What Trent Did, and Didn’t

The TLS reviewer of John O’Malley’s Trent: What Happened at the Council points out some of the omissions of the Council: “As O’Malley argues, however, what was not discussed is every bit as significant as what captured the delegates’ attention. There was barely a whisper about papal authority – a surprising omission, because this was one of the main issues raised by the Protestant revolt. Nor was there any attempt to look at the workings of the papal Curia. The first gap can probably be ascribed to caution. Digging too deeply into the specific nature of the pope’s powers would have been divisive. The second came down to resistance from Rome: every pope involved was adamant that it was up to him, not a council, to set his own house in order.”

Trent was more successful, O’Malley suggests, in dealing with the failures of bishops: Trent was able to “provide bishops with what O’Malley calls a detailed ‘job description.’ This involved a hard-fought battle, however, not least because bishops didn’t always relish being told what to do. The final results were nevertheless impressive. Bishops were now expected to be resident in their dioceses (a crucial requirement, given the prevalence of absenteeism); they were to preach, visit the institutions under their care, and establish seminaries.”

One ponders, ruefully, what would have happened if the first gap had been filled.