Week 3 Topic: The Early Medieval Church on Witchcraft
Worms Cathedral
This week you have been reading excerpts from The Corrector by Burchard of Worms. What does this text tell you about the Church's view on witchcraft during the early Middle Ages? How is his stance similar/different from other readings we have seen?
The Church saw witchcraft as foolish--not only in the sense of its "practice", but also in regard to belief in it. During the early Middle Ages, merely believing in witchcraft was punishable, not so much the practice of it (that was later on, in the Renaissance). This was due to the idea that believing in witchcraft would weaken faith in God, for God was the only one who could control forces such as the weather or a creature's physical form. Despite this, the Church still required penance for behaving in a way that suggests having faith in or participating in witchcraft, as we can see in Burchard's questions a confessor had to ask. His stance seems to be pretty consistent with what has been seen so far, with Agobert's views in "On Hail and Thunder" and that faith in God is more important than the ridiculousness of witchcraft (the moral of Robert Manning's "cow-sucking bag" piece). However, in the excerpt by Adelard of Bath, we see that there is no concern over the witch practicing magic, because Adelard tells his nephew that the trick with the jug is nothing but hydraulics, and there lies once difference with Burchard's concerns, for it dismisses the "problem" altogether.
I agree with julia. The Roman Catholic Church specifically was not too amused that witchcraft could (from what they believed) hurt the congregation. Julia's example from Adelard of Bath exposes the churches claims of witchcraft to be frivolous in nature. She also brings up a good point that, "faith in god is more important than the ridiculousness of witchcraft." This point is brought up multiple times in the readings, and common pyschology would point to the fact that people aren't crazy enough to just kill without justification. Sure there are some discrepencies (9/11 trials, genocide), but the church's intentions were to emphasize faith over everthing else.
Hello- I think that this excerpt from the corrector is showing the leniency that the church had for witchcraft during this time. The penances that were for each of the beliefs or activities show us that the church was more accepting of witchcraft and were more concerned about not doing that activity or believing in it again rather than dishing out a big punishment. However, something that makes me wonder about this certain book is... how did he think of all of these senarios.. it makes me think that at some point he had to have participated in some of these himself or else there is no way he could of thought up of these 150+ senarios to write off as "bad" or "undesirable".
I think that Worms view is kind of similar to Alegard of Bath because while one thinks that one is witchcraft and the other thinks it's science, they both have these nonchalant attitude about witchcraft in this time period which will not be the case down the road.
Worms is the same as Mannings because he does not believe in the witchcraft can exist the Bishop doesnt actually believe that it can work. They both have the same mentality of witchcraft not working or not existing. However, they both do not see it as something that requires severe punishments.
I agree with your thought about the church being lenient but to a certain extent it is still ridiculous. They expect people to do penance just for believing in some crazy scenario they might never have heard of, thought up by someone they've never met. If anything I think that this text would fuel the ideas of others, giving them new and crazy paths to go down, planting the seed of suspicion. If you think about it, most people never could have thought or even imagine doing some of these things. Also like you said about where he came up with all of the stories, it really makes you think and question the credibility of the author. Another thing, is it the church's place to be controlling what the people believe? And is there really any proof that someone believes in something? What determines someone's beliefs? I totally agree with the rest of your statement, especially that there is a mentality that witchcraft does not work or exist. -Rachel Skowron
The church at this time period does not see witchcraft as a threat to their power. Later years we see the church going on a vendetta against accused witches because their power was on the line. They do not see a group of women from an isolated village as a problem. At this time the punishment were penances and witchcraft was seen as a minor sin rather then a major heretic which would be punishable by death. I think this attitude shows how the stability of the church changes drastically over the next few decades. When the church is more tolerant of witchcraft they are stable and not afraid of being overpowered, however; when they are burning anyone even thought of being a witch it shows how unstable the church has become.
The church during this time period did thought the belief as well as the practice of witchcraft was foolish and unintelligent. They played to rational thought. The claims of being able to perform magic was thought of as silly and foolish talk. In Buchard(90)it even ask who is stupid and foolish enough to believe.... this suggests a somewhat condescending view on the belief and practice of witchcraft as if it were something that is childish and should not even be thought of by mature adults. This is reflected in the punishment given for the beliefs in various forms of witchcraft. The punishments were merely penances which are not severe at all when compared to the punishments that came later. The mild punishment may have also stemmed from the fact that the church did not have much lawful power at the time and this would be the severest punishment it could issue due to its limited power. It is clear though that witchcraft was not seen as a threat to the church at this time but more as ridiculous and childish behavior. -Joshua Rennecker-
I agree with Joshua. During this time both the church and Buchard see witchcraft as "foolish and unintelligent." The church, as it seems, was not threatened by any form of magic or witchcraft. Like Joshua said, "the church did not have much lawful power at the time," so the punishments may have been worse then simply having to do a penance if a person were to take part in witchcraft. However, the church's view on witchcraft was not severe, it did not see witchcraft or its acts as a great sin, so there was no need to be strict and make the punishments for witchcraft anything more than penance, harsh punishment was not necessary. The church was stronger than witchcraft, seeing the pagan beliefs of magic as childish, stupid, or even a sign of no education, and these are probably reasons why the church targeted these people with missionaries and tried to educate them about God. As history goes to show, it was not until after the church had grown significantly, that the punishments for witchcraft became more severe.
I dont believe the church really cared to much about whichcraft or believed in it themselves. Most of the rules and punishments were based on if you believe in the practices, not actually doing the practices. And if you were caught performing rites, you were simply banished. Because of the ease of punishment I really dont believe that the church cared about witchcraft.
I think that the church viewed witchcraft during the Middle Ages as an absurd practice to be associated with. I believe this is shown by such excerpts as passage 170 in Burchard and Worms. In this passage the church makes witchcraft seem barbaric by associating the practice with leaving the bodily form and cooking/ eating the flesh of individuals and then replacing their heart with straw. I Think that these passages also show how the church didn't have the power to totally silence the practice of witchcraft. This is most clearly demonstrated by the punishments that the church attributes to each of these practices of witchcraft. For example if we look back at passage 170, an individual who essentially murders another individual is required to do penance for only 40 days on bread and water instead of being sentenced to death themselves. I believe that if the church thought that they had greater power against the practice of witchcraft, greater punishments would have been dished out.
I believe The Collector is pointing out the churches belief that participating in witchcraft-like practices are foolish. It is obvious that the church (during the Middle Ages) did not see act of witchcraft as threatening, so the actions it has put into place as 'punishment' are not very harsh. If the church would have viewed these practices differently, much more harsh punishments would have been imposed than thirty days of bread and water or penance for two years. I think the stance in this article is similar to many of the other articles we have read, such as Adelard of Barth and Dame Sirth because they see magic as inferior to their belief in the church and therefore are not bothered by others practicing magic around them. -Victoria McKinley
It seems that they viewed belief in witchcrat as the crime, not practicing it. They didnt think it was real and so the punishments werewatered down compared to societies that saw witches as a physical threat as apposed to like a cultural problem. (ps is there a way to spell check comments)
From looking at The Corrector (written by Buchard of Worms) I can conclude that witchcraft during the late dark ages wasn't taken as a serious threat or sin by the church. Practices such as the ones mentioned in the Corrector were seen more acts of magics that remained from old pagan religions than 'witchcraft' as understood later on. The punishments for taking part in or believing in the power of these rituals was very menial and involved basic penance, mostly in the form of fasting. Later on, the mere suspicion of even harmless 'witchcraft' would have resulted in a death sentence. Around the time the Corrector was written, a death for these sins would have been condemned by the church. -Petra Mourany
The Corrector tells you a lot about the churches view on magic. The churches primary view on magic was that it is foolish. The church did not see magic as threat; however, just the mere belief if magic could result in punishment. This mainly had to do with the fact that the church believed only God could create miracles and control fate, etc. If a person believed in magic, they had conflicting beliefs with the church. The punishment for several specific types of punishments was listed out, with each particular instance requiring a specific penance. While the church “punished” people for witchcraft, they did not go to the extremes that some societies did later on. The church seemed to be most interested in stopping the behavior, rather than trying to truly “punish” those involved in witchcraft. At this point in history the church is pretty tolerant of witchcraft, and this is illustrated in the ways in which it is handled in The Corrector.
The Corrector shows that the churches regard any abnormal behavior as participation in magic or witchcraft. They have a strong disbelief and distrust in woman and it seems that they assume that most woman are witches or are deceived by Satan. For example,number 69,70,90 and 170 all started the sentences as/ similar in the form of " Have you believed that there is any woman who can do that which some,....". Moreover, nearly half of the questions on the collector mentioned woman.
Although they listed all the possible "crime" and its punishment, they didn't say what will happen if those who did the "crime" and did not accept the punishment. So we can't see the difference between those who do the penance and those who don't. People can still believe in magic and witchcraft as long as they do penance to wash their "crime".
The church definately sees the belief in witchcraft as more punishable than the actual practice since, as others have said, it weakens one's faith in the Christian god. It is still interesting to me that the practice of witchcraft seems to have no clear punishment. Those who practice are clearly violating the Church's law, but they don't really pose any threat to the power of the Church. Withcraft is viewed as something foolish and ridiculous. So I suppose that's why practicaners are left alone. Burchard's views are similar to Manning's and Adelard's views that magic is silly and inferior. I'd say almost childish. No one seems to care to much about witchraft as long as you don't believe in it, then you have a problem.
The Church saw witchcraft as foolish--not only in the sense of its "practice", but also in regard to belief in it. During the early Middle Ages, merely believing in witchcraft was punishable, not so much the practice of it (that was later on, in the Renaissance). This was due to the idea that believing in witchcraft would weaken faith in God, for God was the only one who could control forces such as the weather or a creature's physical form. Despite this, the Church still required penance for behaving in a way that suggests having faith in or participating in witchcraft, as we can see in Burchard's questions a confessor had to ask. His stance seems to be pretty consistent with what has been seen so far, with Agobert's views in "On Hail and Thunder" and that faith in God is more important than the ridiculousness of witchcraft (the moral of Robert Manning's "cow-sucking bag" piece). However, in the excerpt by Adelard of Bath, we see that there is no concern over the witch practicing magic, because Adelard tells his nephew that the trick with the jug is nothing but hydraulics, and there lies once difference with Burchard's concerns, for it dismisses the "problem" altogether.
ReplyDelete-Julia Mains
I agree with julia. The Roman Catholic Church specifically was not too amused that witchcraft could (from what they believed) hurt the congregation. Julia's example from Adelard of Bath exposes the churches claims of witchcraft to be frivolous in nature. She also brings up a good point that, "faith in god is more important than the ridiculousness of witchcraft." This point is brought up multiple times in the readings, and common pyschology would point to the fact that people aren't crazy enough to just kill without justification. Sure there are some discrepencies (9/11 trials, genocide), but the church's intentions were to emphasize faith over everthing else.
DeleteHello-
ReplyDeleteI think that this excerpt from the corrector is showing the leniency that the church had for witchcraft during this time. The penances that were for each of the beliefs or activities show us that the church was more accepting of witchcraft and were more concerned about not doing that activity or believing in it again rather than dishing out a big punishment. However, something that makes me wonder about this certain book is... how did he think of all of these senarios.. it makes me think that at some point he had to have participated in some of these himself or else there is no way he could of thought up of these 150+ senarios to write off as "bad" or "undesirable".
I think that Worms view is kind of similar to Alegard of Bath because while one thinks that one is witchcraft and the other thinks it's science, they both have these nonchalant attitude about witchcraft in this time period which will not be the case down the road.
Worms is the same as Mannings because he does not believe in the witchcraft can exist the Bishop doesnt actually believe that it can work. They both have the same mentality of witchcraft not working or not existing. However, they both do not see it as something that requires severe punishments.
-Ashleigh Mussulin.2
I agree with your thought about the church being lenient but to a certain extent it is still ridiculous. They expect people to do penance just for believing in some crazy scenario they might never have heard of, thought up by someone they've never met. If anything I think that this text would fuel the ideas of others, giving them new and crazy paths to go down, planting the seed of suspicion. If you think about it, most people never could have thought or even imagine doing some of these things. Also like you said about where he came up with all of the stories, it really makes you think and question the credibility of the author. Another thing, is it the church's place to be controlling what the people believe? And is there really any proof that someone believes in something? What determines someone's beliefs?
DeleteI totally agree with the rest of your statement, especially that there is a mentality that witchcraft does not work or exist.
-Rachel Skowron
The church at this time period does not see witchcraft as a threat to their power. Later years we see the church going on a vendetta against accused witches because their power was on the line. They do not see a group of women from an isolated village as a problem. At this time the punishment were penances and witchcraft was seen as a minor sin rather then a major heretic which would be punishable by death. I think this attitude shows how the stability of the church changes drastically over the next few decades. When the church is more tolerant of witchcraft they are stable and not afraid of being overpowered, however; when they are burning anyone even thought of being a witch it shows how unstable the church has become.
ReplyDeleteI forgot to tag myself
Delete-Emily Reinhart
The church during this time period did thought the belief as well as the practice of witchcraft was foolish and unintelligent. They played to rational thought. The claims of being able to perform magic was thought of as silly and foolish talk. In Buchard(90)it even ask who is stupid and foolish enough to believe.... this suggests a somewhat condescending view on the belief and practice of witchcraft as if it were something that is childish and should not even be thought of by mature adults. This is reflected in the punishment given for the beliefs in various forms of witchcraft. The punishments were merely penances which are not severe at all when compared to the punishments that came later. The mild punishment may have also stemmed from the fact that the church did not have much lawful power at the time and this would be the severest punishment it could issue due to its limited power. It is clear though that witchcraft was not seen as a threat to the church at this time but more as ridiculous and childish behavior.
ReplyDelete-Joshua Rennecker-
I agree with Joshua. During this time both the church and Buchard see witchcraft as "foolish and unintelligent." The church, as it seems, was not threatened by any form of magic or witchcraft. Like Joshua said, "the church did not have much lawful power at the time," so the punishments may have been worse then simply having to do a penance if a person were to take part in witchcraft. However, the church's view on witchcraft was not severe, it did not see witchcraft or its acts as a great sin, so there was no need to be strict and make the punishments for witchcraft anything more than penance, harsh punishment was not necessary. The church was stronger than witchcraft, seeing the pagan beliefs of magic as childish, stupid, or even a sign of no education, and these are probably reasons why the church targeted these people with missionaries and tried to educate them about God. As history goes to show, it was not until after the church had grown significantly, that the punishments for witchcraft became more severe.
Delete-Ethan Zucal
I dont believe the church really cared to much about whichcraft or believed in it themselves. Most of the rules and punishments were based on if you believe in the practices, not actually doing the practices. And if you were caught performing rites, you were simply banished. Because of the ease of punishment I really dont believe that the church cared about witchcraft.
ReplyDeleteI think that the church viewed witchcraft during the Middle Ages as an absurd practice to be associated with. I believe this is shown by such excerpts as passage 170 in Burchard and Worms. In this passage the church makes witchcraft seem barbaric by associating the practice with leaving the bodily form and cooking/ eating the flesh of individuals and then replacing their heart with straw. I Think that these passages also show how the church didn't have the power to totally silence the practice of witchcraft. This is most clearly demonstrated by the punishments that the church attributes to each of these practices of witchcraft. For example if we look back at passage 170, an individual who essentially murders another individual is required to do penance for only 40 days on bread and water instead of being sentenced to death themselves. I believe that if the church thought that they had greater power against the practice of witchcraft, greater punishments would have been dished out.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe The Collector is pointing out the churches belief that participating in witchcraft-like practices are foolish. It is obvious that the church (during the Middle Ages) did not see act of witchcraft as threatening, so the actions it has put into place as 'punishment' are not very harsh. If the church would have viewed these practices differently, much more harsh punishments would have been imposed than thirty days of bread and water or penance for two years. I think the stance in this article is similar to many of the other articles we have read, such as Adelard of Barth and Dame Sirth because they see magic as inferior to their belief in the church and therefore are not bothered by others practicing magic around them.
ReplyDelete-Victoria McKinley
It seems that they viewed belief in witchcrat as the crime, not practicing it. They didnt think it was real and so the punishments werewatered down compared to societies that saw witches as a physical threat as apposed to like a cultural problem.
ReplyDelete(ps is there a way to spell check comments)
From looking at The Corrector (written by Buchard of Worms) I can conclude that witchcraft during the late dark ages wasn't taken as a serious threat or sin by the church. Practices such as the ones mentioned in the Corrector were seen more acts of magics that remained from old pagan religions than 'witchcraft' as understood later on. The punishments for taking part in or believing in the power of these rituals was very menial and involved basic penance, mostly in the form of fasting. Later on, the mere suspicion of even harmless 'witchcraft' would have resulted in a death sentence. Around the time the Corrector was written, a death for these sins would have been condemned by the church.
ReplyDelete-Petra Mourany
The Corrector tells you a lot about the churches view on magic. The churches primary view on magic was that it is foolish. The church did not see magic as threat; however, just the mere belief if magic could result in punishment. This mainly had to do with the fact that the church believed only God could create miracles and control fate, etc. If a person believed in magic, they had conflicting beliefs with the church. The punishment for several specific types of punishments was listed out, with each particular instance requiring a specific penance. While the church “punished” people for witchcraft, they did not go to the extremes that some societies did later on. The church seemed to be most interested in stopping the behavior, rather than trying to truly “punish” those involved in witchcraft. At this point in history the church is pretty tolerant of witchcraft, and this is illustrated in the ways in which it is handled in The Corrector.
ReplyDeleteThe Corrector shows that the churches regard any abnormal behavior as participation in magic or witchcraft. They have a strong disbelief and distrust in woman and it seems that they assume that most woman are witches or are deceived by Satan. For example,number 69,70,90 and 170 all started the sentences as/ similar in the form of " Have you believed that there is any woman who can do that which some,....". Moreover, nearly half of the questions on the collector mentioned woman.
ReplyDeleteAlthough they listed all the possible "crime" and its punishment, they didn't say what will happen if those who did the "crime" and did not accept the punishment. So we can't see the difference between those who do the penance and those who don't. People can still believe in magic and witchcraft as long as they do penance to wash their "crime".
er...i forgot to put my name on it.
Delete---Wenxi Yang
The church definately sees the belief in witchcraft as more punishable than the actual practice since, as others have said, it weakens one's faith in the Christian god. It is still interesting to me that the practice of witchcraft seems to have no clear punishment. Those who practice are clearly violating the Church's law, but they don't really pose any threat to the power of the Church. Withcraft is viewed as something foolish and ridiculous. So I suppose that's why practicaners are left alone.
ReplyDeleteBurchard's views are similar to Manning's and Adelard's views that magic is silly and inferior. I'd say almost childish. No one seems to care to much about witchraft as long as you don't believe in it, then you have a problem.
Sorry, Victoria Penno
Delete