[In response to some recent sectarian objections to my Knights Templar avatar, is this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, illustrating the bogus claim that the order was condemned by the Church]
The Knights TemplarsThe Knights Templars were the earliest founders of the
military orders, and are the type on which the others are modelled. They are marked in history (1) by their humble beginning, (2) by their marvellous growth, and (3) by their tragic end.
Their humble beginningImmediately after the deliverance of
Jerusalem, the
Crusaders, considering their
vow fulfilled, returned in a body to their homes. The defense of this precarious conquest, surrounded as it was by
Mohammedan neighbours, remained. In 1118, during the reign of Baldwin II, Hugues de Payens, a
knight of Champagne, and eight companions bound themselves by a perpetual
vow, taken in the presence of the
Patriarch of
Jerusalem, to defend the
Christian kingdom. Baldwin accepted their services and assigned them a portion of his palace, adjoining the
temple of the city; hence their title "pauvres chevaliers du temple" (Poor Knights of the Temple). Poor indeed they were, being reduced to living on
alms, and, so long as they were only nine, they were hardly prepared to render important services, unless it were as escorts to the
pilgrims on their way from
Jerusalem to the banks of the
Jordan, then frequented as a place of devotion.
The Templars had as yet neither distinctive habit nor rule. Hugues de Payens journeyed to the West to seek the
approbation of the
Church and to obtain recruits. At the Council of
Troyes(1128), at which he assisted and at which
St. Bernard was the leading spirit, the Knights Templars adopted the
Rule of St. Benedict, as recently reformed by the
Cistercians. They accepted not only the three perpetual
vows, besides the
crusader's vow, but also the austere rules concerning the
chapel, the refectory, and the dormitory. They also adopted the white habit of the
Cistercians, adding to it a red cross.
Notwithstanding the austerity of the monastic rule, recruits flocked to the new order, which thenceforth comprised four ranks of brethren:
- the knights, equipped like the heavy cavalry of the Middle Ages;
- the serjeants, who formed the light cavalry;
and two ranks of non-fighting men:
- the farmers, entrusted with the administration of temporals;
- and the chaplains, who alone were vested with sacerdotal orders, to minister to the spiritual needs of the order.
Their marvellous growthThe order owed its rapid growth in popularity to the fact that it combined the two great passions of the
Middle Ages,
religious fervour and martial prowess. Even before the Templars had
proved their worth, the
ecclesiastical and
lay authorities heaped on them favours of every kind, spiritual and temporal. The
popes took them under their immediate protection, exempting them from all other
jurisdiction, episcopal or secular. Their
property was assimilated to the church estates and exempted from all taxation, even from the
ecclesiastical tithes, while their churches and
cemeteries could not be placed under
interdict. This soon brought about conflict with the
clergy of the Holy Land, inasmuch as the increase of the landed
property of the order led, owing to its
exemption from
tithes, to the diminution of the revenue of the churches, and the
interdicts, at that time used and abused by the
episcopate, became to a certain extent inoperative wherever the order had churches and
chapels in which
Divine worship was regularly held. As early as 1156 the
clergy of the Holy Land tried to restrain the exorbitant
privileges of the
military orders, but in
Rome every objection was set aside, the result being a growing antipathy on the part of the
secular clergy against these orders. The temporal benefits which the order received from all the sovereigns of
Europe were no less important. The Templars had commanderies in every state. In
France they formed no less than eleven bailiwicks, subdivided into more than forty-two commanderies; in Palestine it was for the most part with sword in hand that the Templars extended their possessions at the expense of the
Mohammedans. Their castles are still famous owing to the remarkable ruins which remain: Safèd, built in 1140; Karak of the
desert (1143); and, most importantly of all, Castle Pilgrim, built in 1217 to command a strategic defile on the sea-coast.
In these castles, which were both
monasteries and cavalry-barracks, the life of the Templars was full of contrasts. A contemporary describes the Templars as "in turn lions of
war and lambs at the hearth; rough
knights on the battlefield,
pious monks in the
chapel; formidable to the enemies of
Christ, gentleness itself towards His friends." (
Jacques de Vitry). Having renounced all the pleasures of life, they faced death with a proud indifference; they were the first to attack, the last to retreat, always docile to the voice of their leader, the discipline of the
monk being added to the discipline of the soldier. As an army they were never very numerous. A contemporary tells us that there were 400
knights in
Jerusalem at the zenith of their prosperity; he does not give the number of serjeants, who were more numerous. But it was a picked body of men who, by their noble example, inspirited the remainder of the
Christianforces. They were thus the terror of the
Mohammedans. Were they defeated, it was upon them that the victor vented his fury, the more so as they were forbidden to offer a ransom. When taken
prisoners, they scornfully refused the freedom offered them on condition of
apostasy. At the siege of Safed (1264), at which ninety Templars met death, eighty others were taken
prisoners, and, refusing to deny
Christ, died
martyrs to the
Faith. This fidelity cost them dear. It has been computed that in less than two centuries almost 20,000 Templars,
knightsand serjeants, perished in
war.
These frequent hecatombs rendered it difficult for the order to increase in numbers and also brought about a decadence of the
true crusading spirit. As the order was compelled to make immediate use of the recruits, the article of the original rule in Latin which required a probationary period fell into desuetude. Even
excommunicated men, who, as was the case with many
crusaders, wished to expiate their
sins, were admitted. All that was required of a new member was a blind
obedience, as imperative in the soldier as in the
monk. He had to declare himself forever "serf et esclave de la maison" (French text of the rule). To
prove his sincerity, he was subjected to a secret test concerning the nature of which nothing has ever been discovered, although it gave rise to the most extraordinary accusations. The great
wealth of the order may also have contributed to a certain laxity in
morals, but the most serious charge against it was its insupportable
pride and
love of power. At the apogee of its prosperity, it was said to possess 9000 estates. With its accuмulated revenues it had amassed great
wealth, which was deposited in its
temples at
Paris and
London. Numerous princes and private
individuals had banked there their personal
property, because of the uprightness and solid credit of such bankers. In
Paris the royal treasure was kept in the
Temple. Quite independent, except from the distant authority of the
pope, and possessing power equal to that of the leading temporal sovereigns, the order soon assumed the
right to direct the weak and irresolute government of the
Kingdom of Jerusalem, a
feudal kingdom transmissible through
women and exposed to all the disadvantages of minorities, regencies, and domestic discord. However, the Templars were soon opposed by the
Order of Hospitallers, which had in its turn become military, and was at first the imitator and later the rival of the Templars. This ill-timed interference of the orders in the government of
Jerusalem only multiplied the intestine dessentions, and this at a
time when the formidable power of Saladin threatened the very existence of the
Latin Kingdom. While the Templars
sacrificed themselves with their customary
bravery in this final struggle, they were, nevertheless, partly responsible for the downfall of
Jerusalem.
To put an end to this baneful rivalry between the
military orders, there was a very simple remedy at hand, namely their amalgamation. This was officially proposed by
St. Louis at the
Council of Lyons (1274). It was proposed anew in 1293 by
Pope Nicholas IV, who called a general consultation on this point of the
Christian states. This
idea is canvassed by all the publicists of that
time, who demand either a fusion of the existing orders or the creation of a third order to supplant them. Never in fact had the question of the
crusaders been more eagerly taken up than after their failure. As the grandson of
St. Louis,
Philip the Fair could not remain indifferent to these proposals for a
crusade. As the most powerful prince of his time, the direction of the movement belonged to him. To assume this direction, all he demanded was the necessary supplies of men and especially of money. Such is the genesis of his campaign for the suppression of the Templars. It has been attributed wholly to his well-known cupidity. Even on this supposition he needed a pretext, for he could not, without
sacrilege, lay hands on possessions that formed part of the
ecclesiastical domain. To justify such a course the
sanction of the
Church was
necessary, and this the king could obtain only by maintaining the sacred purpose for which the possessions were destined. Admitting that he was sufficiently powerful to encroach upon the
property of the Templars in
France, he still needed the concurrence of the
Church to secure control of their possessions in the other countries of
Christendom. Such was the purpose of the wily negotiations of this self-willed and cunning sovereign, and of his still more treacherous counsellors, with
Clement V, a
French pope of weak
character and easily deceived. The rumour that there had been a prearrangement between the king and the
pope has been finally disposed of. A
doubtful revelation, which allowed
Philip to make the prosecution of the Templars as
heretics a question of
orthodoxy, afforded him the opportunity which he desired to invoke the action of the
Holy See.
Their tragic endIn the trial of the Templars two phases must be distinguished: the royal commission and the
papal commission.
First phase: the royal commissionPhilip the Fair made a preliminary inquiry, and, on the strength of so-called revelations of a few unworthy and degraded members, secret orders were sent throughout
France to arrest all the Templars on the same day (13 October, 1307), and to submit them to a most rigorous examination. The king did this, it was made to appear, at the request of the
ecclesiasticalinquisitors, but in reality without their co-operation.
In this inquiry torture, the use of which was authorized by the cruel procedure of the age in the case of crimes committed without
witnesses, was pitilessly employed. Owing to the lack of evidence, the accused could be convicted only through their own confession and, to extort this confession, the use of torture was considered
necessary and legitimate.
There was one feature in the organization of the order which gave rise to suspicion, namely the secrecy with which the
rites of initiation were conducted. The secrecy is explained by the fact that the receptions always took place in a chapter, and the chapters, owing to the delicate and grave questions discussed, were, and necessarily had to be, held in secret. An indiscretion in the matter of secrecy entailed exclusion from the order. The secrecy of these initiations, however, had two grave disadvantages.
As these receptions could take place wherever there was a commandery, they were carried on without publicity and were free from all surveillance or control from the higher authorities, the tests being entrusted to the discretion of subalterns who were often rough and uncultivated. Under such conditions, it is not to be wondered at that abuses crept in. One need only recall what took place almost daily at the time in the brotherhoods of artisans, the initiation of a new member being too often made the occasion for a parody more or less
sacrilegious of
baptism or of the
Mass.
The second disadvantage of this secrecy was, that it gave an opportunity to the enemies of the Templars, and they were numerous, to infer from this mystery every conceivable malicious supposition and base on it the monstrous imputations. The Templars were accused of spitting upon the
Cross, of denying
Christ, of permitting sodomy, of
worshipping an idol, all in the most impenetrable secrecy. Such were the
Middle Ages, when prejudice was so vehement that, to destroy an adversary, men did not recoil from inventing the most criminal charges. It will suffice to recall the similar, but even more ridiculous than ignominious accusations brought against
Pope Boniface VIII by the same
Philip the Fair.
Most of the accused declared themselves guilty of these secret crimes after being subjected to such ferocious torture that many of them succuмbed. Some made similar confessions without the use of torture, it is
true, but through
fear of it; the threat had been sufficient. Such was the case with the grand master himself,
Jacques de Molay, who acknowledged later that he had
lied to save his life.
Carried on without the authorization of the
pope, who had the
military orders under his immediate
jurisdiction, this investigation was radically corrupt both as to its intent and as to its procedure. Not only did
Clement V enter an energetic protest, but he annulled the entire trial and suspended the powers of the
bishops and their inquisitors. However, the offense had been admitted and remained the irrevocable basis of the entire subsequent proceedings.
Philip the Fair took advantage of the discovery to have bestowed upon himself by the
University of Paris the title of Champion and Defender of the
Faith, and also to stir up public opinion at the States General of
Tours against the heinous crimes of the Templars. Moreover, he succeeded in having the confessions of the accused confirmed in presence of the
pope by seventy-two Templars, who had been specially chosen and coached beforehand. In view of this investigation at
Poitiers (June, 1308), the
pope, until then sceptical, at last became concerned and opened a new commission, the procedure of which he himself directed. He reserved the cause of the order to the
papal commission, leaving
individuals to be tried by the
diocesan commissions to whom he restored their powers.
Second phase: the papal commissionThe second phase of the process was the
papal inquiry, which was not restricted to
France, but extended to all the
Christian countries of
Europe, and even to the Orient. In most of the other countries —
Portugal,
Spain,
Germany,
Cyprus — the Templars were found innocent; in
Italy, except for a few districts, the decision was the same. But in
France the episcopal
inquisitions, resuming their activities, took the facts as established at the trial, and confined themselves to reconciling the repentant guilty members, imposing various canonical
penancesextending even to perpetual
imprisonment. Only those who persisted in
heresy were to be turned over to the
secular arm, but, by a rigid interpretation of this provision, those who had withdrawn their former confessions were considered relapsed
heretics; thus fifty-four Templars who had recanted after having confessed were condemned as relapsed and publicly burned on 12 May, 1310. Subsequently all the other Templars, who had been examined at the trial, with very few exceptions declared themselves guilty.
At the same time the
papal commission, appointed to examine the cause of the order, had entered upon its
duties and gathered together the docuмents which were to be submitted to the
pope, and to the
general council called to decide as to the final
fate of the order. The culpability of single
persons, which was looked upon as established, did not involve the guilt of the order. Although the defense of the order was poorly conducted, it could not be
proved that the order as a body professed any
heretical doctrine, or that a secret rule, distinct from the official rule, was practised. Consequently, at the
General Council of Vienne in Dauphiné on 16 October, 1311, the majority were favourable to the maintenance of the order.
The pope, irresolute and harrassed, finally adopted a middle course: he decreed the dissolution, not the condemnation of the order, and not by penal sentence, but by an Apostolic Decree(Bull of 22 March, 1312). The order having been suppressed, the
pope himself was to decide as to the
fate of its members and the disposal of its possessions. As to the
property, it was turned over to the rival
Order of Hospitallers to be applied to its original use, namely the defence of the Holy Places. In
Portugal, however, and in
Aragon the possessions were vested in two new orders, the
Order of Christ in
Portugal and the
Order of Montesa in
Aragon. As to the members, the Templars recognized guiltless were allowed either to join another
military order or to return to the secular state. In the latter case, a
pension for life, charged to the possessions of the order, was granted them. On the other hand, the Templars who had pleaded guilty before their
bishops were to be treated "according to the rigours of
justice, tempered by a generous mercy".
The
pope reserved to his own judgment the cause of the
grand master and his three first dignitaries. They had confessed their guilt; it remained to reconcile them with the
Church, after they had testified to their repentance with the customary
solemnity. To give this
solemnity more publicity, a platform was erected in front of the Notre-Dame for the reading of the
sentence. But at the supreme moment the grand master recovered his
courage and proclaimed the innocence of the Templars and the
falsity of his own alleged confessions. To atone for this deplorable moment of weakness, he declared himself ready to sacrifice his life. He
knew the
fate that awaited him. Immediately after this unexpected coup-de-théâtre he was arrested as a relapsed
heretic with another dignitary who chose to share his
fate, and by order of
Philip they were burned at the stake before the gates of the palace. This
brave death deeply impressed the people, and, as it happened that the
pope and the king died shortly afterwards, the legend spread that the
grand master in the midst of the flames had summoned them both to appear in the course of the year before the tribunal of
God.
Such was the tragic end of the Templars. If we consider that the
Order of Hospitallers finally inherited, although not without difficulties, the
property of the Templars and received many of its members, we may say that the result of the trial was practically equivalent to the long-proposed amalgamation of the two rival orders. For the
Knights (first of
Rhodes, afterwards of
Malta) took up and carried on elsewhere the work of the Knights of the Temple.
This formidable trial, the greatest ever brought to light whether we consider the large number of accused, the difficulty of discovering the
truth from a mass of suspicious and contradictory evidence, or the many jurisdictions in activity simultaneously in all parts of
Christendom from
Great Britain to
Cyprus, is not yet ended. It is still passionately discussed by
historians who have divided into two camps, for and against the order. To mention only the principal ones, the following find the order guilty: Dupuy (1654), Hammer (1820), Wilcke (1826), Michelet (1841), Loiseleur (1872), Prutz (1888), and Rastoul (1905); the following find it innocent: Father Lejeune (1789),
Raynouard (1813), Havemann (1846), Ladvocat (1880), Schottmuller (1887), Gmelin (1893), Lea (1888), Fincke (1908). Without taking any side in this discussion, which is not yet exhausted, we may observe that the latest docuмents brought to light, particularly those which Fincke has recently extracted from the archives of the
Kingdom of Aragon, tell more and more strongly in favour of the order.