The Saint Behind the Second Crusade
The words of Bernard of Clairvaux overshadowed all of Christendom in the Middle Ages. Knowing this humbly, Bernard sought to heal the rupture that emerged between the Church and the Holy Roman Empire, calling for a restoration to Catholic unity. No zealot in history fought so fervently for the Church, and no one in Bernard’s time was so fierce in the condemnation of the ecclesiastical truant, Anacletus II. While the Church was undergoing Gregorian reform aimed at diminishing secular control, Bernard had the power to hasten the movement. As such, Bernard of Clairvaux not only reformed the papacy and influenced the calling of the Second Crusade, but inspired all people of faith that the Catholic Church, in its superiority and right rule over the Holy Roman Empire, was worth fighting for.
Although Bernard was a man of courage and passion, his spiritual life was the most essential attribute of his character. All of his achievements stemmed from his love for God and desire to live in humble servitude to Christ. As a monk, he spoke beautifully on the Song of Songs, “that love has a source,” on grace and mercy, the attributes of the soul, the perfection of Mary, and the profundity of the Nativity.[1] Bernard prayed with Scripture often and quoted it consistently. Fueled by Scriptural tenderness, Bernard obtained a strict understanding of the importance of humility: “Anyone who strives forward toward the spiritual heights must have a lowly opinion of himself; because when he is raised above himself he may lose his grip on himself, unless through true humility, he has a firm hold on himself.”[2]Christlike humility was Bernard’s finest fruit. By grace, he was able to remain a servant and after the failure of the Second Crusade, took the blame entirely upon himself. Despite failures, Bernard never spoke ill of God nor doubted his faith. This foundation allowed Bernard to have influence when a conflict over the right ruler between the Church and State erupted across Western Europe. Due to his public reputation of holiness, Bernard’s opinion was sought, valued, and received as if from God Himself.
His deep love for the papacy led Bernard to defend papal superiority during a time of European political unrest. The proper relationship between the ecclesiastical and temporal powers was a pressing question in the Middle Ages, as princes were crowned by the Pope and the Pope was elected by consent of the Emperor. Kings governed the political and temporal order. Popes ruled Church affairs, a weightier charge than kingship given the primacy of the spiritual over the temporal.[3] Unfortunately, the spiritual and temporal orders were not easily harmonized.[4] Yet Bernad of Clairvaux advocated for total ecclesiastical superiority, using the analogy of two swords in De consideration and again after the failure of the Second Crusade:
“Now, in the passion of the Lord both swords must be drawn, since Christ is suffering again where he suffered on another occasion. By whom if not by you? Both are Peter's, the one must be drawn at his nod, the other by his hand, as often as is necessary. And about the one which seemed less his, Peter was told concerning that one, ‘Put your sword in its sheath’ Therefore even that one was his, but it was certainly not to be drawn by his hand.”[5]
The analogy of the two swords, the spiritual and temporal, equated “the two swords with the two powers in the world, temporal and spiritual. To say that Peter possessed both swords is to say that he could regulate both spheres. True, he was forbidden the actual exercise of secular power (the second sword), but on the other hand, no layman could wield it in defiance of moral law or pap prohibition.”[6] As such, Bernard disposed of an emperor and claimed that the Church was superior to the State as the sun was to the moon. The pope controlled both swords: “he used the former himself in administering the discipline of the Church…the latter he entrusted to secular authorities to be used on his behalf and at his discretion.”[7] However, while kings governed the temporal world, even the temporal life was subjected to Christian affairs. While a powerful papacy may sound brash, men in the Middle Ages did not think so. St. Bernard was certainly no exception: “Indeed, plenitude of power over the universal Church throughout the world has been given to the Apostolic See by a singular prerogative. Therefore, whoever resists this power, resists what has been ordained by God.”[8] This opinion was not due to an inflamed Bernard starving for an honorable image in the Pope's eyes. Instead, given Bernard of Clairvaux’s intense love for Catholicism, his reverence to the Holy Chair was inspired consequently.
Bernard knew that a strong papacy was essential for societal flourishing in the Middle Ages. Thus, “it was fit and necessary that bishops should have a dignified, stable, and permanent position, in order to consolidate Christianity upon the shifting soil of Europe.”[9] The subjugation of the State to the Church seemed to mirror the subjugation of the body to the soul; equalizing them was a recipe for destruction. Therefore, the papacy needed to obtain supremacy even though “religious liberty claimed by the Church gave birth to political liberty; and the era of the enfranchisement of the commons follows immediately after the conflict of the papacy with the empire for the enfranchisement of the Church.”[10] On this account, Bernard began preaching and rose to fame. Meanwhile, the Concordat in Worms concluded in 1122 after years of discussion, resolving that the Church and the Empire were to be independent, but the Pope was to head both. However, the tension leading up to the Concordat had weakened Western Europe, only to grow worse.
After the death of Pope Honorius II in 1130, a schism broke out in the Church over the election of a new pope. With a disagreement among cardinals, two popes were elected: Innocent II and Anacletus II. The rich and powerful Cardinal Peter di Leone, Anacletus, had gained the votes of several cardinals and ensured his election to the Apostalic See. Cardinal Peter had come from a notable Roman family and was a man of virtue and, inspired by the holiness of Bernard of Clairvaux, a monk. However, Peter was entrusted with several important legations and his pride grew as a result. While Cardinal Peter was gaining fame, other members in the College of Cardinals met in secret after the death of Pope Honorius, and elected Cardinal Gregory, Innocent II, as the next Pope. When the decision was publicized, the cardinals who supported Peter di Leone nullified the election. Instead of seeking reconciliation, a group of cardinals elected Peter as their own pope in response. Yet their actions were in vain and Bishop Ostia consecrated Innocent II with the pontifical insignia. Adherents of Anacletus were furious and paid troops to banish Innocent from Rome so that Anacletus could reign. Anacletus gloated while Innocent was forced into France. Meanwhile in Rome, great anxiety erupted as the horror of a divided Christendom spread throughout the Catholic world.[11] Yet Anacletus was hopeful: “This Church has never been surprised by error; never has she been stained or dishonored by the contagion of schism...”[12] While Anacletus flaunted his papal powers, Innocent II successfully escaped, finding refuge with Bernard of Clairvaux. Bernard was infuriated over the reign of Anacletus and the banishment of Innocent. Thus, he welcomed Innocent and traveled to Etampes where King Louis VI and a few French bishops had assembled and received Bernard “as an angel from God.”[13] The king and the bishops concluded that the schism should be resolved by a man of great faith and thus, they asked Bernard to decide. After an impartial examination of the two elections, quality of electors, merit of the elected, and the responsibility of the pope to be a teacher by example of the divine law, Bernard of Clairvaux ruled Innocent II to be the most fit.[14] The decision of Bernard meant nothing unless he believed in the essential relationship between the office and the moral character of its occupant.[15] Believing he did, the assembly rose and confirmed Bernard’s decision with high praise. Thus, the persuasive power of Bernard regarding the papacy was established.
Bernard of Clairvaux wasted no time in re-establishing the leadership of the papacy within Europe. After the schism, this was in dire need as the kings were unsure of the actual authority of the pope. Thus, Bernard was sent to Henry I of England to convince him to recognize Innocent II as the divinely-appointed leader across Europe. With the boldness of an apostle, Bernard proclaimed to King Henry, “You hesitate to acknowledge Pope Innocent, from the fear of committing sin! Well, you may be uneasy about the other sins for which you will have to answer; but as to this one, I take it upon myself, and I will answer for you before God.”[16] Henry I agreed and the kings of Germany and France were quick to do the same. “I have engaged the kings,” Bernard wrote humbly, “to destroy the counsels of the wicked.”[17]Bernard’s influence was essential. Not only was he trusted to choose the rightful pope, but he was able to influence the most powerful kings to agree with him, and to obey the papacy. Bernard’s deep passion for restoring rightful fidelity to the papacy and Innocent II specifically allowed him to rise to fame, which proved essential for his influence and calling of the Second Crusade.
The Holy Land was vital in the Middle Ages, not simply because of its great religious importance, but because it allowed for religious domination within Europe: “Hail, Holy Land! Land of human sorrows and divine mercies! Land of prophecy, country of God and man, our eyes now turn towards thee.”[18] Although the First Crusade succeeded in bringing Jerusalem under Christian control, the Christian Country of Edessa, ruled by King Baldwin I of Boulogne, fell to Zengi forces in 1144. This was likely to happen as these newly-founded states were surrounded by Turks, the very people the Christians had defeated in the First Crusade. Inspired by revenge, the Turks besieged Edessa and the state fell in 1144. The Second Crusade (1147–1149) was marked by the fall of Edessa and the subsequent fear, of all the crusader states falling and of Eastern domination in the West: “The Church of the East is in danger, as a punishment for our sins Edessa has fallen, and the whole of Christendom is threatened.”[19] Bernard and other men of influence viewed Christian control of the Holy Land as a divine necessity. Yet the Turks established their empire all over the East. Given the schism and worsening divisions between the spiritual and temporal powers of Europe, the West was vulnerable to Turkish invasion. Thus, for the Crusaders, the deliverance of the Sepulcher did not just secure the Holy Land, but Europe.[20] However, when calling for the Crusade, Bernard of Clairvaux preached on strict religious grounds:
“For our sins, the enemies of the cross have raised blaspheming heads, ravaging with the edge of the sword the land of promise…they rage against the very shrine of the Christian faith with blasphemous mouths, and would enter and trample down the very couch on which, for us, our life lay down to sleep in death.”[21]
Although Bernard knew that the West was vulnerable, he cared little about worldly troubles and continuously fought for the security of the Holy Land. Bernard justified the Crusade as a means for pilgrims to sanctity their souls and sanctify Western Europe. The killing of Muslim Turks, men who festered in sin, was justice for God. However, first Bernard needed crusaders.
The Second Crusade was made possible by the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux and the zeal of the new Pope, Eugenius III. Preciously because of Bernard, Eugenius knew that he had the power to preach and influence kings. In fact, the re-establishing of papal powers through Bernard’s influence allowed for Eugenius to call the Second Crusade, and other popes to call for crusades in the future. Acknowledging Bernard’s fame, Eugenius III tasked Bernard to preach for the Second Crusade. Bernard obeyed. As Bernard was rallying men, saying “gird up your loins manfully, and take up arms in zeal for the Christian name,” he was interrupted by an already zealous group of men shouting, “The cross! The cross!” In fact, Bernard never finished reading Pope Eugene III’s encyclical because of the raging passion of the crowds. In a very short time, the number of Crusaders increased beyond measure.[22]
Bernard saw the Crusade as a pilgrimage for Christ and convinced crusaders of the fact. However, not just any man could embark on the Second Crusade. Crusaders were to be holy, pure, and worthy to take up the cross: “In the view of St. Bernard, confession was not principally a means of obtaining absolution but rather, a sacramental sign, established upon examples in the Old and New Testaments, and a subjective influence on the sinner, inducing a wholesome sense of shame.”[23] In fact, no crusader was admitted unless he first made peace with God through the Sacrament of Confession. Devout holiness and a purified soul were essential because the crusading was for God, and He was its author. If the crusade failed, the crusaders viewed this as God’s punishment for the unholiness of the knights. Knowing that men were motivated by Heaven, Bernard preached on the sanctity of the Crusade as a pilgrimage: “‘Behold, brothers, now is the time of plentiful salvation’ and ‘a time for rich indulgence,’ ‘a jubilee year,’”[24] and Pope Eugenius offered indulgences to the Crusaders. Through the integration of religion, men were further persuaded to take up arms.
The Second Crusade seemed promising especially since the Church and Empire were incorporated into the wider effort of the crusade.[25] However, the Second Crusade failed and Bernard felt the disappointment of this personally. In fact, Bernard gladly took upon his shoulders every blame for its failing: “Citing scripture at every turn, he emphasized that the ways of the Lord are indeed obscure and deep, and yet His judgments are always not only just but merciful.”[26]The failure of the Crusade led Bernard and others to believe in God’s punishment. The crusaders had not turned from evil ways. Eugenius III called the crusade “the severe disaster of the Christian name which the Church of God has suffered in our times.”[27] Bernard did not minimize the magnitude of this disaster: “I shall not refuse to be made ignominious, so long as God’s glory is not attacked.”[28] However, he never doubted God's divine plan and remained faithful even through the detrimental losses of money and lives. Bernard of Clairvaux died in 1153, four years after the Crusade ended, and was canonized a saint in 1174. Despite the failure of the Crusade, it was precisely Bernard’s zeal and holiness that earned him sainthood in Pope Alexander III’s eyes, and in the eyes of his predecessors.
Unfortunately, many historians study the Second Crusade and dislike Bernard of Clairvaux. Many historians also view the Crusade as a purely selfish endeavor. Yet,
“It would be difficult to conceive what the fate of Europe might have been if the Holy Wars had not opened a new course to the development of the human mind. The progress of civilization was much more endangered by the errors of reason than by the invasion of barbarians; and we are unable to determine which would have been the greatest misfortune for the Catholic world, the triumph of Mahometanism or that of heresy.”[29]
Indeed, Bernard of Clairvaux was a man of great courage. He fought vigorously for papal reform after the schism, spoke confidently against Anacletus II, worked with Innocent II and Eugenius III in the preparations for the Second Crusade, rallied crusaders to take back the Holy Land, and remained humble and faithful despite the Crusade's failure. Thus, Bernard of Clairvaux was a witness to the importance of Catholic unity, and the zeal that makes unity possible. While many men remained passive when the papacy was weakening and the Holy Land crumbling, Bernard showed that the Church was worth defending, and with passion.
[1] Billy Swan, “Gems of Wisdom from St. Bernard of Clairvaux,” Word on Fire, August 20, 2021, https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/gems-of-wisdom-from-st-bernard-of-clairvaux/.
[2] Bernard of Clairvaux, “Sermon 34: True Humility” in Honey and Salt: Selected Spiritual Writings of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, ed. John F. Thornton and Susan B. Varenne (New York: Vintage Books, 2007), 148.
[3]Theodore Ratisbonne, St. Bernard of Clairvaux (New York: P.I. Kennedy & Sons, 1991), 135.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Bernard of Clairvaux, Ep. 245, in Elizabeth Kennan, “The ‘De Consideratione’ of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and the Papacy in the Mid-Twelfth Century: A Review of Scholarship,” Traditio 23 (1967): 79.
[6] Ibid., 80.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.; Bernard of Clairvaux, Ep. 131, in Ibid., 77.
[9] Ratisbonne, 138.
[10] Ibid., 139.
[11] Ratisbonne, 140-43.
[12] Anacletus II in Ibid., 144.
[13] Charles Ridley, “Saint Bernard: Unlikely Patron of Christian Unity,” Church Life Journal, January 4, 2022, https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/saint-bernard- and- ecumenism/; Ratisbonne, 145.
[14] Hayden V. White, “The Gregorian Ideal and Saint Bernard of Clairvaux,” Journal of the History of Ideas 21, no. 3 (1960): 343.
[15] Ibid., 344.
[16] Bernard of Clairvaux in Ratisbonne, 147.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ratisbonne, 307.
[19] “The Second Crusade,” Lumen Learning, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-herkimer-
westerncivilization/chapter/the-second-crusade/ (accessed November 13, 2022); Bernard of Clairvaux, Ep. 247, in Giles Constable, “The Second Crusade as Seen by Contemporaries,” Traditio 9, (1953): 248.
[20] Ratisbonne, 309-12.
[21] “Letter of Bernard of Clairvaux to his followers,” in S.J. Allen and Emilie Amt, The Crusades (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014), 126.
[22] Ibid., 127; Ratisbonne, 324-25.
[23] Constable, 252.
[24] Bernard of Clairvaux, Col. 565, in Ibid., 247.
[25] Constable, 260.
[26] Constable, 267.
[27] Eugenius III, JL 9385; PL 180.1414, in Ibid., 275.
[28] “Letter by Bernard of Clairvaux to Pope Eugenius III,” in Allen and Amt, 144.
[29] Ratisbonne, 311.
