Richard Rex suggested that as long as Henry remained committed to Rome and Catholicism, the impact of these doctrines was limited. But once he departed from Rome, the innovators were encouraged to hope that he might go further, and gave enthusiastic support to his policies. His need for support over the divorce and the supremacy led him to turn a blind eye to some kinds of doctrinal tendentiousness. And the official adoption of Protestant or evangelical rhetoric to bolster the case against the Papacy and the attack on popular religion gave the evangelical reformers more than a foot in the door of and English Church. With the sympathies of such prominent figures as Anne Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell, these Reformers had an effect out of all proportion to their numbers. By the end of the 1530s, Henry had taken fright at the spread of heresy.
However, the divorce alone does not account for the ultimate triumph of Protestantism over Catholicism in England. The primary motivation for the divorce was Henry’s wanton lust. The problem was the lack of a legitimate male heir to inherit the crown. Fifteen years of marriage to Catherine of Aragon had left Henry with only one surviving legitimate child, Princess Mary. In the light of the Wars of the Roses, the dynasty looking insecure. Further, Catherine of Aragon was previously married to Henry’s elder brother. Henry VII hoped to perpetuate the dynastic alliance with the ruling house of Spain by remarrying Catherine to his second son after Arthur’s death in 1502. But marriage to the wife of a deceased brother had been forbidden in the Catholic Church since earliest times, and a papal dispensation was therefore necessary.
Cardinal Wolsey, hoping to exploit the divorce in order to secure a marriage alliance with France, broached the matter on his embassy to Francis I in 1527. Unfortunately for the Henry VIII, the unfavourable political situation of the Pope left the chances of an easy resolution slim. For in 1527 troops of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V had stormed Rome and rendered Clement VII a virtual prisoner with his fortress of Castel Sant’ Angelo. This gave Charles considerable influence over papal policy. As Catherine of Aragon was the emperor’s aunt, the pope was understandably reluctant to court his displeasure by inflicting on his family the dishonour of a divorce. Moreover, the objective of the divorce was still believed to be marriage to some French princess. Such an alliance would clearly be against the emperor’s interests. Faced with the choice of offending one or other of Europe’s most powerful monarchs, Clement took the only possible course: he played for time.
The emergence of the doctrine of the royal supremacy is inextricably bound up with the pursuit of the divorce. In analyzing the doctrine, it is essential to distinguish it from a number of the ideas and images with which was successfully foisted upon the English people. The doctrine that within his realms a king was not only the head of the church- that he was the source of not only temporal but spiritual jurisdiction- was unprecedented. The royal supremacy, then, was far from popular. But the control which the king and his council had over the ruling elite in the localities ensured for the most part that discontent would not turn into rebellion.
Across the Channel, The Roman Catholic Church was a major institution in almost everywhere in Europe. It dominated education, laid down moral values and the values of society generally. However, it had become wealthy and lax. Traditionally interpretation of the causes of the continental Reformation have placed an emphasis on the serious flaws in the Church and its management. The Popes had often set a poor example as religious leaders. Julius II and Leo X saw themselves as Italian princes and warriors, and they tended to neglect their role as spiritual leaders of the Roman Catholic Church throughout Europe. Increasingly, the papacy had become a political and wealthy organization. It seemed to forget its fundamental role of assisting people to search for the truth and helping them towards eternal salvation and resented challenges and criticism. Worse still, they failed to adapt new ideas, failed to reorganize the sensible ambitions of secular rulers, and failed as leaders of the Christian Church. Certainly, personal feelings of the Papacy must be seen as a central reason why the work of Martin Luther spread so quickly.
The Papacy’s monopoly came under challenge in the late fifteenth century when the spread of humanist ideas and a growth of learning and literacy encouraged men to rethink some of the ideas and values on which the Church had been based. This led to challenges on it Biblical basis for this self-imposed monopoly of the truth and real knowledge.
In conclusion, although England still looked like a Catholic country when Henry VIII died in 1547, its Catholicism had been compromised by schism and iconoclasm. However, the alliance between the crown and Reformers forged during the divorce controversy was decisive for the survival of the evangelical movement. As Henry fell under the influence of Boleyn in his bed and of Cromwell in his council, a mild form of Lutheranism was able to establish itself at court and, under court patronage, elsewhere. What made the English Reformation distinctive from its continental counterpart is that the process begun from the top which gradually spread down to the grass roots. Although there are wider debates over this, this is the general model adapted by Reformation historians. In the continent, however, it is generally agreed that it began with Martin Luther’s protest in 1517 although there was also the disappointment of the Church and the Papacy before reform.
Bibliography
Rex, R Henry VIII and the English Reformation (London 1993)
Morris, T Europe and England in the Sixteenth Century (London 1998)
Haigh, C English Reformations (Oxford 1993)
Lotherington, J Years of Renewal: European History 1470-1600 (London 1999)
Doran, S England and Europe 1485-1603 (New York 1986)
