Foundations of the Anglican Church LVIX

Carthusian Saint John Houghton

In the last posting we looked at the early phase of the dissolution of the Religious Houses in England during the reign of Henry VIII.  Just to recap in the broadest of all possible views, the Church held immense wealth—more than the Crown—and owned approximately a third of the land in England.  About half of this land was owned by the great Benedictine, Cistercian, Augustinian, and Bridgettine Abbeys and monasteries.  (Augustinians here refers to the canons and canonesses, not to the friars or nuns affiliated to the friars.  Also the Bridgettines had only one major house in England—Syon Abbey in Middlesex—but it was an extremely wealthy foundation, one of the richest in England.) 
In the fifteenth centuries a number of defunct religious houses were closed and their properties devoted to other charities—hospitals and schools primarily---and Cardinal Wolsey got the idea during his administration to shutter a number of smaller religious houses and transfer their members to more stable abbeys while using their endowments for two educational foundations he was making—a grammar school in his native Ipswich and a new College, Cardinal College, at Oxford.  Cardinal College later was renamed Christchurch and today is perhaps the icon-college of Oxford even as Kings is of Cambridge. 
With Wolsey’s fall, Henry was not quick to close down other monasteries but he did note how the monastic wealth could be diverted to other causes.  He filed that piece of information away in his mind for later use. 
The Religious of England—monks, nuns, canons, friars—almost universally acceded to the royal supremacy.  A notable exception was John Houghton, prior of the Carthusians in London.  Prior Houghton was persuaded to swear to the 1533 Act of Succession which named Henry Head of the Church “so far as the Law of Christ Allows.”  However, the following year the Act of Supremacy declared Henry to be “the only Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England” and Prior Houghton and two other Carthusian priors—Robert Lawrence of Beauvale and Augustine Webster of Axeholm—along with Richard Reynolds (a Bridgettine of Syon Abbey) and John Haile (the Vicar of Isleworth, the town where Syon Abbey stood) were hanged, drawn, and quartered for refusing the swear to the royal supremacy.  The process—usual for treason—was that the condemned person was hanged until near death, then cut down while still alive and cut open with his heart and entrails removed, and then the corpse cut into four pieces to be taken and displayed at four different points of the realm. Sir Thomas More and John Fisher, the Bishop of Rochester, would go to their deaths—simple beheadings—later that summer for refusing to swear to the same act.   Carthusians William Exmew, John Davy, William Greenwood, Thomas Green, William Holm, Thomas Johnson, Humphrey Middlemore, Sebastian Newdigate, Walter Pierson, Thomas Redying, John Rochester, and James Walworth, followed Houghton, Lawrence, and  Webster to their deaths rather than swear to the supremacy. 
Several Franciscans, especially among the Observant Franciscans at Greenwich—a house particularly important to Henry and the Tudors because of its proximity to the Royal Palace and the site of Henry’s Marriage to Katherine of Aragon as well as his own baptism and the baptism of his daughters, Mary and Elizabeth—resisted the Royal Supremacy.  Friars Anthony Brookby, Thomas Courtt and Thomas Belchiam refused to take the oath and paid with their lives.   Friars Richard Risby and Hugh Rich were Observant Franciscans from other convents who refused to swear to the supremacy and were martyred for their stalwart loyalty to the Holy See.  Henry, in exasperation declared that the Observant friars were “disciples of the Bishop of Rome and sowers of sedition.”  Some sources say that there were more martyrs among the Franciscans and Carthusians, but their names have been lost.  That is certainly possible but the comprehensive lists of English martyrs from this times make the historian conservative in estimating the numbers much beyond those actually known and recorded.   On the other hand, searching through various records—and the English were great keepers of records—to identify various other religious and their divergent fates is exactly the sort of work that doctoral students do.  Various charters, wills, ordination records, etc. make it possible to reconstruct with considerable accuracy the memberships of various abbeys, monasteries, and friaries at any point from the fourteenth century through their dissolution in the sixteenth.  These lists can be checked against not only court records but appointments to ecclesiastical benefices subsequent to Henry’s disbanding of the religious foundations and that would be of immense help in discovering the fate of many of the religious who either took or refused the oaths of royal supremacy.  As it is, given the number of religious in England in 1535—approximately fifteen thousand—the number of martyrdoms is remarkably small.  It should also be noted that there are approximately two dozen Benedictines or Cistercians executed in the period, as well as a Premonstratensian  presumably for refusing to swear to the supremacy, though some may have been connected more with the Pilgrimage of Grace.  By and large the religious or the other orders all subscribed to the royal supremacy without much hesitation.  Many, no doubt, considered a temporary sort of thing that would resolve itself and reconcile with the papacy in a period of time.  And indeed one would have thought that with Katherine’s death in 1536 that the reason for the break was over—especially as Ann was to go to the scaffold only five months after Katherine’s death and Henry was free to make a new beginning.   But by this time Henry had plans for his Church of England and those plans did not admit of any other person at its head than he himself. 

Foundations of the Anglican Church LII

A question to consider is: Should Henry have gotten his annulment? 

Martin Luther defended

Katherine's cause against

an annulment.

The refusal of the annulment was purely political and shaped by the interplay of Medici and Imperial policies.  (Pope Clement VII was a Medici and Katherine was the aunt of the Emperor Charles V.)  Did Henry’s case have sufficient merits that he should have, if it had not been for the political aims of the Medici Pope, Clement VII, received an annulment from his marriage to Katherine of Aragon?

Before we go directly to that issue, we need to look at Katherine’s claims that her marriage to Henry’s brother, Arthur, had not been consummated.  Arthur was fifteen when they married; Katherine sixteen.  They were both in good health.  The marriage was solemnized and the couple was publicly bedded with prayers and a blessing by William Warham, then Bishop of London.   The marriage lasted only five months before Arthur died of a malady, probably influenza, which Katherine survived.  Although the Bride and Groom were young by today’s standards, it would be probable that the marriage had been consummated, but….
In order to obtain the required papal dispensation to marry the brother of her deceased husband, Katherine swore an oath that the marriage had not been consummated.  Now Katherine had plenty of reason to swear this oath—it was very much to her advantage as it involved both inheriting a crown and attaining a husband with whom she was in love.  But…in an age and in a court-culture where duplicity was the routine form of communication, Katherine stands as a monument to an inflexible integrity.  For her whole life Katherine could be counted on to tell the truth no matter what the cost; she was incapable of dishonesty.  If Katherine said the marriage was not consummated—you can take it to the bank. 
Shortly before her death, Katherine herself—in a frenzy of anguish about the consequences of her refusal to cooperate in the annulment process— acknowledged to the Imperial ambassador that had she ‘gone quietly’ i.e. acceded to the annulment, Henry would have been granted it.  She is undoubtedly right.  The annulment would have been granted, however, not on its merits but for political reason even as it was denied for political reasons.  Uncontested annulments of various royal marriages were routinely granted through the period before the Council of Trent—and often afterwards as well as in the case of Napoleon and Josephine’s marriage to permit Napoleon to marry Marie Louise of Austria in hopes of an heir. 
Thomas Cromwell in 1530 suggested to Henry that he poll the canon law faculties of the universities of Europe for opinions regarding the annulment.  The overwhelming response was in favor of the King’s argument.  While academics were always looking for patronage and Henry was in a better position to grant patronage than Katherine, they had to offer sound arguments in the King’s favor and many credible tracts were produced.  It was all a bit of a charade however as the universities did not have the power to grant annulments and while their arguments were meant to push the Pope into the King’s corner, Clement’s own political  interests made such pressure irrelevant to his decision.  Nevertheless, the Universities showed that credible canonical arguments could be made.  On the other hand, had Katherine been in a position to offer patronage, she too would have found her support among the academics.  Bishop Fisher, one of the leading voices of Church reform in England and a good theologian and canonist, went to the scaffold for defending the marriage. 
Curiously enough, two voices in favor of Katherine and the marriage were Martin Luther and William Tyndale.  We all know the former.  The latter was an English priest who was a pioneer in introducing Protestant thought into England in the 1520’s.  Tyndale provided an early translation of the Bible into English for the common folk to read.  Tyndale was arrested and executed in the Netherlands for his Protestant ideas in 1536, the year of Katherine’s death.  Both Luther and Tyndale said that it was unscriptural for Henry to end his marriage, but then each of them wanted to make the point that the Pope didn’t have the authority to over-rule the scriptural adjunction that what God has joined, man must not divide. 
In the end, I think we can say that were it not for Imperial/Medici politics trumping English politics, Henry would have gotten his annulment.  I also think, however—and I am not a canon lawyer—that for him to have gotten the annulment would have been a gross miscarriage of justice.  In the end, Katherine is vindicated.    

Foundations of the Anglican Church XLI

St John Fisher

At this point, matters become very complex.  We need to watch three separate strands of development which are inter-related but independent of each other.  The two major strands are the matter of Henry’s annulment and Henry’s separation of the Anglican Church from the Roman Communion.  The third strand, somewhat less important but also central to the developments was Henry’s relationship with Anne Boleyn.  While no one of these three can be studied in isolation from the others, each must be considered in and of itself as it is likely that each would have happened even if the others had not.  And it is important to know that each of these events was not a “flash in the pan” but a somewhat drawn out affair lasting over a period of years. 
Let’s look at the annulment matter first.  Henry began having serious doubts about the “rightness” of his marriage as early as 1524.  His wife, Katherine, had borne him six children, including three sons.   All but one, a daughter, did not survive infancy.  By 1524 the royal physicians had told Henry that Katherine would have no more children.  There would be no sons.  That did not bode well for the Tudor dynasty.  It did not bode well for England.  The only previous time a woman had succeeded to the throne, the Empress Maude (sometimes known as Matilda) in the early 12^th century, was a time of dynastic rivalry and civil war when various male claimants to the throne tried to seize it from her.  One of them, her cousin, Stephen of Blois, was successful.  Thousands died in the long wars between Maude and Stephen.   Henry feared that should his daughter Mary ascend the throne, there could be another period of instability as the Tudors were a new dynasty and there were others whose claim to the throne  had more legitimacy than that of the Tudors. 
Henry’s marriage to Katherine was theologically problematic.  Katherine was the widow of Henry’s older brother, Arthur.  Katherine, and her chaperone, claimed that the marriage—between two teens and lasting only a few months—had never been consummated. The problem with the marriage is this: Deuteronomy commands that should a man die childless, his widow must marry his brother and raise up children to the dead brother’s memory; Leviticus prohibits such a marriage.  In practice, the Christian Church had never followed the prescript of Deuteronomy that a widow should marry her brother-in-law and in fact the Church had always, following Leviticus, prohibited such marriages.  Dispensations were given however when requested. 
When Katherine and Henry had married, a papal dispensation had been obtained from Julius II to ensure that any improprieties in the marriage should not render it invalid.  But could a Pope annul the Law of God as commanded in Leviticus?   It would seem, to devout Catholics, that the Pope had such power, especially since the scriptural norms were ambiguous.  But Henry began to wonder: was God punishing him for marrying his brother’s widow by depriving him of a viable heir. 
Now politics get into every argument.  Henry’s marriage to Katherine represented an alliance with Spain—Katherine’s parents being the famous Ferdinand and Isabella, the most powerful rulers in Europe in its day.   England’s long time enemy was France.  An alliance with Spain provided England with an alliance against their common enemy—France.   But there were Englishmen who saw the future for England as being an alliance with France against Spain.  Spain was gobbling up this new world of the Americas—there would be no room for England to grow and expand overseas.  France and England together could check the growing power of Spain, a power that threatened to squeeze out everyone else and dominate the world.  The French party in English politics saw their chance to break the Spanish influence over Henry if they could break his marriage to Katherine.  They fed Henry doubts about his marriage.  Maybe the King should take a new wife to provide the needed heir.  Retire the Spanish princess and put a French princess in her place.  The King of France had sisters who could provide an heir and ally England and France.
Nevertheless, for most people in 1525 or 1526 the idea that the King would renounce Katherine was beyond imagination.  Katherine was popular with the people.  She was a good wife who quietly tolerated her husband’s serial infidelities.  She had left Spain with its wealth and luxuries, its sunny climate and orange groves for cold and dreary England where she had performed her duties with elegance and grace.  Katherine and Henry were good Catholics.  Moreover, his infidelities aside, they had a good marriage.  They sincerely loved one another.  How could she be cast off?   What was really surprising is that Wolsey, the King’s chief minister, wasn’t more aware of the dangers to the marriage.  Wolsey ran England.  He normally anticipated Henry’s every whim and arranged matters accordingly.  Wolsey’s attention to detail permitted Henry to play while Wolsey governed.  But when Henry came to Wolsey and said he wanted to have his marriage annulled, it was a bolt out of the blue to Wolsey.   Wolsey recovered quickly and promised Henry that it could be arranged.
And it probably could have been arranged save for European politics.  Henry  could not have picked a worse time to ask for an annulment.  As seen in previous postings, it was just at this time (1527) that the troops of Katherine’s nephew, Charles V, sacked Rome and holed the Pope up in the Castel Sant’Angelo.  And it was just at this time that the people of Florence expelled the Medici, leading the Pope to forge an alliance with the Emperor—the Sack of Rome not withstanding—to restore the Medici to Florence.  Clement was in no position to satisfy Henry if he wanted to keep Charles on his side. 
Clement didn’t come right out and say no to Henry.  In April 1528 Clement declared that the matter would be referred to a commission to examine the matter and the following June he appointed Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio and Wolsey to be the ecclesiastical judges to examine the validity of the marriage. 
Campeggio was an interesting choice.  In 1524, with Henry’s encouragement, he had been elected Bishop of Salisbury.  Of course he did not live in England.  His English Vicar General administered the diocese, but Campeggio, living in Rome, collected the income—and it was a considerable income –of the diocese.  So he was in Henry’s debt.  But Campeggio had already written an opinion supporting the validity of the marriage.  So how would he go on this matter?  Would he stay true to his principles or would he be faithful to his English benefactor?
In fact, Campeggio had been given instructions from Clement that he was not to grant the annulment but neither was he to refuse it.  He was to stall for time.  It was a typically Italian strategy.  Promise everything, but do nothing. Keep everyone happy.   
By the autumn of 1528 Campeggio had arrive in England and convened the court at Blackfriars (the Dominican convent in London).  Katherine made a dramatic appearance, declaring that she would not recognize its jurisdiction and producing the original dispensation permitting the marriage.  She threw herself at Henry’s feet stating she had always been a good queen and a faithful wife and he had no reason to put her aside.  She then left the court and refused any summons to return.  Henry, for his part, gave a speech in November 1528 , praising Katherine as a good wife and declaring he would marry her again if circumstances were different.   Henry was both sincere and false in making this declaration.  There is no doubt that he had loved her and probably in 1528 loved her still—though more as a matter of gratitude and respect than in any romantic sense.  Nevertheless, by this point, he was determined on a new marriage—though not necessarily to Anne Boleyn.   
Katherine found a champion in John Fisher, the aged prelate who had been Henry’s childhood tutor and was now Bishop of Rochester.  Fisher was an old man but he had fire in his belly.  He defended the marriage and excoriated Henry, comparing him to Herod declaring that he, like John the Baptist, would surrender his head to defend the marriage.  He would, in due time, be taken up on this offer but the irony is that John the Baptist had lost his head for attacking a king for marrying his brother’s wife and John Fisher was attacking a king for trying to separate from his brother’s wife.  Rhetoric does not always follow logic. 
Campeggio dragged the matter out for months and Wolsey was in a panic.  He began to realize that there would be no annulment and the security of his own position depended on their being an annulment.   Meanwhile, Henry had become infatuated with Anne Boleyn.  We will say more about this in the next posting but suffice it to say that initially Henry had no intention of marrying Anne, only bedding her.  But Anne was not about to be bedded and discarded by Henry as her sister Mary had been.  Anne was bold enough to see a chance at becoming Queen and she led Henry on while fending him off at the same time.  As Henry was not yet thinking of marriage to Anne he was willing to put up with Campeggio’s delays.  The French princess or whoever else might be his bride could wait until this was all sorted out.  Henry was still fairly young;  there was still time for him to sire an heir.
In July 1529, after about nine months of hearings, Campeggio recessed the court until  October but it never reconvened.  It was not that Henry had become impatient and dismissed the Court, but Clement—afraid that pressure might be put on Campeggio to yield—reserved the matter to himself.  Campeggio left England for Italy and as of Christmas 1529 there was still no resolution of “The King’s Great Matter.”