Hmmm, no. Henry had a papal dispensation to marry Catherine of Aragon and then tried to claim later that the dispension wasn’t allowable. However, the pope has the power of binding and loosing. The original dispensation stood, as it should have.
Henry had zero theologians to support him until he paid large bribes to English and continental theologians to work it up for him. They falsified quotations of church fathers and everything. Many lamented and repented (and fled England in the aftermath).
The pope didn’t really have a dog in that fight, politically.
Let me isolate these paras, and talk a little history. Yep, along with
Apostalicae Curae, I’m into Henry and his search for a decree of nullity. All sorts of historical hobbies.
What Henry tried to get Clement to do was a commonplace at the time. The entire system of dispensations and impediments in effect at that time was designed to permit the making and breaking of marriages for state and dynastic reasons, while still permiting the Church to control the sacrament of marriage. The thing got so out of hand it was cut down to size by Trent.
Henry’s case, as he presented it, was based on the Levitical prohibition against marrying a brother’s widow. It was not a particularly strong
causa; but as the sytem worked at the time, it didn’t need to be. It certainly was as strong as, say, the cases his sister presented, for her two decrees of nullity, and Henry has every reason to expect he would get his, too. Happened all the time, literally. But most of the time, there wasn’t an aunt of Charles VII involved. Clement not only had a dog in the fight, he was trapped in the middle of it himself, esp. after Pavia. Clement was under Charles’ thumb, and was not the most forceful of men anyway. No chance he would rule against the Emperor.
The issue of just what were the limits of the Pope authority, with respect to binding and loosing the marriage ties, was a subject that evolved over the years. Generally, the limits on the Pope’s authority were in cases of Divine law, as opposed to Church law. An impediment of consanquinity in the first degree direct, for example, has always been declared to be
ultra vires, beyond the power of any, including the Pope, to dispense. Other impediments have been considered to be
ultra vires at one time, and within the Papal authority at others. See Kelly’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII, for details of this evolutionary process. But even the Pope did not possess absolute authority in these matters.
Henry’s best case, as Wolsey saw, would have been to point out the probable undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty lurking in Julius’ original dispensation to allow Henry and Catherine to wed. More details on this likely to follow, if this discussion continues (and no, the issue of whether Catherine and Arthur had consummated the marriage doesn’t help Catherine’s case at all; it hurts it).
Henry didn’t falsify his references. The problem was that they were not strong ones, and that because he took the Levitical tact, rather than the buried undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty, as Wolsey tried to advise. But in truth, neither case would have gotten him his decree of nullity. An emperor, Pope in hand, trumps a king.
If there is more waving of cartoons, and cardboard cutouts on this, I’ll try to reply. But I’ve done a lot of typing for someone who said this morning that he wasn’t able to do lengthy posts anymore.
Meanwhile, I’d suggest reading J. J. Scarisbrick’s magnificent bio of Hank, HENRY VIII. It isn’t pro-Henry. It’s pro-history. And, for even more mind boggling detail on how the system worked, Kelly’s book, mentioned above.
GKC
