If We Had Blogs in the Time of Henry VIII
I’m sure we would have seen a sequence of events like this:
King Henry VIII: Martin Luther is contending against the Church, and all her sacred teachings, and no intelligent person would listen to him. Here’s all that he has said which is wrong.
Martin Luther: Oh, King Henry VIII, he thinks people should bow down and worship him. What’s with all the messianic claims? Defender of the Church? That’s only a title worthy of the Holy Spirit. He wants to dictate to me how to think, and what I should or should not do. That’s evil. Anti-freedom! I demand my Christian freedom and will get away from the Babylonian Captivity!
St Thomas More: I stand with my king. He’s one of the brightest, most enlightened monarchs in the world. And he’s right, Luther is harming the faith. Look here as I show what Luther has to say, and see how erroneous his claims are.
Luther: How can you defend Henry VIII? Bow down and worship your messiah. I warn you, all he does is on your head.
Comments are closed.
Of the three you mention, only Martin Luther would have the leisure time and interest necessary to blog. More was a overworked lawyer and Henry was busy gambling and banging babes. But your post is slightly humorous nontheless.
Pauli
Obviously you did not know — Henry VIII wrote a text against Luther, which is why he got the title Defender of the Faith. Luther DID respond, to which St Thomas More wrote an excellent defense of Henry’s work (Responsio Ad Lutherum). In other words, they did have the time and did do what I explained, within the context of the printing press, which was, at that time, the equivalent of the blogosphere.
Yes, I did know that, mostly from the play, of course. I am not as familiar with either work as you obviously are. My point is based on my belief that the printing press is not the equivalent of the blogosphere. The blogosphere is much more like scribbling things on public bulletin boards. More like nailing up the 95 Theses on the Wittenberg (sic?) door, come to think of it. That’s why I would tag Marty L as the blogger in the bunch.
Pauli
Study up on the role of the internet in modern day political and religious talk, and you will find that is exactly what the printing press did for its day. It made it much more easy for one to express their thought and send it far and wide to be heard. The problems of the net today were the problems of the printing press and all the tracts produced on it in More’s day.
To say St Thomas More was “overworked” and Henry VIII was focused only in sexual adventures fails to actually present what either were like.
I thought the current wisdom was that St. Thomas More not only wrote a defense of the work but was actually the ghost writer for Defense of the Seven Sacraments.
Magdalena
There is all kinds of debate about that; it is probably true St Thomas More helped with the writing, but it is also clear Henry VIII had a role in it, and an interest in the topic. Moreover, if I remember correctly (it’s been awhile since I read the Responsio) Luther made that charge about Henry’s text, and I think Thomas pointed out no, it was Henry’s. Either way, it is clear Henry DID want to say something to Luther, and he did not like Luther’s positions.
Top topics from Tudor-era Catholic blogophere:
* What is Henry VIII’s position on abortion?
* No Catholic can support Henry VIII, a man who cooperates with evil. I’m talking about you, Mr. More.
* Thomas More is such a partisan liberal humanist.
* When can we have a “reform of the reform” to rid us of these awful tridentine innovations to the liturgy?
* There are too many illegal immigrants from Scotland and Wales stealing English jobs. Deport them.
I love St. Thomas, but what would he say about torture? Hmmm. I think both he and Henry would be aok with it. Or at least burning convicted terrorists at the stake…
And the time of St Thomas More was indeed quite different from today; one of the things so often forgotten by people who make arguments about war, torture, or the death penalty, based upon historical allowances. (St?) John Paul II made it clear that we hold to the integrity of the human person and the sanctity of life, but how we can do so differs according to ability of time and place. Moreover, I would add that much thought has been put into this which was lacking in the medieval and renaissance world, so that we find in the development of moral theology, the kind of positive development expected by Cardinal Newman: one where the principles already established reveal deeper content when we devote the proper focus and attention to them. In More’s time, the concerns were quite different. So, as with all moral theology, the more you know, the more that is demanded of you, and the less you know, the more you are expected to try to get to know.
HK, “far and wide”, yeah, to a few hundred people, LOL. OK… St. Thomas wasn’t overworked, etc., etc…. but here you see in action an anklebiter like me delivering snarks and trollish behavior that no one except the most talented and determined ever did via a printing press.
Pauli
You really haven’t read the early marvels from the printing press, have you? At one time, people thought it was a marvel, and most officials in the Church didn’t take it seriously. The harm, however, had been done, because many did just what you described here. And the Church didn’t respond to it quickly; it really took a St Francis de Sales to see the true strength and value of the printing press.
When can we have a “reform of the reform” to rid us of these awful tridentine innovations to the liturgy?
That’s probably on the money. “Even a blind sow….”
I’ve studied More in relatively great detail (at least, with respect to certain of the Yale library of him that have been made available to me and to the extent I’ve read his biographies) and, therefore, I feel I must correct some misinformation being carelessly bandied about on this thread.
1. The Assertio Septem Sacramentorum was a work by Henry VIII which purpose was to prove the divine origin of the Papacy. Thomas More was said to have served as its editor; though the one who helped in its composition was said to be (as well as another gentleman whose name escapes me at this time) the great John Fisher.
2. The Responsio ad Lutherum was not the great apologia that somebody here had claimed; it was actually More’s Dialogue Concerning Heresies (though, there were subsequent writings where his apologia would become more and more refined — but I’ll just stop short of this title).
In fact, if one were to read the Responsio there is such vulgar colloquialism contained therein which would make you doubt that it was ever written by the same great scholar who wrote Utopia — that’s because it was Henry VIII who had instructed More to write something (which turned out to be the Responsio) in reply to the scathing comments (and harsh language) made by Luther as regards his person, specifically telling More to ensure he exchanges drop for hydrochloric drop the vulgarity contained in Luther’s.
3. Heresy was a capital offence in Midiaeval Catholic England. The risible notion that More would be unreservedly open to outright torture seems to show some ignorance on the part of those who would conjecture thus.
I suggest that they first acquaint themselves with the times and, most especially, with what More actually advocated and did do before taking part in any in-depth discussion in that regard.
4. There were bloody dynastic struggles that occurred prior to Harry’s reign. Having been in the company of Henry VIII at even a young age and coming to know him as an adult, it was More’s hope (and optimism) that Henry VIII’s reign would mark a new & glorious age for all of Christendom, which at that time, even in his own opinion, required certain reformation (although, not the kind which we eventually came to know) which he hoped his working mutually alongside Henry VIII would bring about.
In fact, More had devised and, further, wanted to enact legislation that would reform the Catholic Church in England in order to rid her of the scandals that seemed to plague her at the time due to some corrupt ecclesial administrators.
(Still, he would ever so faithfully continue to believe that the Church was (is) the Mystical Body of Christ and that even these could not destroy the divinely instituted sanctitas of the living Church with its inherited customs & Apostolic Tradition.)
However, as various fateful events began to play out, his effective power to even accomplish these things (along with the King’s own favour) became more and more remarkably reduced until such time that he ultimately resigned as Chancellor.
As to the other matters above which I wished to also address, unfortunately, there is too much detail involved which time currently available to me prevents me from so doing.
I’ll leave it then to the discretion of the audience to seek on their own the specific counsel of more expert resources and, perhaps, even More’s works themselves prior to accepting the various assertions made on this thread by the above interlocutors as being wholly conclusive.
Ari
I find Responsio to be better, more concise and precise, than The Dialogue Concerning Heresies (which, if you want to be a stickler to accuracy, was not the title More gave to it). And, while it is true, that St Thomas More was more humanitarian, you do find instances of his support for torture, which was the norm of the time (which goes to what I also said). I am not sure who you are trying to correct, since, for the most part, you have said what I myself said, with the difference being the reference to St John Fisher. And the reason why I used the Responsio here was because of its blog-like status; and yes, it has some classic lines, like Luther should lick the posterior end of a pissing she-mule. It was, however, in accord to the debate of the time, and in that respect, does not detract from its status.
What I have never understood about Clement VII de Medici’s unwillingness to grant Henry VIII’s clearly reasonable request for a divorce from Catherine of Aragon is why that papacy couldn’t simply have used the then-recent precedent of papal consent to Louis XII’s divorce as a justification for divorcing Henry from Catherine. She WAS the wife of Henry’s brother Arthur and she clearly could not produce the necessary Tudor male heir that Henry and his whole nation wanted.
Surely granting Henry his annulment would have been a small price to pay for keeping England Catholic and for keeping the feudal, anti-capitalist and Christian commonwealth of England (including the monastic system that Disraeli so rightly mourned) vibrant and functioning? It has always seemed to me that More and Fisher dug their heels in stubbornly and failed to see that it was the Emperor Charles, Catherine’s nephew, who was manipulating the whole thing to his own geo-political interest and that the maintenance of the Catholic religious and political culture of England was worth compromising Catherine of Aragon’s marital status for.
Digby
That she had been Henry’s brothers wife does not remove the validity of the sacrament. An annulment is not a divorce, it is a declaration that there was no valid sacrament, and it is only when that situation occurs, can it be given, not for the sake of political expediency. If Henry did not ask for a dispensation of canonical (legal) rules of marriage (which would not normally have allowed him to marry his brother’s widow), he could have easily had an annulment, but since he went for the dispensation, then the canonical justification was lost. Scripture did have Jews marry their brother’s widow, and shows that it does not remove the validity of the sacrament: so scripture + any lack of canonical justification= no annulment. The Church was right, even if not politically helpful. And I think one can say Cromwell and Cramner were highly involved with this for their own political interests, and were involved with telling Henry his desires can be fulfilled.
HK, I think we’re like the blind man and the elephant here. You are looking at what the printing press enabled historically in the way of a paradigm shift and comparing that to the blogosphere. I’m looking at the cheap, fast & decentralized aspect of blogging and thinking it’s more like a citizens band radio.
However, after thinking about it I decided that your point is the stronger one and I might be to only blind man here. After all, the press did democratize things from how it had been before. Likewise the amount of time to create works dramatically reduced, even though now setting up plates appears tedious to a postal degree. I remember we were talking about how “revolutionary” desktop publishing was back in the eighties. You may enjoy this interesting piece from that time period, complete with a 2400-baud acoustically-coupled MODEM.
By the way, this debate is awesome!
Pauli
I am glad you got to see the point I was trying to make; yes, sometimes we can come at cross purposes/ or looking at the same thing with different angles.
And you are right, today, the printing press seems so slow and obsolete. But in its day — wow, no more hand copying!
Like the blind carpenter, I picked up my hammer and saw.
Henry Karlson,
in accord with the debate at the time
Here, I must (with all due respect, of course) also disagree with you. Perhaps in the streets of London, which may have served as additional reason why More adopted a colloquialism for that particular work which would rival even that found there in order that the common man could well appreciate its contents by this familiarity while, at the same time, come to an understanding of the faith by an ordinary demonstration of its defense.
I trust your familiarity with More’s entire career, which began at Lambeth palace by an beneficent patronage at a very early age as page for Bishop John Morton (coincidentally, Lord Chancellor then) and the subsequent debates that ensued at the Great Hall and, later, his time (as barely an adolescent since I believe he was 14 but could be wrong about the actual age and would best leave that to my betters) at St. Mary Hall in Oxford and Canterbury College, that More followed for his model Cicero & Quintillian.
In fact, his earlier training at Morton’s involved much elaborate training in the world of decorum and etiquette as becoming of polite and royal company, especially being that More himself was specifically of gentle family. He would, henceforth, conduct himself accordingly even in matters of debate as that which he himself participated in such as his time at the Great Hall and on forward.
The only reason why More was seemingly (and particularly) indecorous in the Responsio is because Henry VIII ordered him to compose such a work in the same vitriolic terms in response to Luther’s own vehement & insulting attacks that were launched against the monarch.
However, I must correct myself with respect to what I had mentioned as concerning the King’s Assertio.
More did offer some of his own comments for that work, which would earn the King the title of defensor fidei from the Pope himself, even as serving as its editor. Yet, the arguments and materials were said to be proffered, for the most part, by (St.) John Fisher and Edward Lee.
Interesting to note, More was said to have requested that the King tone down his rhetoric as regarding the matter of defending papal primacy in his work. The King Henry VIII of that time was so staunch in his beliefs then with respect to the primity of the papal office that he categorically refused to countenance any such thing, most especially concerning this vital article of the faith.
Unfortunately, as that fateful history would later unfold, this would be but an dark irony that would later turn on its head.
Well, first of all, Henry, Henry VIII did NOT “ask for the dispensation”; his father’s GOVERNMENT did, for the reasons of “political expediency” you scorn.
Secondly, although the Church may have been right on technical theological grounds, the Church HAD dismissed those “technical theological grounds” on numerous previous occasions in European history–most recently in granting a divorce to a French king whose wife could not produce a male heir.
Why did the faith of hundreds of thousands of devout English subjects have to be uprooted for the sake of making a point about an English king’s marital state?
You know the answer as well as I do, and it had NOTHING to do with fastidiousness regarding sacramental marriage and EVERYTHING to do with the might of the Spanish and Austrian Emperor’s tercios.
Here’s Wikipedia’s description of the “annulment” of the marriage of Jeanne de France to Louis XII:
Jeanne was married at the age of twelve (8 September 1476) for political reasons to her father’s second cousin Louis duc d’Orléans, later Louis XII. However, when Jeanne’s brother Charles VIII died and Louis came to the throne, he was forced to annul the marriage in order to marry the former king’s widow, Anne of Brittany, in order to keep the Duchy of Brittany in the French monarchy.
Described as “one of the seamiest lawsuits of the age”,[1] Louis did not, as might be expected, argue the marriage to be void due to consanguinity (the general excuse for the dissolution of a marriage at that time): though he could produce witnesses to claim that the two were closely related due to various linking marriages, there was no documentary proof, merely the opinions of courtiers. Likewise, Louis could not argue that he had been below the legal age of consent (fourteen) to marry: nobody was certain when he had been born, with Louis claiming to have been twelve at the time, and others ranging in estimates between eleven and thirteen. Since there was no proof, however, he was forced to make other excuses.
Accordingly, Louis (much to the horror of the Queen) claimed that she was physically malformed, providing a rich variety of detail as to how she was malformed, and that he had therefore been unable to consummate the marriage.
Jeanne, unsurprisingly, fought this uncertain charge fiercely, producing witnesses to Louis boasting of having “mounted my wife three or four times during the night.”[1] Louis also claimed that his sexual performance had been inhibited by witchcraft; Jeanne responded by asking how, in that case, he was able to know what it was like to try to make love to her.[2] Had the Pope been a neutral party, Jeanne would likely have won, for Louis’ case was exceedingly weak. Unfortunately for the Queen, Pope Alexander VI was committed for political reasons to grant the divorce, and accordingly he ruled against the Queen, granting the annulment. [3]Outraged, Jeanne reluctantly stepped aside, saying that she would pray for her former husband. She was made Duchess of Berry and died at Bourges, France, in 1505, childless.
Perhaps you would like to try to explain how Henry’s case for an annulment had less grounds than THAT?
digbydolben,
Does the evidence for this contention of yours consist primarily of some scant details recorded in some rag on the internet that, for the most part, is at the mercy of whomever regardless of credentials?
I would ask that you kindly provide details from more compelling and credible (preferably, scholarly) sources other than that which is, quite simply, an internet blackboard upon which practically anybody can write on.
Although, there is something that you’ve written that serves some cause for thought; that is, specifically, a statement of yours that alludes to the (albeit moot) possibility of what would have been had England not pursued its ill-fated course that ultimately resulted in the very destruction of an inherited Sacred Tradition & Faith that for many generations the people of England themselves had intimately embraced and was an significant and historical part of its national identity.
If England had not fallen into utter heresy, I am skeptical as to whether or not the Reformation would’ve ever actually gained ground to where events had gradually played out in the manner history now records it; that is, I believe without England, the Reformation (as we now know it) would perhaps have never been (being England played a rather large and defining role) and the Lutherans would’ve simply been just one more of those heretical sects not unlike those in recorded early church history.
I would have thought that no one familiar with the history of this period would challenge the record regarding the divorce of Louis XII from Jeanne la Boiteuse and his remarriage to Anne de Bretagne in order to preserve the province of Brittany for the crown of France. But here, perhaps, is a source more reliable than Wikipedia:
Le mobilier des cardinaux appartenait après leur mort au pontife, et il y avait de fortes présomptions qu’on avait hâté la mort de plus d’un cardinal dont on avait voulu hériter. Cependant le peuple romain était obéissant, et toutes les puissances recherchaient Alexandre VI. Louis XII roi de France, successeur de Charles VIII s’empressa plus qu’aucun autre à s’allier avec ce pontife. Il en avait plus d’une raison. Il voulait se séparer, par un divorce, de sa femme fille de Louis XI avec laquelle il avait consommé son mariage, et qui avait vécu avec lui vingt-deux années, mais sans en avoir d’enfants. Nul droit, hors le droit naturel, ne pouvait autoriser ce divorce ; mais le dégoût et la politique le rendait nécessaire.
Anne De Bretagne, veuve de Charles VIII conservait pour Louis XII l’inclination qu’elle avait sentie pour le duc d’Orléans ; et s’il ne l’épousait pas, la Bretagne échappait à la France. C’était un usage ancien, mais dangereux, de s’adresser à Rome, soit pour se marier avec ses parentes, soit pour répudier sa femme. Car de tels mariages, ou de tels divorces étant souvent nécessaires à l’état, la tranquillité d’un royaume dépendait donc de la manière de penser d’un pape souvent ennemi de ce royaume.
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/fdomi.fournier/Generalite/Voltaire/Hist_Gene/H_Moeurs_011.htm#C89
And, as for your contention that the « Reform » in the 16th and 17th centuries required the participation of the English-speaking world in order to reach the level of success that it eventually did, I would remind you that neither Calvinism nor Lutheranism were phenomena of the English-speaking, and both heresies were adhered to far more zealously by their practicioners on the Continent than Erastianism was in Britain. Protestantism was, unfortunately, here to stay, after the so-called “Reformation” because of the corruption and depravity of the medieval and Renaissance Church.
Digby
You have already shown great differences between the cases, which shows why context is often key. Catherine did produce children — Queen Mary, after all, was hers. As such, the argument used for the annulment for Louis was not possible with Henry.
You have perhaps heard of the Salic Law in France? A woman could not succeed to the throne of France.
No matter what you and the other defenders of Renaissance papacy try to say here, the “context” was a political one, and NOT one of moral theology, and you know it.
And, given that the context was a political one that egregiously affected the faith of millions who’d be forced to apostacize by their governments, the morally correct decision, in CHARITY, would have been to give Henry his damned divorce.
Digby
I don’t want to go back and forth, since we both know the general position of the other, and I don’t think we will agree. I will make one more comment in relation to this, and it would also explain how I would have dealt with the situation in Henry’s time.
First, you are right in saying there is a political dimension, but it is simplistic and reductionalistic to put it all as a political affair. You have already affirmed that the religious technicalities might be as I describe, and as such, for someone who is faithful like St Thomas More or St John Fisher, that was the issue that concerned them (politically, I am sure they would have loved to back Henry, Thomas being one of his friends, and Thomas tried the best he could to remain outside of the political battle). And for the Church, while people within will use the truth for the sake of politics, the abuse of truth does not undermine the truth itself (ad hominems are fallacies, after all). This is why Henry’s attempts for annulment failed and had to fail.
Now, with my own hindsight of history, and especially of how the Church worked with others in the past, I know there could have been another solution. It would be shocking to some, and it wouldn’t be perfect, but it would have fit all the requirements. The error was in trying to say Henry and Catherine were not married (and we are talking about England, not France, here). What should have been pushed for is a dispensation to a second marriage — one which would have stated that Henry would still be technically married to Catherine since the sacrament can not be dissolved, but they would no longer have conjugal relations, while Henry’s new wife (bad choice, all in all, but his choice) would be the Queen and the heir would come from her. It would not be the first time the Church has allowed polygamy for a ruler, for the sake of politics, as was as a pastoral concern (for the fair treatment of the women involved; stipulation would have been put in for her proper care, better than under Henry VII). It would, as a dispensation, be seen as a sorrowful affair, but the best pastoral decision.
digbydolben,
The record was not what I was challenging, rather, it was the source from which you gathered your information for Henry’s inspection; however, as the irony in my comments to yours seem completely lost on you, I shall suspend any subsequent attempts with somebody so obviously hostile to any measure of communication.
Suffice it to say, to indulge these rather vain attempts at fantasy concerning “What Could Have Been” and, more specfically, this whole matter of “What the Church Should Have Done” according to one’s own gloss & preference at handling the entire affair is quite simply an utter waste of time.
History, as far as that chapter went, had already been written and recorded.
Clearly, Mr. Karlson has been far more gracious in that regard for having even entertained such pointless discussions at your behest.
Furthermore, I agree with him concerning St. Thomas More and how More himself would’ve most likely advocated almost any action of the King given their close relationship if only the good monarch followed more reasonable measures. More even did his best to avoid anything relating to the King’s Great Matter. However, it would inevitably turn out in vain.
What a nasty, condescending piece of work YOU are, “Ari”–and what a poor, heavy-handed communicator of what you mistakenly consider to be “irony”!
And, whether you recognise it or not, there IS a relevance of this whole question of the reasonableness of Henry VIII’s request for a dissolution of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon to modern issues within the Roman Catholic communion.
To wit: the peace and tranquility of Henry’s realm turned, as he and his ministers saw it, upon his producing a male heir to the throne. It wasn’t mere lust that made him go after Anne Boleyn and then Jane Seymour, but a desire to secure the succession of the Tudors and the security of a then very weak and easily-dominated kingdom of England, which both France and Spain–and, in particular, Catherine’s nephew Charles–wished to overawe and recruit to their side in the great struggle for European hegemony.
The pope of the time, Clement VII de Medici, was the pawn of the Emperor, and had he not been he would have done what his predecessor Alexander VI Borgia had done, and easily granted an “annulment.” The France of Louis XII was a much more powerful state than England was in that period, however, and the Borgia Pope was in greater fear of French intervention in Italian politics than his Medici successor would be regarding Henry VIII’s ineffectual continental forays.
Compromise was the way of a wise pastor and a Christian statesman who might have taken more concern than Clement VII de Medici did for the adherence of the Catholic peoples of the British Isles to their ancient faith. What he demonstrated is what modern Catholic prelates CONTINUE to demonstrate–more concern for their perquisites and comfortable privileges than for the “eternal salvation” of millions of ordinary Catholics who lost their sacraments, their confessors, their liturgies, their religious communities, their land-tenure relationships, just so a corrupt, power-hungry Medici ecclesiastical prince could score points with the emperor he had become enthralled to.
“digbydolben”,
Condescending?
Madame, you take it to an art form.
As regards the “very weak and easily dominated England”, although I believe I already made reference to the dynastic wars that preceded Henry’s reign (as well as my knowing of a certain pretender to the throne who even then many were still aware), I refuse to discuss any and all such matters even further especially with somebody of your ilk since you seem only receptive to entertaining the strikingly preposterous notion that all of England’s ills (its “Reformation”, the very despoliation and killing of its Catholic Heritage and her own People such as those who died a hideous death at Tyburn) were not actually due to the heinous acts commanded by Henry VIII himself but rather the Church.
Now, personally, I wouldn’t be so naïve as to think the Church deserved no blame at all, especially considering this particular section of her history.
Yet, I refuse to speak with somebody who not only would dare absolve the very criminal primarily responsible for all these crimes committed against the Catholic People of England but would actually elevate Henry VIII to such pristine status so as to render him blameless.
Compromise is most definitely a fitting theme in your comments and, quite frankly, an apt description for the sum of its contents.
One last comment, just to make clear my view of Henry VIII: one does not have to be a defender of that morally blinkered, criminal prince to acknowledge that he was a legitimate sovereign, charged with the peace and security of his realm.
All of Tudor history, including its denouement under Henry’s female successors, demonstrates that Henry’s concern for the weakness of a female ruler’s position was a reasonable one. My grief is not for Henry’s standing in the historical record, which would have been that of a tyrant even if his so-called “reformation” had been called off.
It is, instead, for the glorious, beautiful and culturally healthy and dynamic English Catholicism which was rooted out of the land by opportunistic and fanatical Calvinists and Puritans who used Henry’s political agenda as their cover for doing so. I would invite anybody who doubts that this was an offense against the once naturally Catholic British spiritual affinities to read The Stripping of the Altars, Albion by Peter Ackroyd and Disraeli’s writings about the destruction of the monasteries and their communal systems of land-tenure.
Nobody as naturally anti-capitalist as I am can approve of Henry VIII’s refashioning of the English aristocracy out of a class of ruthless and vicious “entrepreneurs” and exploiters of the poor of England, whom the ancient noblesse had somewhat protected and the monks had much more extensively done.