The Investiture Controversy was the most significant conflict between secular and religious powers in medieval Europe. It began as a dispute in the 11th century between the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and the Pope concerning who would control appointments of church officials (investiture). It would eventually lead to nearly fifty years of civil war in Germany and the disintegration of the German empire, a condition from which it would not recover until the reunification of Germany in the 19th century.
Prior to the Investiture Controversy, the appointment of church officials, while theoretically a task of the Church, was in practice performed by secular authorities. The ceremony of investiture consisted of the newly appointed bishop or abbot coming before the secular leader, who would then hand over a staff and ring as objects of power granted to them.
Since a substantial amount of wealth and land was often associated with the position of bishop or abbot, it was materially beneficial for a secular ruler to appoint someone loyal to him.
A crisis arose when a group within the church, members of the Gregorian Reform, decided to liberate the church from the power secular leaders held over them through elimination of the investiture ceremony, this was the beginning of the Investiture Controversy. The Gregorian reformers knew this would not be possible so long as the Emperor maintained the ability to appoint the Pope, so the first step was to liberate the papacy from control by the Emperor. An opportunity came in the 1050s when Henry IV became Emperor at a young age.
Once the papacy gained control of the election of the Pope, it was now ready to attack the practice of investiture on a broad front.
In 1075 Pope Gregory VII declared in the Dictatus Papae the elimination of the practice of investiture. By this time, Henry IV of Germany was no longer a child, and he reacted to this declaration by sending Gregory VII a letter in which he, in effect, removed Gregory as pope and called for the election of a new pope.
Enforcing these declarations was a different matter, but fate was on the side of Gregory VII. The German aristocracy was happy to hear of the their king's deposition. They would use the cover of religion as an excuse for rebellion and the seizure of royal powers.Henry IV had no choice but to back down, needing time to marshall his forces to fight the rebellion in his kingdom. In 1077 he traveled to Canossa in northern Italy to meet the Pope and apologize in person. As penance for his sins, he dramatically wore a hairshirt and stood in the snow barefoot in the middle of winter in what has become known as the Walk to Canossa.
Gregory lifted the excommunication, but the German aristocrats, whose rebellion became known as the Great Saxon Revolt, were not so willing to give up their opportunity. They elected a rival king named Rudolf.
In 1081 Henry IV was able to capture and kill Rudolf, and in the same year he invaded Rome with the intent of forcibly removing Gregory VII and installing a more friendly pope.
The Investiture Controversy would continue on for several decades as each succeeding Pope tried to fight the investiture by stirring up revolt in Germany. Henry IV was succeeded upon death in 1106 by his son Henry V, who was also unwilling to give up investiture.
After fifty years of fighting, a compromise was finally reached in 1122, known as the Concordat of Worms. It was agreed that investiture would be eliminated, while room would be provided for secular leaders to have unofficial but significant input in the appointment process.
Blurring of separation of church and state within GOP ranks probably reaches to Reagan melding Goldwater conservatism with the theocratic aims of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, for coalition building - and McCain's clear capitulation to it via the Palin debacle might be its death knell, in its present embodiment. Perhaps present GOP "aristocrats" and "prelates" liking or disliking separation of church and state in our post-election days will be going through a similar showdown between a secular wing that yielded inappropriately to the Council for National Policy and suffered for it; and a Dr. Dobson led pro-Council for National Policy wing. Perhaps not, although such facing of the mirror might be called for as more and more seats have been lost for obvious but mixed reasons.Aside from that, the Walk to Canossa within the Investiture Controversy is what I highlight, for what follows below, that Walk being where the big-time Emperor showed due respect for his vexed and uncertain position and plea, and did "penance for his sins, he dramatically wore a hairshirt and stood in the snow barefoot in the middle of winter" seeking to have an excommunication lifted.
CNN online reported something a bit different:
Some lawmakers lashed out at the CEOs of the Big Three auto companies Wednesday for flying private jets to Washington to request taxpayer bailout money.
"There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, told the chief executive officers of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee.
"It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."
He added, "couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here? It would have at least sent a message that you do get it."
The executives -- Alan Mulally of Ford, Robert Nardelli of Chrysler and Richard Wagoner of GM -- were seeking support for a $25 billion loan package.
At Wednesday's hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, pressed the private-jet issue, asking the three CEOs to "raise their hand if they flew here commercial."
"Let the record show, no hands went up," Sherman said. "Second, I'm going to ask you to raise your hand if you are planning to sell your jet in place now and fly back commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up."
The executives did not specifically respond to those remarks. In their testimony, they said they are streamlining business operations in general.
"Making a big to-do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans are being discussed in Washington is diverting attention away from a critical debate that will determine the future health of the auto industry and the American economy," GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said in a statement.
Chrysler spokeswoman Lori McTavish said in a statement, "while always being mindful of company costs, all business travel requires the highest standard of safety for all employees."
But those statements did little to mollify the critics.
"If it is simply the company's money at stake, then only the shareholders can be upset or feel as it might be excessive," said Thomas Schatz, president of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste.
But in this case, he said, "it's outrageous."
"They're coming to Washington to beg the taxpayers to help them. It's unseemly to be running around on a $20,000 flight versus a $500 round trip," Schatz added.
Does the word "clueless" come to mind for you? It does for me.
And this big-bucks fly-in, does it resonate "Roger and Me" with you, the same haughtiness and hubris, unrepentant and unchanged?
It does for me.
_____UPDATE_______
As part of the appearance of cluelessness, the Big Three came without due preparation or clear answers. When faced with the question, "When will you run out of money," GM's chief reportedly had no real answer:
General Motors announced Nov. 7 that it could run out of the cash needed for operations by the end of this year or early next year without federal assistance.
In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee Tuesday, Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli said his company is also at risk of running out of the cash it needs to operate in that time frame.
But Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., said he wasn't sure it was proper to be bailing out the automakers and he didn't like the demand that action be taken in this lame duck session of Congress.
"I am not yet convinced that we must act so rashly," he said. "The American public demands that we get this right."
Kanjorski asked Wagoner for the minimum amount of money necessary to keep GM afloat through March 30 in order to give Congress more time to work on a bailout package. "When will you run out of money?" he asked.
But Wagoner wouldn't give more details beyond the company's previous statement that it could be out of cash later this year or early next year.
"I don't believe we have the luxury of a lot of time," he said, and when pressed for an exact deadline, responded, "I can't tell you that for certain."
Democratic leadership was reported in each house as noting a problematic lack of any precise plan for why a bailout was currently necessary, how $25 billion in rescue pork would be used, how the industry might assure no future return for yet more taxpayer cash, or how the Big Three would change business habits to justify Congressional faith:
"The key is accountability and viability," Reid said. "We want them to get their act together."
"Until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money," added Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a news conference in the Capitol.
________
AP photo accompanied the CNN article. Investiture Controversy drawings, from here.