Thompson argues that the church naturally looked to gain autonomy but also needed to constantly evolve to remain relevant to society. It appears to Thompson that in the church there was an increasing number of crises such as Lollardy and the Schism that highlighted the need for reform. Most important though in changing the nature of the church was the development of the state. When the concept of state was in its infancy it did not have sovereignty as such and held little power in relation to the church, which had control or influence over nearly all aspects of society. When the church declared its autonomy from other institutions a boundary was created between state and church areas of influence in society. It is clear that the state has been continually encroaching on the church, assuming many of its former roles. The church has little influence over this process and the reformation is seen as just one stage in the inevitable secularisation of society. Thompson argues that the laity in the late medieval period were gaining considerable influence in church affairs despite the aim for autonomy due to the church’s persistent efforts to involve itself in temporal matters in addition to its spiritual responsibilities. This essentially laid the church open to reform from the outside, which would not always be to the direct benefit of the church and its ministers.
The increasing politicisation of the clergy also allowed the church to be more susceptible to political events, especially the struggle for power. Throughout the late medieval period the higher clergy were heavily involved in politics, many Bishops being occupied in government and some figures even served the crown on military expeditions such as Bishop Henry Despenser who led a force to Flanders in 1383. Slowly the state gained power over the church, for example gaining the authority to appoint Bishops, and this eventually led to conflict between state and church, especially with the Papacy. It is tempting to assume that the state will predictably compete with rival power bases in order to produce state hegemony in society. This creates a theory that the reformation and any other secularising reforms would occur at the behest of the state once it had gained sufficient power. This theory has a certain air of inevitability however, and it is obvious, as Haigh points out, that the reformation was far from inevitable. Thompson’s ideas are still useful in explaining how the conditions came about that allowed for change to occur. He argues that the church, in order to maintain its dominant position, developed in response to the practical needs of the laity and during this process came increasingly under the control of the laity, who had more inclination to change the church for their own interests.
Some historians concentrate on the failings of Catholicism in explaining the reformation, such as A.G. Dickens. He cites Lollardy as a key example of the dissatisfaction with Catholicism and attributes the rise of Lollardy and evangelism in England to the defects that existed in the church. He assumes that the “institutions, personnel and beliefs of the Catholic Church did not command the respect and commitment of the people.” Dickens claims that the clergy had become too politicised and were therefore neglecting the needs of their parishioners as they were not fully dedicated to their spiritual responsibilities. Haigh, however, refutes this claim, arguing that there is little evidence to suggest negligence and immorality among the clergy. This view that the reformation occurred from below relies heavily on the assumption that protestant ideology was accepted by the majority of society, this is unlikely as most of the protestant teachings relied on written materials to spread their ideas. Evidence suggests that people were in fact reluctant to give up their catholic method of religion, after the readoption of Catholicism under Mary the majority of the population readily reverted to the old techniques. The assertion that there was growing anticlericalism also now lacks substance. This assumption can be explained by protestant propaganda and the misinterpretation of specific grievances against the church which in reality did not constitute part of a conscious effort to bring down Catholicism.
The Dickens approach is easily criticised. As Haigh argues, in the time running up to the reformation there were no real signs that the church was in decline. It still had relevance in society, and its principles were still adhered to in many areas of England, the fact that Catholicism survived the reformation shows it was not brought down by a wholesale rejection of its ideas and institutions. It is quite possible that Catholicism could have remained the prominent religion if circumstances had been different; if Mary had survived longer it is likely that the church would have been able to successfully re-establish itself. It is clear that there was not a fanatical objective of the population to replace Catholicism and the lack of immediate impact the reformation had on local religious practice shows that even if the church had been distasteful to the population, there would be no apparent benefit in changing the church. The foremost willingness to alter the religious nature of English society therefore originated from government. As the revisionists have rightly argued, the reformation was primarily political and religious principles were only a minor consideration.
Political factors certainly played an important role in the successful execution of the reformation and many, including G.R. Elton, consider these factors to be the most significant. Although Elton and his followers suggest that reformation was a deliberate part of a great reform programme, such a drastic change as the reformation is more easily explained by the extenuating circumstances that prevailed during the early 16th century. The total separation of the English church from the Papacy was a dramatic step and not one it seems Henry VIII was overly keen to make. For him though, other priorities were more important and his desire to rid himself of Catherine of Aragon proved a significant factor in prompting him to take such severe action against the church. To emphasise that there was nothing inherently wrong with the church and that the action taken against it was the result of isolated circumstances, Henry VIII did intend to reverse some of the reforms after they had outlived their political usefulness. The reformation was led by the government through statute and the trend of acceptance of Protestantism can easily be attributed to the growing power of the state. It remained far safer for individuals to conform to the state and many would benefit financially and in terms of status through the reformation.
In conclusion it can be said that the political factors were the most significant although elements of anticlericalism made the reformation easier to bear. It is hard to see that a reformation could have taken place if there was not the need by Henry VIII to gain a divorce against the will of the Papacy and Charles V. Essentially the church was no less efficient or pious as it had been over the whole late medieval period but it was not able to resist the power of the state. Whatever condition the church was in was irrelevant; the coercive power of the Tudor state was such that it could impose its will on almost any subject. The reformation may be symptomatic of the transaction from late medieval to early modern England, the Catholic church was generally community based so the move towards a national community required a nationalised church, which Haigh claims was a primary function of the reformation.
