Less corrupt more tolerant Mediaval church

Could the Catholic Church have been less in need of reform by 1500?

Could it have been influentual without being so linked to abuse as in otl
 
Get rid of the Babylonian captivity.

Failing that, have more popes focused on church reforms than church power - though that undermines the "influence" part.

On tolerance? There's not a whole lot you can do here, but having the Church take a stand against persecution of the Jews for ridiculous lies would be a possible if difficult thing to have happen.
 
"Less corrupt" and "more tolerant" don't necessary have much in common. Church reform movements where usually led by honest, God-fearing men, often of the "Fire-and-Brimstone" disposition. They seriously believed in Church's message, that's why corruption was angering them so much.
Corrupt churchman only there for money or political influence were the ones who were likely to be more tolerant :)
 
And then there's that.

Frankly, the medieval world in general is the wrong place for tolerance. The attitude that if you hit something hard enough, its fixed has to go away.
 
In OTL, the Church actually denied the existence of witches until the early modern period, prosecuting "witches" in church courts for dishonesty rather than sorcery.

No attitude change and you have no witch trials, saving 100,000-odd lives.

About the Jews, condemnation of claiming Jews ate children and poisoned wells on the grounds this is bearing false witness might be in order.
 
Get rid of Franciscans and Dominicans orders. They were the main clerical vectors of the lies about Jews, Witches, Heretics, etc.

Of course, it would led to preserve a more corrupt Church in a first time, but not really more heresies in the Christianity.
Maybe that the little more heretic holding that would led the meridional theologians (Aquitaine, Provence, Italy) that didn't been renowed for their quality to work on the necessaries reforms of the Church.
It would be on a urban social base tough, and the Church wouldn't be that "corrupt" maybe, but far, far more linked to the Principat*'s interests. And so not that able to answer to the countryside questions.

Alliance between urban nobility and bourgeoisie on economical grounds.
 
On tolerance? There's not a whole lot you can do here, but having the Church take a stand against persecution of the Jews for ridiculous lies would be a possible if difficult thing to have happen.

For that, the Jews need to be less favored by Muslims in Spain and Palestine. As Spain was reconquered, they could not bring themselves to trust the Jews there. Pope Alexander II writes the Bishops in Spain to remind them that Jews are willing to work with Christians in an attempt to alleviate some of the deliberate mistreatment....

Their role in the Persian War and the capture of Jerusalem from the Byzantines needs to be different, as well. The first major Christian persecution of Jews in the west is a result of Heraclius' letter describing the episode and advising forced baptisms IIRC
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Paulus Vladimiri and Johann Reuchlin

make Paulus Vladimiri and Johann Reuchlin more successful than OTL



Tractatus de potestate papae et imperatoris respectu infidelium become church doctrine.
 
In general, the best insulation against oppression is to be stronger than your oppressors. So specify who the Church needs to be more tolerant to and find historical means to buff 'em.
 
In general, the best insulation against oppression is to be stronger than your oppressors. So specify who the Church needs to be more tolerant to and find historical means to buff 'em.

Well, a continuing Jewish Khazar Khaganate might object strongly to anti-Semitic persecution in Christian states--strongly in the "pyramids of skulls" sense.
 
Top