perhaps even via coercion by King John. An alternate approach to the topic is supported by C.R. Cheney, this argument is that Innocent III acted upon his own desires rather than feudal obligations. Pope Innocent III had earlier declared that he spoke for God and so the Pope may have felt it was his prerogative as the head of the Roman Church and voice of God to act as where he believed it to have mattered.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Pope was significant during the central Middle Ages. His influence very much came from his position as the head of the Roman Church and conduit between the temporal and spiritual worlds. His influence enabled him to use powers such as interdicts, excommunications, and the breaking of alliance obligations between vassals and liege lords. Pope Innocent III is a great example of how a Pope could use Papal influence and authority to increase his power in Europe. The European monarchies did not always like the Pope or follow his instructions but they all understood his power.

Bibliography

Cheney, C.R. “King John and the Papal Interdict”, in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Vol.31 Number 2. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1948.

Doran, J. “Pope Innocent III (1160/61–1216): To Root Up and to Plant (review)”, in The English Historical Review, 2011, Vol. CXXVI(518). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Helmholz, R. “Pope Innocent III and the Annulment of Magna Carta”, in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 2018, Vol.69(1), pp.1-14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Kristen, G. “Pope Innocent III (1160/61–1216): To Root Up and To Plant by John C. Moore (review)”, in Comitatus: A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2010, Vol.41(1). Los Angeles: University of California, 2010

Moore, J. C. Pope Innocent III (1160/61-1216) : to root up and to plant. Notre Dame, Ind. : University of Notre Dame Press.

Morris, C. The Papal Monarchy: the Western Church 1050-1250. Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1991.

So, I'll open it up with a possible reading recommendation. I was meaning to buy this book when I saw it at a conference a month ago, but when I actually got around to it, someone else had grabbed it. Still: The Two Powers: The Papacy, the Empire, and the Struggle for Sovereignty in the Thirteenth Century, by Brett Edward Whalen.

Now, to answer the other ones as best I can:

1. Yes. A good case study is the Investiture Controversy, which was a very long dispute between Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII. Both wanted to have the power to appoint the Bishop of Cologne (i.e. place someone who supported them at the heart of the German territories). The peak of this conflict occurred at the "Humiliation of Canossa," when Henry knelt before Gregory to seek absolution. There's a lot of evidence for the extent of the tension. In most of Henry's letters, he refers to Pope Gregory by his non-papal name, Hildebrand. However, after Canossa, Henry's letters suddenly start referring to him as Gregory. Relationships detoriated again though very rapidly, so Henry IV got excommunicated by the pope multiple times!
   However, the two excommunications had very different outcomes. Part of this comes from what the risk of excommunication actually was. As part of the first excommunication, Gregory invalidated the oaths of allegiance the German princes had made to Henry. Therefore, they were by right able to choose a new king or revolt against Henry. That's bad news. With the second excommunication, Henry won a civil war that sprang up from it, so the other princes were already solidly in his camp. Therefore, he was able to wage an offensive against the papacy without any risk from the excommunication.

2. Again using the Investiture controversy as an example, Gregory's successor, Urban, eventually "won" the Investiture controversy, and the king of England at the time, Henry I, in the Concordat of London gave up the right to invest bishops with authority, though they still had to swear allegiance to him for the lands the bishopric owned. A neat compromise, but one that wouldn't have happened if Henry I was confident that he could ignore the papacy and get away with it.

3. This (and the extent to which my answers to 1 and 2 are applicable) depends very heavily on who is the pope and who are the rulers. This is probably not a very satisfying answer, but it's really the best one. The pope was a political actor as much as a religious one, though, and so usually meddled in Italy at least a little bit. Additionally, the German king wouldn't become Holy Roman Emperor officially until coronated by the Pope (something that sometimes never happened), so the papacy could always theoretically withhold that as a political tool.

4. Again, it's complicated. At times, the papacy and the HRE got along great. In other times, the Pope would be run out of Rome by the HRE and have to take refuge in France for a while. I am not well-enough versed in the history of the Holy Roman Empire to trace any long-term trends or developments in that relationship for you, unfortunately. But I suspect that book reading would help. Also, Christianity and Culture in the Middle Ages: Essays to Honor John Van Engen*,* edited by David C. Mengel and Lisa Wolverton may be a helpful book; I know Jonathan Lyon has an article in it that at least touches on church/secular relations in the HRE.