If external religious observances are an indication of conviction, Europeans in the early sixteenth century were deeply pious. Despite — or perhaps because of — the depth of their piety, many people were also highly critical of the Roman Catholic Church and its clergy. The papal conflict with the German emperor Frederick II in the thirteenth century, followed by the Babylonian Captivity and the Great Schism, badly damaged the prestige of church leaders, and the fifteenth-century popes’ concentration on artistic patronage and building up family power did not help matters. Papal tax collection methods were attacked orally and in print. Some criticized the papacy itself as an institution. Some groups and individuals argued that certain doctrines taught by the church were incorrect. They suggested measures to reform institutions, improve clerical education and behavior, and alter basic doctrines.

In the early sixteenth century, court records, bishops’ visitations of parishes, and popular songs and printed images show widespread anticlericalism, or opposition to the clergy. The critics concentrated primarily on three problems: clerical immorality; clerical ignorance; and clerical pluralism (the practice of holding more than one church office at a time), with the related problem of absenteeism. Many priests, monks, and nuns lived pious lives of devotion, learning, and service and had strong support from the laypeople in their areas, but everyone also knew (and repeated) stories about lecherous monks, lustful nuns, and greedy priests.

There was also local resentment of clerical privileges and immunities. Priests, monks, and nuns were exempt from civic responsibilities, such as defending the city and paying taxes. Yet religious orders frequently held large amounts of urban property, in some cities as much as one-third. City governments were increasingly determined to integrate the clergy into civic life by reducing their privileges and giving them public responsibilities. Urban leaders wanted some say in who would be appointed to high church offices. This brought city leaders into opposition with bishops and the papacy, which for centuries had stressed the independence of the church from lay control and the distinction between members of the clergy and laypeople.