> Ya know, in the Middle Ages the Church stood outside of the feudal
> system and coexisted with it very uneasily. Witness the constant
> struggles between the Church and various kings. I'm also not clear on
> what means of production the Church controlled.
A Vulgar Mediaevalist would say it owned a lot of land -- excuse me, where's that damn Lego block? -- Aha, here it is, Means of Production.
A less vulgar mediaevalist might be tempted to observe that there really was no such thing as "the Church", just as there was no such thing as "the nobility", if by those terms you understand an organized institution like, oh, say, a modern corporation or nation-state. Both terms are useful as shorthand, of course, but one must eschew reification unless one likes stepping on Lego blocks in the dark.
There were certainly bishops and abbots at all levels of wealth and power, just as there were secular lords at all levels. The difference between the secular order of (*rummages in box of blocks, finds it*) Aristocracy and the ecclesiastical was, among other things, the absence of the hereditary principle and a certain social mobility afforded by the latter. What role this differentiation may have played the maintenance and reproduction of mediaeval society does not seem to have been covered in Marxism 101: The Short Course.
Some of that Reformation stuff did happen in France, though it got sat on fairly effectively. But why it became mainly a matter of the western and northern periphery -- well, you've gotta upgrade to Lego Pro for that.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com