You are talking about the late Middle Ages after the Gregorian Reforms. Before that, secular clergy did not have an education, and they had concubines and illegitimate children. And none of this shocked the villagers. It was just accepted as the way things were done. That is the way it was for many centuries. I am talking about the vast majority of the priests who were poor at the bottom of the church hierarchy. The situation was quite different with the bishops who were from wealthy aristocratic families.
As your list shows, there were few universities until the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries--late in the Middle Ages. And who were those who attended? The sons of wealthy aristocrats and later rich merchants from the growing towns who could afford the tuition. These were the people who got the jobs at high levels in the church hierarchy, like bishop--a post that came with a very high income and only went to aristocratic sons and the wealthy--and other privileged clergy.
You wrote:
"You are talking about the late Middle Ages after the Gregorian Reforms."
Generally, yes. And you were too if you believe "At the time of the Refomation" came AFTER the Gregorian Reforms, which it did. Are you now claiming to be talking about ONLY before the Gregorian Reforms? That was before the middle of the 11th century. Last time I checked the Reformation was in the sixteenth century. Just as I predicted, you're changing your story again.
"Before that, secular clergy did not have an education, and they had concubines and illegitimate children."
All of them really? Every last one of them? So, if every single diocesan priest had a concubine then why would they pretend that the children were not their's, as you imply, by calling them "nephews" as you claim? Your story is unraveling. Please cite a reputable source that says ALL pre-mid-11th century secular clergy had no education whatsoever, and had concubines. Could you do that for me?
"And none of this shocked the villagers. It was just accepted as the way things were done. That is the way it was for many centuries. I am talking about the vast majority of the priests who were poor at the bottom of the church hierarchy."
Oh, so now it isn't ALL diocesan, secular priests, but the "vast majority of priests who were poor"? So your story has changed even in this post?
"The situation was quite different with the bishops who were from wealthy aristocratic families."
How? Did having wealth make them less likely to have concubines and children or more likely to be educated? And if there were wealthy bishops of aristocratic birth then were the part of the ALL of just not part of the VAST MAJORITY?
"As your list shows, there were few universities until the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries--late in the Middle Ages. And who were those who attended? The sons of wealthy aristocrats and later rich merchants from the growing towns who could afford the tuition."
(sigh) Some nobles did indeed attend. Some merchants' did as well. But the VAST MAJORITY of both students and professors were clerics, both secular and regular. This is a fact. Anyone would know this if they ever had to read over a matriculation role from a medieval university. I had to do it for German universities. Who founded almost every single one of these universities? The Church. Who attended? Mostly churchmen.
"These were the people who got the jobs at high levels in the church hierarchy,..."
Whoa! So they weren't nobles and merchants, but CHURCHMEN in other words of noble birth and the merchant class? Again, your story is changing.
"... like bishop--a post that came with a very high income and only went to aristocratic sons and the wealthy--and other privileged clergy."
1) Not all bishops were of noble birth. (Just as not all knights were of noble birth by the way). You are once again making an ALL statement that doesn't work.
2) There are ready examples of bishops who were only noble on one side of their family or not noble at all. St. Wulfstan of Worchester comes to mind. He was noble on his mother’s side. His mother’s brother was also a bishop. He became bishop in 1062 and was not effected by the Gregorian Reforms since his earlier monastic training was already reformed since the tenth century. Just before the Protestant Revolution you also have the example of Tamás Bakócz who was the son of a wheelwright, attended the universities of Cracow, Ferrara and Padova and later became bishop of Gyr in Hungary. There are other examples, but would you even consider then if I spent the time hunting for them?
By the way, since you falsely accuse me of putting the “counter Reformation” into the Middle Ages I might as well go ahead and cite a book that would prove that case if I made it (which I haven’t): Joseph Bergin, Crown, Church and Episcopate under Louis XIV, (New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Press, 2004). He went over the careers of 600 French bishops and discovered exactly how many were NOT of noble birth. Check it out maybe?