Another example of dissatisfaction with the Church in this time period would be the publication of Simon Fish’s “A supplication for the beggars”, this 11 page document was a direct request to the king for action against the Catholic church. It stands to reason that if common people like Simon Fisher were writing to the king and publishing this material without being killed for heresy, then the Church must have been weakened at this point. Fisher’s publication directly accuses the clergy of using prostitutes and blames them for the failings of the English economy.
The orthodox view also preaches in hindsight about the pluralism of the clergy, its effect on their religious duties and ability to fulfil the religious needs of the people. The facts of high taxation on the rich and poor alike and anti-clericalist murmurings among the English people are key points in the orthodox argument. G.R Elton sums up his view of the situation quite effectively;
“The Church was widely believed to be rotten…the clergy themselves attracted more dislike than love.”
The orthodox point of view argues strongly that the church was rotten, unstable and corrupt. The summarised orthodox view is of a Catholic church that did not adequately satisfy religious needs of the people of England They would argue that it was unsurprising that Henry VIII was able to overturn it with very little trouble. The view that the corrupt Church was unable or unwilling to fulfil the religious needs of the country was widely accepted until the 1970’s and historians like Christopher Haigh, began to question this.
A number of historians began to question this as they researched more into exactly how the English people of this time felt towards the Catholic Church and its Clergymen. C. Haigh is an excellent example of the revisionist view, he argues that the Orthodox view is misleading and that the English people, on the whole, were having their religious needs met by the Catholic Church. For example, he comments on Cardinal Wolsey:
“Wolsey himself, for all his private vices, was an energetic reformer, who tried to produce better trained and better disciplined parish clergy.”
This is a very typical example of the revisionist view, recognising the humanity and failings of the clergy but also bringing out that they were still meeting the religious needs of the people.
The revisionist argument is that the orthodox view is misleading and inaccurate, they are backed by the last 25 years of research that show that this supposed ‘anti-clericalism’ was merely a part truth and represented a miniscule percentage of the population. Haigh argues that the Reformation was caused by a number of factors not simply on account of corruption of the clergy. He argues that war costs, political machinations and Henry’s strong desire for divorce were the primary cause of the Reformation in England. He proves that interest in the church is not waning at this point by commenting on evidence;
“In the 1520’s recruitment of clergy reached the peak of the half century expansion”
This comment by Haigh helps to back up the revisionist argument that people were having their needs met by showing that more and more clergy were stepping in to help fulfil the religious needs of the English people.
Revisionist argues quite a convincing case that only the negative sections of the Church are brought to light by the Orthodox view and this is a misrepresentation of a large institute that had a lot of good in it, including the ability to adequately care for and satisfy the religious needs of the majority of the English people.
An interesting facet to the Revisionist argument is that it takes the negative points put forth by the Orthodox argument and proposes ways in which they would have been beneficial in enabling of the Church to satisfy their parishioners. An example of this is Haigh’s argument that pluralism was had a beneficial effect on those Clergy who took part in it as they were able to use skills from their other positions to improve their performance in their clerical roles. For example, a priest who was also a town councillor could influence the political decisions being made that would affect the religious interests of the town, in a positive manner.
The main points of the Revisionist point of view are that the Church at this time was not corrupt, the people were being satisfied religiously and anti-clericalism was not the cause of the English Reformation. Rather, Henry VIII and his selfish desire for divorce was the prime culprit.
Undoubtedly, both arguments have some degree of truth, but which is the most accurate and which is simply misleading? Historians with a balanced outlook would argue that the answer lies within geographical location. In some regions the orthodox view of corruption, discontent and anti-clericalism was very much true. The people were feeling unhappy with the amount of money the church was taking off them and the lavish lives that the clergy were seen to be living. However, in contrast, in many regions this was simply not the case, the people were happy and they felt strongly that the church was satisfying all of their religious needs.
In is difficult to see a definitive answer to the question “How adequately did the Pre-Reformation Church in England meet the religious needs of the country?” simply because both arguments are true and each represents the situation for a proportion of the country. The people could not understand the sermons and services as they were in latin, this must have bothered some but many trusted in the clergy to ensure that their religious needs were adequately met and were happy that this was being done.
In conclusion, it would appear that the Pre-Reformation church in England was meeting the religious needs of a large proportion, if not the majority of the country. However, there were obviously some murmurings of discontent among a proportion of the population but this does not seem large enough to amount to a full scale Reformation of the Church. Therefore, it appears obvious that the Church’s internal problems were not the outright cause of the Reformation and the people’s needs were indeed being met at this time. The true cause of the Reformation lies not with the people’s dislike of taxes and of the clergy but rather with the King and other external factors.
The picture that is painted by the evidence available to historians today would seem to suggest that England’s people were torn in half, some feeling discontent and anger with the Church and the clergy and some feeling happy with their Catholicism and the way in which the Church met their needs. However it is important to consider whether the evidence is an accurate representation of the time. It may well be that the majority of people in England at this time were perfectly satisfied with the Church and were having their religious needs fully satisfied. There is an obvious possibility that the issues that are raised in the Orthodox view are only representative of small pockets of people and not of England as a whole.
Whichever way your opinion takes you, there is not enough evidence to build a completely, airtight case of either of the Orthodox or Revisionist views. However, since the 1970’s more and more historians have been joining the revisionist view of the Church’s condition and ability to meet the religious needs of its parishioners.
