Do you know, I've been enjoying the robust debate about 'oppression' in this thread (well, I was enjoying it until I realized that I'd actually been oppressing Tugdual the whole time!!! Mea culpa) - but this is by far the most amusing thing that's been said in it to date. 
Thanks coochy!
Ah well, shit happens. Now that everything is clear I'm sorry I let it grow out of proportion. 
I need some sleep. I think the most important bit is : "reading is fun."
Technically, the church had systems to enable you to resist. You could complain about your conditions to the archdeacon or the dean when he visits your parish. You can appeal to the bishop, or archbishop. Of course, real meaningful access to these systems was very variable.
Just like with nobles there were "bad" experiences under the church and "good" experiences too. The church did claim to look after the poor and disadvantaged --- but precisely what this actually meant in practice varied considerably.
For example, this guy...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivo_of_Kermartin
Ivo of Kermartin, who became patron saint of, among others,... (...wait for it...)... lawyers!
Seems he spent much of his life advocating for the rights of the poor. A bit out of our era (latter half of 1200's), but it implies that this was indeed the exception, not the rule.
Exceptional in his zeal perhaps, but many churchmen advocated for the poor in smaller ways (and, of course, many cared nothing for the poor too).
Although written in the late 13th century the summa theologica contains a good summary of the sorts of arguments around this http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3032.htm. These were live issues at the time, which means that on the one hand many "princes of the church" didn't care for the poor, but on the other hand many did. The papacy itself was generally on the side of the poor, at least in rhetoric. But the papacy didn't necessarily have direct control over what happened everywhere.
Unfortunately, the number of "princes of the church" that believed in apostalic poverty was pretty limited. There were certainly many churchmen with different views, notably among the Franciscans, but these tended not to be the same churchmen who had/managed extensive landholdings. Go figure, huh?
True, but that's totally different to what is being talked about here.
I'm talking about the idea of giving alms to the poor and helping the poor, which was a pretty common idea in the church (although not always practiced with great zeal). This is afterall one of the nominal reasons that tithes were collected --- so that a proportion could be distributed to the poor.
Apostolic poverty is the idea that the churchmen should themselves live in a state of poverty (to varying degrees). The more extreme versions of this are not very common outside monastic orders.
How does a peasant complain to an archdeacon? How do you get an audience? How do you prove your claim? I agree there are theoretical mechanisms. I don't believe they were easily or regularly used, and my point was you were not permitted to resist financially, or militarily, or by organising politically. All of these things were sins.
Well, I find it striking that, when most people fantasize about the medieval area, talk about their "past lives" or costume themselves, it's the lords and ladies that we see, and not the peasant.
I find it also striking that, at least in france, there was peasant revolts against those that were supposed to protect them, despite the huge difference in armament and skill.
The archdeacon visits your parish once a year. One of the explicit purposes of this visit is to hear complaints from the peasants in the parish. So getting an audience is not actually a big problem.
You "prove" your claim by presenting "convincing" testimony. Whether the archdeacon does anything or not obviously depends on him, the testimony, any opposing testimony, and the context. So, any response is possible. But generally archdeacons were not corrupt; otherwise they wouldn't have been the archdeacon.
Generally, churchmen did actually obey canon law. Sure, there were notable, powerful exceptions including popes (but not, historically, the early thirteenth century popes).
Dealing relatively fairly about complaints about clergy and what was happening at the low level of the church was something that the historic records of bishops' courts indicates was actually routinely done by the church.
Yes, not paying tithe, attacking churches and organising alternative religions were sins; or at least canon crimes. Although none were irrecoverable. You could always stop, confess, and do penance.
You may know about this better than I, but wasn't the office of "Vicar" supposed to fill exactly that role? To be the eyes and ears of the bishop/deacon, but at a more accessible level? (Vicar is from the same root as "vicarious" - to live thru another, so to speak.)
As typical of most of the "revolts", many of those were along cultural divides - the welsh-ish of Brittany "revolting" against their French masters when King... (Johh? Richard?) lost the far side of the channel coast to the French (Phillipe iirc).
Wasn't entirely about simple politics.
Um . . . as interesting as the discussion is, can I interject by saying that I'm basing my "oppressed peasants" in the context of Ars Magica on Lords of Men? Where the vikings no longer trouble Christendom and where a large part of the noble lifestyle is to engage in Conspicuous Consumption to develop or maintain a reputation as a prodhomme (and thus someone you don't $#@% with)?
Specifically, where a multitude of legal tools are employed to ensure that serfs don't get the opportunity to buy back their freedom. Specifically by keeping them fined into financial oblivion. Speaking of fines, some of which are automatic because everyone knows the lazy scum are all thieves and dues-cheaters. Additionally, some of which are "damned if you do, damned if you don't" fines due to contrary demands of Church and Lord. Heck, the computer game mechanism of "lower taxes to make serfs happy" is specifically dismissed because rich serfs will either leave or revolt ASAP.
I wasn't trying to say that their lives sucked because they lacked 21st century creature comforts. They were raised to live in their conditions and were used to them, after all. No, I'm saying that any realistic and reasonably industrious serf would have a decent chance of at least buying freedom for their children - except that a big chunk of their 'noble' administration was dedicated to preventing that.
-Albert
Not sure if this ever saw use, but theoretically, non-fulfilment of feudal duties could be the Casus Belli your neighbour was looking for.
In 1220 vicar is normally just used as an alternative title for curate. The priest who holds a benefice (effectively title to a parish) is the rector, if another priest is actually performing the liturgy in the parish church that priest is called the curate (or sometimes vicar).
The pope sometimes uses the title vicar too --- he is standing in for god in the same way. More informally, a churchman might refer to himself as another churchman's vicar if he is performing the duties of the other churchman. So, in this sense the archdeacon is the bishop's vicar --- but it is not a formal title.
The archdeacon himself travels around visiting the parishes in the archdeaconry. He is meant to visit each one once a year. This is his job. So, there is no problem about access to the archdeacon (unless the archdeacon is not doing what he is meant to be doing; which is certainly possible, but is rare). Sometimes a dean does this as well as (or instead of) the archdeacon.
See The Church.
or paesant killed by some paesants...
you could also go and see his overlord or even the king
usually abused were punished in a way or another... even if sometimes you had bad lords for a couple of generations...
The only thing missing in this thread about the oppressive feudal system is a Monthy Python and the Holy Grail quotation!
King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
[King Arthur moves to hit Dennis]
Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
King Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?
You're right. Thanks for filling the gap, there, Teufelted!
Hehe, actually CH was waaay ahead of you with his first post in the thread... :mrgreen:
(Actually, same reference already made on page 1, sorry.)
So you're implying that it's "repressive", not "oppressive"?... I can accept that. 8)
Certainly the Church provided a range of social services, including hospitals and support for the poor. This is also rather beside the point though, since we've been talking about the Church as a landowner. Certainly there were exceptions, but peasants did not particularly like holding their lands from the Church and did not see it as a kinder gentler version of the nobility. It was the perceived abuses of the Church Militant that lead the Spiritual Franciscans and others to advocate poverty, as well as providing fertile ground for various "heretics" to reject the church entirely.