The Absentee Bishop In Residence Analysis

Dr. Jennifer DeSilva is a professor at Ball State University, as well as a contributor and editor of the book “Episcopal Reform and Politics in Early Modern Europe. ” Dr. DeSilva’s historical lens gravitates towards a Eurocentric view, including a focus on Italy between 1300-1700, Italy and the Papal Court, and the political, cultural, and social history of the Renaissance and Reformation. Dr. DeSilva’s also investigates the issues of identity-building, authority, and behavioral reform in early modern Europe. Her chapter, “The Absentee Bishop in Residence,” highlights larger interests and current research projects of DeSilva’s: The de’ Grassi family and the Holy Roman Church, in regards to the College of Cardinals. Due to my unfamiliarity with the topic of Absentee Bishops in Rome, it was initially difficult to decipher DeSilva’s argument. However, after thorough readings of the chapter, it is evident that Dr. DeSilva “seeks to uncover the connections that a single bishop, Paris de’ Grassi, established with his diocese in an effort to fulfill the contemporary call to reform the local church while managing his own absenteeism.”

The historian develops her argument by first clearly stating that the topic of “episcopal absenteeism [has] attracted few scholars.” This research is not

just a regurgitation of data, but practically uncharted waters. As important in an obscure topic, Dr. DeSilva gives the necessary background information to allow the reader to understand why episcopal absenteeism became typical in , and later heavily criticized by diplomats such as Gasparo Contarini and Francesco Guicciardini. Dr. DeSilva then provides ample evidence and examples to prove the interpretation that Paris de’ Grassi was an efficient bishop, despite his absenteeism. These examples include de’ Grassi’s physical restoration of the diocese, the spiritual reformation of the church, and his various visitations propose that de’ Grassi was a “realistic model of episcopal action in the pre-Tridentine age.”
As explained in Dr. DeSilva’s background pages, the city of Pesaro was inflicted by military conflict that damaged cathedrals, churches, houses, and other establishments in the city. Due to these misfortunes, de’ Grassi shifted the original focus from “modeling virtue” to ensuring a “practical model of care,” by rebuilding what was destroyed as a result of attacks on the city.
Paris de’ Grassi devoted his attention to not only physical reformation, but spiritual reconstruction of the clergy as well.

Dr. DeSilva notes that there are “few documents extant that reveal the details of de’ Grassi’s interactions with the clergy of Pesaro,” but there is enough to confirm the bishop was so dedicated to the mission of reforming the church that fear did not prevent him from conflict with the clergy. An artifact and primary source DeSilvia implements to prove her subject’s commitment to spiritual reformation is a papal decree issued “supporting the new bishop” and simultaneously forced de’ Grassi’s adversary, Giovanni Francesco Soperchi, to submit to de’ Grassi’s

demands.
While de’ Grassi was not a permanent resident, he was not inescapably absent from his episcopate. In fact, Dr. Desilva claims that he was incredibly productive despite his intermittent visits. The bishop finished renovations, erected monuments, and had a part in San Terenzio’s translation, and together these improvements “increased both Terenzio and Pesaro’s prestige” while also demonstrating de’ Grassi as “the cultivator and servant of the city’s patron saint,” as well as diminishing his periodic absence. Dr. DeSilva catalogues de’ Grassi’s visitations through primary sources, such as his diaries that indicate the date and length of his stays.
The Camaldolese monks, Paolo Giustiniani and Pietro Querini, argued that a bishop’s “physical presence was the key to his pastoral success.” However, the circumstances prevalent during the appointment of Paris de’ Grassi as bishop to Pesaro necessitated him to “eschew Giustiniani and Querini’s model of the attentive observer for a more flexible yet equally giving custodial model.” It is important to note that the bishop did not abandon his predecessor’s instructions completely, just simply modified certain aspects and performed the rest of his duties with vigor and dedication. Through DeSilva’s research, she provides readers with a well-written narration, substantiated with artifacts and primary sources that support her thesis: bishops could effectively serve their diocese without regularly being present.