"Then came the intervention of our dear son in Christ, Philip, the illustrious king of France. The same crimes had been reported to him. He was not moved by greed. He had no intention of claiming or appropriating for himself anything from the Templars' property; rather, in his own kingdom he abandoned such claim and thereafter released entirely his hold on their goods."

Oh please.  If he wasn't moved by greed, then why did Clement feel the need to say "He wasn't moved by greed"?  The Papacy doth protest too much, methinks.  

As far as "releasing his hold on their goods," I have already cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia in another post which said that Philip had no qualms about breaking or bending financial contracts.  I have no doubt HE MADE IT LOOK PUBLICLY as if he were relinquishing hold of their goods.

Mind you, I bet a lot of the Templars were probably corrupted by wealth.  Why else would they have a secret rite?  But that doesn't mean that this ill-mannered, classless French turkey was a saint.  We're talking about a king who physically attacked a Pope.  There is no worse crime possible in Catholicism, not even sodomy.

Boniface VIII is the only one I like in this whole sordid tale.