Meritocratic Catholic Church hierachy /Papacy

What if in the Catholic Church had been early on a competition between the most educated and knowledgeable clerics ? What if exams are required for every step taken on the ladder of Church hierachy, similar to Mandarin exams ?
 
Isn't this kind of the way the Catholic church works? You move up level by level, along with I guess a standard view of being a good employee and working within the system.

I mean, in theory any male Catholic can be elected Pope, but this hasn't been done for centuries if ever.

And even if it has, the College of Cardinals remains a very hierarchical system, with people who have worked effectively within the system at the previous level being elevated.
 
You couldn't exactly duplicate it since the church is based on different basic assumptions, but in principle, the Catholic Church was as close as you got to a meritocratic system in Europe for long stretches of its history. Under the reform papacy, peasant kids rose to the highest ranks by dint of their education and unscrupulous willingness to use it. Post-Tridentine popes have usually been accomplished intellectuals with a background in fairly obscure topics. We tend to forget this, but theology is one of the toughest academic subjects in terms of formal requirements. You have to read Latin, koine Greek and Hebrew, master formal logic and hermenmeutical analysis, and show considerable mental flexibility to do all of that within the dogmatic framework permitted. Washout rates are high.

Obviously, this can't be formalised. The pope is chosen by a conclave inspired by the Holy Ghost, who is not bound by competitive exam results, and the legitimacy of apostolic succession flows down from that position. But in practice, for you to be considered for a bishopric, let alone a higher position, you have to be a high academic achiever. If you look at the past three popes:

John Paul II: Straight A student, advanced degrees in philosophy and literature (despite there being a world war on at the time), doctorate in theology, habil. (a kind of postdoc dissertation) on moral theology and secular ethics, full professorship before his advancement to bishop, published literary writer in his twenties, continued to attend conferences and publish academically until his election.

Benedict XVI: High achiever in school (despite being drafted for labor service at the time), advanced degree in theology and philosophy, doctorate summa cum laude, very contentious habil. dissertation, full professorship at 31, speaks six languages.

Francis I: Por kid getting a techniocal education, thenm going on to study humanities, then philosophy and theology, getting advanced degrees and academic teaching, (no doctorate, which is unusual). Speaks six languages.

There is a bit of a pattern here.
 
Much medieval support for church offices came from European nobility who saw them as an inevitable place for 2nd, 3rd and 4th sons. Capable ones would advance as bishops and within monastic orders, while the duds would have a comfortable job where they had to work on Sundays.

A merit-based system would not gain the same political (and financial) support.
 
dean6294 said:
Much medieval support for church offices came from European nobility who saw them as an inevitable place for 2nd, 3rd and 4th sons. Capable ones would advance as bishops and within monastic orders, while the duds would have a comfortable job where they had to work on Sundays.

A merit-based system would not gain the same political (and financial) support.
That was indeed the rule for most of the high clergy positions up to the XIXth Century (roughly). That's because like any structures of power, connections can greatly help adavancement in the Church. Mind you, those weren't always family based: sometimes, simply being close to someone very powerful could help: i'm thinking for example of Pope Adrian VI, who was Charles V's tutor before his eventual rise to the papal throne.

That being said, having connections doesn't necessarilly means the man chosen for the job was necessarilly not competent enough. As a matter of fact, belonging to a wealthy family (noble or not) could help tremenduously with getting good education. Plus, the Church in itself, as carlton_bach mentionned, is a career of profound studies. Not to say merit always won over connections, but sometimes you could have both.

Then, there is the fact that every rule has its exceptions. I don't have a specific name to mention, but it seems to me that there were several cases of lowborn making formidable careers within the Church.
 
After the Gregorian Reforms, the Papacy was perhaps as meritocratic as can be expected without a formal exams procedure in place. The Reform Popes put a lot of effort in improving the education of the clergy through the support of the Dominicans and other friars.

Exams have their own problems as well. The Mandarinate was passed on literary knowledge of the Confucian texts. People failed if they misquoted the text or spelled something in the wrong character. The exams were not designed to determine competency at actual governing. The Imperial Examination system was a step up from previous practice in that some sort of standard took place, but it is not an ideal system.

For most of the Dark and Middle Ages, the Church was the intellectual elite of Europe.
 
Top