WI: Coffee forbidden by the Catholic Church

Coffee first spread to Europe in the late Renaissance period, being introduced to Venetian merchants by Ottoman traders. But though it was slowly becoming popular, it was not without controversy: in the late 16th century, a substantial number of Catholic priests and church officials condemned coffee as an "infidel" drink, due to its having been introduced to Italy, and from there Europe, mainly by Muslim merchants. They claimed that, because Islam forbade the drinking of wine, which was central to Christian holy practices and ceremonies, they had developed coffee as their substitute to wine, which made it an un-Christian, sacreligious drink that shouldn't be allowed into Christendom, and urged that its trade and consumption be forbidden.

Historical legend says that, circa 1600, the issue was finally settled when Pope Clement VIII asked to try a cup of coffee for himself in order to make a decision, liked it, and decided to bless coffee as a drink and allow it to be traded freely in Europe.

What if Clement had instead given in to pressure from the anti-coffee crowd in the Vatican, and coffee had instead been forbidden by the Catholic Church, thereby banning its trade into Europe and its consumption? There would be effects on trade and relations between Europe and the Muslim world, but there could've been indirect long-term effects as well: for example, as the article linked to above says, coffee houses were the favorite meeting place for many of the people who started the French Revolution. What do you think?

I don't see how thatz is going to have a serious impact. First and foremost, for the church to forbid foodstuffs is very unusual. Chriostianity has a strict line on dietary taboos, and breaching it is historically uncommon. If it passed, it would most likely be circumvented. In 1600, the church did not exactly enjoy a high reputation as arbiter of moral conduct. And it could help boost sales in Protestant countries.

It might change the status of coffee subtly, though. A drink associated with sin and indulgence, favoured by the sensual and warlike Turk. Most likely a favourite to be served in brothels. You could easily see it never shaking off the stigma. Tea becomes the drink of sobver, serious business, and coffee a stimulant of more vigorous (and dubious) activities. By the twentieth century, publicly drinking coffee might become a statement of women's emancipation.

carlton_bach said:

I don't see how thatz is going to have a serious impact. First and foremost, for the church to forbid foodstuffs is very unusual. Chriostianity has a strict line on dietary taboos, and breaching it is historically uncommon. If it passed, it would most likely be circumvented. In 1600, the church did not exactly enjoy a high reputation as arbiter of moral conduct. And it could help boost sales in Protestant countries.

Click to expand...

This, pretty much. I doubt that in 17th century RCC had either will or ability to strictly enforce such bans. And secular authorities would tolerate it provided they get a share of profits.

Protestant countries would ignore it or even embrace it as anti-papal statement

carlton_bach said:

It might change the status of coffee subtly, though. A drink associated with sin and indulgence, favoured by the sensual and warlike Turk. Most likely a favourite to be served in brothels. You could easily see it never shaking off the stigma. Tea becomes the drink of sobver, serious business, and coffee a stimulant of more vigorous (and dubious) activities. By the twentieth century, publicly drinking coffee might become a statement of women's emancipation.

Click to expand...

Or later embraced by rationalists, humanists and everybody willing to publicly show they don't see themselves bound by stuffy old RCC teachings.

If the Catholic Church had taken such a stance then coffee would have been the drink of Protestants. In fact coffee was frowned upon across Northern Europe as coffeehouses became the centres of political and religious discussion, starting with the divines at Oxford and reaching a high point in late 17th/early 18th Century London. Opposition was not so much against its origin with the Turks, but the subversive nature of its distribution and alleged health hazards. Among the supposed health hazards was the deleterious affect on women who were excluded from English coffee houses. It is recorded that the Duchess of Cleveland gave birth to a child as "black as an Imp" on account of consuming large amounts of coffee----at least, that's what they said!

If we leave aside the question whether this is realistic: The difference would be big. Don't forget that people used to drink beer and wine all the time, even for breakfast, because the water wasn't clean enough for drinking. Imagine the whole population, from king to beggar, constantly more or less on booze. In retrospect, it was not surprising that the medieval ages were that bad. It's more surprising that they still survived.

And yes, the coffeehouses were quite important for preparing the revolutions.

Max Sinister said:

If we leave aside the question whether this is realistic: The difference would be big. Don't forget that people used to drink beer and wine all the time, even for breakfast, because the water wasn't clean enough for drinking. Imagine the whole population, from king to beggar, constantly more or less on booze. In retrospect, it was not surprising that the medieval ages were that bad. It's more surprising that they still survived.

And yes, the coffeehouses were quite important for preparing the revolutions.

Click to expand...

Well, there is tea.

Not to mention that there were concerted efforts at the time to outlaw coffee in the Ottoman Empire, tobacco in England, and bullfighting in Spain. We can take those as guidelines for how well a papal ban on coffee would have worked.

They tried it in OTL and they were ignored.

carlton_bach said:

Well, there is tea.

Not to mention that there were concerted efforts at the time to outlaw coffee in the Ottoman Empire, tobacco in England, and bullfighting in Spain. We can take those as guidelines for how well a papal ban on coffee would have worked.

Click to expand...

Tobacco i Austria as well. Tea is not really a substitute for coffee tough, even if it is cheaper and easier too make. Just look at the history of coffee vs tea in England. They are also both very closely linked with sugar.

Arafeel said:

... They are also both very closely linked with sugar.

Click to expand...

...as has been chocolate.