Were abuses the source of the Reformation?

The flouting of the Catholic religion by clerics of the sixteenth century, so often mentioned by historians such as A.G. Dickens in connection with the English reformation, is mentioned above. The fact that many clerics could not read Latin let alone understand it does hold some truth, although as a reason for denunciating the church on this basis it is not wholly valid. History is all too often viewed form a teleological standpoint and in this case because the outcome that was the reformation has always been known, historians have been all too tempted to conclude that the church must have fallen as a result of the abuses of the church. Along with ignorance, ‘worldly conduct’ is often mentioned when referring to the ‘abuses’ of the church. During the last decade of the fifteenth century, Pope Alexander VI did much to discredit the papacy and Catholicism. Tales of his debauchery and abuse of power were common, and his case emphasises well, how easy it was for a holy man to be unholy. Alexander was an extreme case and although excesses such as drunkenness and taking a wife did exist within English Church pre-reformation, it was inconsequential to the laity.  

The ignorance of the clergy and some of their vices genuinely did not matter to the laity of the sixteenth century, as primarily they did not understand how a priest should behave, general care not spiritual guidance was of more importance to their lives. Society today has much higher standards and expectations of the church, however in the sixteenth century, society would much rather their pastor help to organise the sale of their home, than he have a comprehensive knowledge of the scriptures.

“Modern scholars have generally admitted that the Lollards were a small minority” Christopher Haigh effectively dismisses A.G. Dickens’ theses in one fell swoop with this statement. Dickens placed large importance on anticlerical movements being proof the Church was in a state of disrepute, as if it were not then surely there would be no opposition. Anticlericalism is banded about very casually as a both a source of the reformation and a proof of the failings of the church. There are many forms of anticlericalism, in as much as it does not simply entail a dislike of the church and/or clergy. J.J. Scarisbrick astutely points out that many of those who were anticlerical were simultaneously hugely pious individuals, such as John Fisher and Thomas More. Their anticlericalism would have stemmed from their intricate knowledge of the religion, and hence they were ill at ease with the failings of the church and churchmen, throughout the institution.  Abuses hence did exist in the Church, and people did oppose them, yet it was certainly not common as few had the knowledge to criticise the workings of the church. Those that did were usually from within and therefore a public outcry was definitely not on the cards.

Another type of anticlericalism mentioned above existed in the form of opposition to the established religion, and it is when investigating this that the Lollardy movement and other similar groups becomes important. The Lollardy movement certainly existed and certainly gave the English Bishops cause for concern. Factions such as the White Horse Tavern group from Cambridge and proof from Oxford booksellers’ that Lutheran works were being sold by 1520 prove the presence of Protestant support. Theology was the original core of the these movements, whereby they rejected the notion of purgatory and thus ridding Christianity of indulgences, as Martin Luther had done in Germany.. “Lollardy undoubtedly had its scurrilous side and at times descended into little more than anticlericalism”. This statement emphasises that the anticlerical movements were not originally concerned with anticlericalism and an attack on the church because of its abuses, (although it does imply fees were an abuse) but simply as with Luther, they were calling for reform from within the church

The word ‘source’ literally defined means the place from which something comes. For the assertion that abuses were the source of the English reformation to be true, then one would be required to supply evidence to the effect of; as a result of abuses the reformation occurred. Ambiguity occurs here, as one immediately applies ‘abuses’ to abuses of the church and clergy, however an ‘abuse’ is plainly an unjust or corrupt practice. Nowhere is there a restriction imposed for investigating just the abuses of the church and thus one could easily argue the English reformation was due to Henry VIII’s abuse of his position or even perhaps Martin Luther’s abuse of the Catholic religion. The scope is far too great to discuss in this essay; hence the focus will remain mostly on the church. Mostly but not solely, as Henry’s involvement with the reformation must be mentioned. Diarmaid MacCulloch went as far as to say “The English Reformation was the creation of the English monarchy…If Henry VIII had not sought a divorce from his first wife… it is unlikely he would have been propelled away from Rome”. The controversy surrounding Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon and subsequent marriage to former-mistress Anne Boleyn was pivotal to the formation of the Anglican Church and break from Rome. MacCulloch’s view is hugely valid, as ultimately Henry could not fulfil his desires for a male heir without the split from Rome, and as a result an English Reformation was necessary, but not necessarily desired. Henry was once given the title of  ‘Defensor Fide’ because of an article written in defiance of Martin Luther and his religious ideas. He clearly took an interest in religion, but the changes he forced were not due to his religious convictions or dissatisfaction with the Catholic Church in England at the time. It is possible to assert that abuses could have been the source of the English Reformation, the abuses by Henry VIII of his power and manipulation of intricate clauses for personal gain. His actions can be classed as unjust and corrupt and hence his abuses were to some degree the source of the reformation.

Politics often override all other factors in any situation and religion is no exception. Examples of effectively political abuses that existed amongst clerics of the sixteenth century come in the form of nepotism, simony and pluralism. They were all present and correct, and with people such as cardinal Wolsey holding many positions within the church but not visiting, for example, his archbishopric of York until fifteen years after his appointment, is indisputable testimony to abuses within the church existing. For the laity, this particular abuse must have been frustrating and it was often down to nothing but politics amongst the aristocracy. Again extreme examples are apparently the main ones that crop up and the publication “Supplication for the Beggars” shows discontent in 1528. The piece written by Simon Fish was a scathing attack on the clergy and their abuses, and caused a stir in the same vein as that of the Richard Hunne affair, however as aforementioned the case is not usual. Abuses were much more apparent in the rest of Europe during the sixteenth century, and examples such as Fish can not be given as evidence that the church was riddled with abuses, as it was an isolated event. It is worthy to note that ironically, where in Europe there were more failings of the Church, their reformations tended to be theology based such as Lutheranism in Germany and Calvinism in France. Perhaps a pattern could be drawn on here, the fact that there were not so many abuses in England might be evidence that the English Reformation could not have been religious. Thus the more abuses evident in the Church of a specific country, the more religious a reformation would become, and hence the lack of religious factors in England’s reformation would imply very few abuses.

In matters of importance, money is ever lurking ready to add confusion or bring out the worst in human nature. The church owned over one quarter of all land in England in the early sixteenth century, and was an extremely wealthy institution. Many laity saw the priesthood as their best chance to exit the rat race and earn a decent living. It is on monetary issues where many historians get stuck on the ‘certainty’ that the source of the reformation was due to abuses of the clergy, pertinently their abuse of wealth accessible to them. They are not incorrect, religion for cash definitely occurred and definitely infuriated many purists (humanists) “…ambition had to be measured in terms of cash, and the cure of souls considered almost as a long-term investment for this world quite apart from the next…”. By many simony was said to be the greatest abuse within the sixteenth century, yet how much it actually affected the common man is debated. These power struggles for diocese amongst the upper ranking clergy and indeed statesmen patently did affect many, but due to England’s rural structure, to most these dealing were irrelevant. The local chaplain was all that mattered, and their function was more as a community leader than a religious one. The abuses of the church in England were far too incomprehensible for popular opposition to the institution. Simon Fish’s greatest complaint was the ignorance of the laity, in as much as it frustrated him that they could not see the abuse he could.

The Anglican Church was an amazing feat by the English monarchy, and since Elizabeth I had enough time to standardise it, it has remained to the present day. The English reformation coincided loosely with the European reformation, but it was entirely independent. Paul Johnson’s summation “The reformation, indeed, was a typical piece of English conservatism, conducted with the familiar mixture of muddle, deviousness, hypocrisy and ex post facto rationalisation.”  The important thing to realise in this investigation is that the reformation was indeed a muddle. Its driving forces were drawn from different sources at different times, from Henry, from Protestants and perhaps even from discontent with the church due to abuses. To agree with Diamard MacCulloch is perhaps the wisest of options. Her assertion that the reformation was composed by the monarchy is certainly overwhelmingly convincing, because the actuality and mechanics of the process were entirely down to the split with Rome, and then the Statutory Reformation that was ordered by the crown. If abuses are to be the source of the English reformation then let them be, but be sure to understand that it was not abuses belonging to the church and its clergy.

Bibliography

Kaufman, P.I., The “Polytyque  Churche” (USA 1986) 

Haigh, C, The English Reformation Revised, (Cambridge 1987)

Collinson, P, The religion of Protestants – The Church  in English Society 1559-1625 (Oxford 1982)

Articles:

MacCulloch, D, England

Scarisbrick, J.J., How the English Reformation Happened (University of Warwick)

(History Review, Issue 13, pp 1-3)

Cross, C., The English Church on the Eve of the Reformation (University of York)

---