Henry VIII/ Divorce from Catherine of Aragon

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

As a convert from Anglicanism I would be most grateful if someone could possibly answer an historical question relating to my former ecclesial communion.

It has often been remarked that the reason why King Henry VIII was not granted an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was because of the power of Charles V and that this was the real motive in not declaring his marriage invalid. Moreover, it is said that the learned theologians of the day did all they could to see whether Henry’s marriage to Catherine was indeed really null and void, but evidently could find no legitimate or solid reason. However, some Protestant scholars, for example Stephen Niell, have said that Henry had a much better case than has often been acknowledged, inasmuch as from the very outset Henry’s marriage to Catherine ran counter to the express command of Sacred Scripture (Leviticus 20: 21). Thus the ‘marriage’ was within the prohibited degress to begin with and therefore contrary to the immutable law of God? Moreover, is it not true that this was the first occasion in history when, apparently, a dispensation had been granted by the Pope for the marriage of a man with his deceased brother’s widow?

Finally, is not correct to say that had the Pope from the first moment told Henry plainly that a dissolution of his marriage could in no circumstances be considered, then he might surely have restrained King Henry from taking the calamitous step he was bent on taking, thus avoiding the unhappy severance of the Church in England from the Roman obedience?

To date I have found no full or adequate treatment of the aforementioned issues in any apologetical works or manuals of Church history. Thus if anyone can cast some light upon these issues, or at least direct me to some learned sources that do, then I would be most appreciative. Thankyou.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[AmbroseSJ]

You are right about Henry VIII’s marriage to C of A being counter to Church canons. However Henry got a Papal Dispensation in order to marry Catherine. That is why his marriage was considered completely valid. Later, Henry tried to use his earlier impediment as a justification for an annulment/divorce. However, the Papal dispensation precluded that possibility. I thought Henry was advised by his own Bishops that the divorce was not possible. I doubt that a peremptory interference by the Pope would have been well received.

 

[Portrait]

You are right about Henry VIII’s marriage to C of A being counter to Church canons. However Henry got a Papal Dispensation in order to marry Catherine. That is why his marriage was considered completely valid. Later, Henry tried to use his earlier impediment as a justification for an annulment/divorce. However, the Papal dispensation precluded that possibility. I thought Henry was advised by his own Bishops that the divorce was not possible. I doubt that a peremptory interference by the Pope would have been well received.

Dear AmbroseSJ,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response above.

Whilst I accept that Henry secured a Papal Dispensation to marry Catherine, surely the isssue is whether that Dispensation ran counter to Sacred Scripture (Leviticus 20: 21), thus rendering it contrary to God’s law, which forbade marrying within the prohibited degrees. The Protestants would no doubt contend that the Pope trumped Sacred Scripture here and effectively overruled it.

The refusal of an annulment seems to have been more influenced by the power of Charles V and the Pope not wishing to court his displeasure at that time, rather than by being held to a previous Dispensation, which may have been granted on unbiblical grounds in the first place.

It does seem that the Pope took an exceedingly long time to come to a decision and this must have been very frustrating for King Henry. If the Pope had acted sooner, he well have prevented Henry from adopting the tragic course that he took. There is such a thing as a ‘reasonble time’, that is really my point.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[The_Wizard]

“And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.” (Leviticus 20: 21)(KJV use in respect for King Hank VIII)

To me this sound like if a bother commits adultery with his brother’s wife. Doesn’t say anything about his widow. Can someone explain where I might have gone wrong.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Dear AmbroseSJ,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response above.

Whilst I accept that Henry secured a Papal Dispensation to marry Catherine, surely the isssue is whether that Dispensation ran counter to Sacred Scripture (Leviticus 20: 21), thus rendering it contrary to God’s law, which forbade marrying within the prohibited degrees. The Protestants would no doubt contend that the Pope trumped Sacred Scripture here and effectively overruled it.

The refusal of an annulment seems to have been more influenced by the power of Charles V and the Pope not wishing to court his displeasure at that time, rather than by being held to a previous Dispensation, which may have been granted on unbiblical grounds in the first place.

It does seem that the Pope took an exceedingly long time to come to a decision and this must have been very frustrating for King Henry. If the Pope had acted sooner, he well have prevented Henry from adopting the tragic course that he took. There is such a thing as a ‘reasonble time’, that is really my point.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Thank you Portrait, and greetings! My response to that would be, since when do Protestants worry about the letter of the Mosaic law? Isn’t that exactly the sort of thing St. Paul preaches against, and the basis for so much Protestant doctrine? So their scruple on this point is conveniently self-serving and disingenuous.

As far as the Pope’s slow response goes, I sincerely doubt that a swift No would have been any more helpful than a slow one.

What I question is, to what advantage is this argument made? Isn’t it only to sow doubt among Catholics? Protestants (including Anglicans) do not believe their Faith is an accident of Papal tardiness, or the Pope overstepping his authority on the marriage issue of Henry VIII. IOW, it would only be effective in disarming Catholics in their attempt to blame the English Reformation on Henry VIII’s disobedience. Otherwise it loses it’s ground with Protestants. Catholics likewise do not have a problem with Papal dispensations, as they are perfectly legitimate and Biblical. Catholics do not second guess the Biblical legitimacy of Papal decisions. Protestants do.

 

[1ke]

Dear AmbroseSJ,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response above.

Whilst I accept that Henry secured a Papal Dispensation to marry Catherine, surely the isssue is whether that Dispensation ran counter to Sacred Scripture (Leviticus 20: 21), thus rendering it contrary to God’s law, which forbade marrying within the prohibited degrees. The Protestants would no doubt contend that the Pope trumped Sacred Scripture here and effectively overruled it.

The impediment is not a divine law impediment.

And, Catherine had no relations with her first husband, and that is what the dispensation hinged upon. She was not a true wife to Arthur.

The refusal of an annulment seems to have been more influenced by the power of Charles V and the Pope not wishing to court his displeasure at that time, rather than by being held to a previous Dispensation, which may have been granted on unbiblical grounds in the first place.

I think you are reading more into history than is there. And, neither the Catholic Church nor the subsequent Anglican one are “sola scriptura” and certainly recognized the authority of the pope to grant such a dispensation. Dispensation for consanguinity were regularly granted.

It does seem that the Pope took an exceedingly long time to come to a decision and this must have been very frustrating for King Henry. If the Pope had acted sooner, he well have prevented Henry from adopting the tragic course that he took. There is such a thing as a ‘reasonble time’, that is really my point.

Doubtful. By the time he actually asked for it he was FIRMLY in the clutches of Ann. And, moreover, as soon as she realized Henry was seriously pursuing annulling his marriage, she began sleeping with Henry and was soon pregnant. Nothing was going to stop that juggernaut. Certainly not the Pope’s speedy “nay”.

 

[The_Wizard]

Isn’t a widow free to marry anyone? Even her brother-in-law!

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Isn’t a widow free to marry anyone? Even her brother-in-law!

Not without a dispensation.

Canon 109.1 Affinity arises from a valid marriage, even if not consummated, and it exists between the man and the blood relations of the woman, and likewise between the woman and the blood relations of the man.

 

[1ke]

Isn’t a widow free to marry anyone? Even her brother-in-law!

Under the current code of canon law, yes.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Here is a VERY GOOD senior thesis a Catholic guy wrote a few years ago on this very subject:

docs.google.com/Doc?id=drmq7h3_152zsxq9zcr&hl=en&pli=1

It should be required reading!

 

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. May I thank all of you for taking the time to reply to the issues which I raised in my original post. By way of reply I would like to make some observations on the subject of the ‘King’s Matter’ for your perusal, thus can I ask your indulgence and that you suffer this final post.

As regards Henry’s claim for a declaration of the nullity of his marriage, the king endeavoured to prove that he had never been really married to Catherine to begin with. This was on the ground that Catherine had been originally wedded to his elder brother, Arthur, and a marriage with a deceased husband’s brother did contravene the law of the Church. Whilst it is true that Pope Julius II had, by a bull dated 26th. December 1503, given a special Dispensation for this marriage, there had at the time been serious misgivings about the right of the Pope to grant such a Dispensation, since there was undeniably an issue of degrees of blood relationship within which the marriage was unsound. Moreover, what authority did the Pope have for overruling the law of God (surely the law relating to marriage within the prohibted degrees has perpetual validity); was not the entire action of Pope Julius ultra vires, inasmuch as not even the Pope could abrogate the law of God? Furthermore, surely the Pope must have forseen that the marriage would in all liklehood be consumated, for that is the normal course of things.

According to Henry himself his scruples had been aroused after studying the Levitical law (Lev. 20: 21), which had laid a curse of childlessness on such irregular unions. Comparing this with the fact that a number of male children born to him and Catherine had died in infancy, King Henry, quite understandably, became convinced that his marriage had been sinful, contrary to the law of God, and hence no marriage at all in the strict sense of the term.

Far be it from me to in any way justify his actions. He was the victim of self-will and evil desire and behaved in a brutal and callous manner towards the devout lady who had been his Queen. Moreover, I would freely admit that his ‘scruples’ were undoubtedly actuated by, if they did not originate from, the fact that he had fallen desperately in love with the Boleyne woman. However, if lust had been the sole motive for his action, then like many kings before and since, he could have taken the lady of his choice to be his mistress.

Clearly, Pope Clement VII was in an extremely difficult position. He naturally recoiled from the idea of revoking or quashing the bull of Julius; that would have been a dangerous game for him to play. He thought, like most other men, that Catherine was being treated abominably. Nevertheless, one is bound to ask that had political reasons not stood in the way, would not the Papal Chancery have been equal to the emergency and discovered some technical flaws, thus making it possible to set asside the Dispensation of Julius? The Popes of this era were usually kind to kings in the matter of wedlock. It does appear, unless I am reading too much into the history, that Pope Clement, owing to political reasons, could not be obliging to King Henry. He was willing that Henry should have two wives, but he could not allow him to divorce Catherine. The crucial fact was, as I remarked previously, the power weilded by the Emperor Charles V, who’s influence was paramount in Italy, and Catherine was Charles V’s aunt. How could the Pope really afford to offend Charles V? In 1527 Rome had been sacked by the imperialist troops and for sometime Clement had been held prisoner. Thus it would seem that Pope Clement was in an impossible position, but some men would say that he ought to have had the courage to rescind the bull of Julius, especially given that Henry’s marriage to Catherine was apparently contrary to the law of God, which transcended the temporary Levitical law.

Perhaps I have entirely misunderstood the historical and theological situation and issues involved, dear friends, but I sincerely feel that there are problems here that Catholic apologists have yet to truly grapple with and adequately explain. This is surely imperative in so far as we must needs be able to cogently defend the actions of our Church and its Popes to cynical and disbelieving Protestants, in this instance to the ministers and members of the Anglican communion, who believe that the church of England was not the creation of Henry VIII or Elizabeth I, but are of the opinion that it derives its title deeds from a very different source.

Again, may I thank all of you for your replies and trust that you have an enjoyable weekend, whatever you plan to do.

Blessings be upon you and may the peace of God be yours now and always.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[1ke]

Moreover, what authority did the Pope have for overruling the law of God (surely the law relating to marriage within the prohibted degrees has perpetual validity); was not the entire action of Pope Julius ultra vires, inasmuch as not even the Pope could abrogate the law of God? Furthermore, surely the Pope must have forseen that the marriage would in all liklehood be consumated, for that is the normal course of things.

Already answered. It is NOT a divine law impediment.

According to Henry himself his scruples had been aroused after studying the Levitical law (Lev. 20: 21), which had laid a curse of childlessness on such irregular unions. Comparing this with the fact that a number of male children born to him and Catherine had died in infancy, King Henry, quite understandably, became convinced that his marriage had been sinful, contrary to the law of God, and hence no marriage at all in the strict sense of the term.

Scrupulous King Henry. That’s a laugh.

Thus it would seem that Pope Clement was in an impossible position, but some men would say that he ought to have had the courage to rescind the bull of Julius, especially given that Henry’s marriage to Catherine was apparently contrary to the law of God, which transcended the temporary Levitical law.

You seem to have made up your mind. So, what is your question?

Perhaps I have entirely misunderstood the historical and theological situation and issues involved, dear friends, but I sincerely feel that there are problems here that Catholic apologists have yet to truly grapple with and adequately explain.

The only issue I see is that you continue to insist the impediment was a divine law impediment and not dispensable. This is not correct.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Here is a VERY GOOD senior thesis a Catholic guy wrote a few years ago on this very subject:

docs.google.com/Doc?id=drmq7h3_152zsxq9zcr&hl=en&pli=1

It should be required reading!

A good legal answer to the OP’s question.

 

[yablabo]

As regards Henry’s claim for a declaration of the nullity of his marriage, the king endeavoured to prove that he had never been really married to Catherine to begin with. This was on the ground that Catherine had been originally wedded to his elder brother, Arthur, and a marriage with a deceased husband’s brother did contravene the law of the Church. Whilst it is true that Pope Julius II had, by a bull dated 26th. December 1503, given a special Dispensation for this marriage, there had at the time been serious misgivings about the right of the Pope to grant such a Dispensation, since there was undeniably an issue of degrees of blood relationship within which the marriage was unsound. Moreover, what authority did the Pope have for overruling the law of God (surely the law relating to marriage within the prohibted degrees has perpetual validity); was not the entire action of Pope Julius ultra vires, inasmuch as not even the Pope could abrogate the law of God? Furthermore, surely the Pope must have forseen that the marriage would in all liklehood be consumated, for that is the normal course of things.

According to Henry himself his scruples had been aroused after studying the Levitical law (Lev. 20: 21), which had laid a curse of childlessness on such irregular unions. Comparing this with the fact that a number of male children born to him and Catherine had died in infancy, King Henry, quite understandably, became convinced that his marriage had been sinful, contrary to the law of God, and hence no marriage at all in the strict sense of the term.

It is obvious throughout the Scriptures that dispensations to marry were given both regarding affinity (Gen. 38:8, Deut. 25:5, 7, Matt. 22:24, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28) and consanguinity (Gen. 12:13, Gen. 20:12, Gen. 28:2, Tobit 8:9). In regard to the King and Queen of England, the issue was not consanguinity, but rather the affinity contracted by Queen Catherine’s prior bond to the family by the brother of the King. However, since she never had carnal relations with her first husband, the Pope granted the dispensation for her to marry King Henry. This was allowed since the prohibited degrees of affinity and consanguinity are regulated by the one given the authority (by Jesus Christ) to regulate the sacraments.

So, King Henry did have the proper clearance to take his brother’s widow as his wife and future Queen consort. There was no real ground on which to claim an invalid marriage in this case and thus request an annulment. I really believe that the request for an annulment was all part of a ploy that began much after the fact of the dispensation and marital consent and subsequent consummation…due to the lacking of a live male heir, which is not subject for consideration as part of an annulment tribunal process.

There was no need for one Pope to go back on the word of another, so to speak, because there was nothing wrong done, nothing which needed correcting.

– Nicole

 

[Sonny1954]

Actually, what Henry was asking of the Pope was not all that uncommon among medieval royalty. Henry had little initial reason to think that the Pope would deny his request. It was indeed because the Spanish Emperor, who was related to Queen Catherine, had sacked Rome and was holding the Pope a virtual prisoner that Henry was refused.

Before refusing Henry, however, Pope Clement pleaded with Catherine to join a convent and give Henry his way (she refused and for good reason) and he toyed with the idea of granting Henry a dispensation to have two wives simultaneously (bigomy). There being no such precedent, however, that would have been very awkward and set a terrible precedent.

I suspect that had Charles not had the Pope by the nose, Clement would have granted Henry’s annulment.

 

[GKC]

Here is a VERY GOOD senior thesis a Catholic guy wrote a few years ago on this very subject:

docs.google.com/Doc?id=drmq7h3_152zsxq9zcr&hl=en&pli=1

It should be required reading!

It is a good article indeed, and is largely based on J. J. Scarisbrick’s magisterial bio HENRY VIII (noted in the sources). A book I recommend to all interested in the subject. As also (for mind-boggling detail), Kelly’s MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII.

For my part, after 10 years or so studying the question, I conclude that Henry had as good a case as was customary, in the day, for a decree of nullity at his social and political level (much better than the *causa *his sister presented, to get the first of her decrees of nullity). And that without considering the idea of a faulty dispensation in the case of his marriage to Katherine, arising from the impediment of the justice of public honesty. But the constantly evolving system of impediments, dispensations and decrees of nullity was designed and adapted to do two things simultaneously: protect the concept of the validity of the sacrament of matrimony, under the control of the Church, and permit, at the same time, the making a breaking of political/dynastic marriages, for reasons of state. It happened all the time, and Henry had tried to follow the rules, and fully expected to receive his decree. But, in fact the system did work as it was designed. An Emperor trumps a King, politically.

Eventually Trent (Session XXIV) began to take the whole system in hand, and start reform.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Actually, what Henry was asking of the Pope was not all that uncommon among medieval royalty. Henry had little initial reason to think that the Pope would deny his request. It was indeed because the Spanish Emperor, who was related to Queen Catherine, had sacked Rome and was holding the Pope a virtual prisoner that Henry was refused.

Before refusing Henry, however, Pope Clement pleaded with Catherine to join a convent and give Henry his way (she refused and for good reason) and he toyed with the idea of granting Henry a dispensation to have two wives simultaneously (bigomy). There being no such precedent, however, that would have been very awkward and set a terrible precedent.

I suspect that had Charles not had the Pope by the nose, Clement would have granted Henry’s annulment.

I agree.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Already answered. It is NOT a divine law impediment.

Scrupulous King Henry. That’s a laugh.

You seem to have made up your mind. So, what is your question?

The only issue I see is that you continue to insist the impediment was a divine law impediment and not dispensable. This is not correct.

The question if whether the Levitical prohibition was a divine law, or a Church law was one that evolved. The first Pope to grant such a dispensation was the Pisan Pope, John XXIII (1410). Story was interesting, and ironical.

In 1410, John XXIII, was visited by two English gentlemen of nobility/royalty, sons of Henry IV: Henry, Prince of Wales, and Thomas, his brother, Duke of Clarence. They had a little problem they wanted the Pope to straighten out. Thomas, D of C, was enamoured of a certain lady, one Margaret Holland. Trouble was that she and Thomas had a couple of impediments (as usual), of consanguinity and of affinity. The impediment of consanguinity was no big deal, but that of affinity looked to be. In brief, Margaret was the widow of John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset. Who was the brother of Henry IV. That is, Thomas was seeking to marry the widow of his father’s brother. Which fell within the Church’s reading, at the time, of the degrees impeded by the Levitical Prohibition, and which was of divine provenance. Sticky. John turned, as was the custom, to a legal adviser, whose consilium said that, for weighty reasons, the Pope could dispense the impediment. John did so, which was a precedent setting decision, as of 1411. So, Thomas and Margaret, aunt and nephew, became husband and wife, in 1412. In doing so, she became the first woman in Christendom to marry legitimately within the Levitical degrees, with a dispensation, the very thing that Henry asserted was* ultra vires.*

The name of Beaufort might be familiar to some. It certainly was to Henry VIII. Margaret’s son, by the earlier marriage to John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, was the father of Margaret, Countess of Richmond, mother of Henry VII. Grandmother of Henry VIII. Thus the irony.

GKC

 

[Portrait]

Actually, what Henry was asking of the Pope was not all that uncommon among medieval royalty. Henry had little initial reason to think that the Pope would deny his request. It was indeed because the Spanish Emperor, who was related to Queen Catherine, had sacked Rome and was holding the Pope a virtual prisoner that Henry was refused.

Before refusing Henry, however, Pope Clement pleaded with Catherine to join a convent and give Henry his way (she refused and for good reason) and he toyed with the idea of granting Henry a dispensation to have two wives simultaneously (bigomy). There being no such precedent, however, that would have been very awkward and set a terrible precedent.

I suspect that had Charles not had the Pope by the nose, Clement would have granted Henry’s annulment.

Dear Sonny1954,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Indeed that is a perfectly reasonable deduction from the history, in which case it does rather appear that Henry was not treated in a wholly equitable manner by the Papacy, even when allowance is made for extenuating circumstances. However, be that as it may, it admits of no doubt that the political situation of the times was a key factor that influenced the Pope’s adjudication.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Erich]

This was on the ground that Catherine had been originally wedded to his elder brother, Arthur, and a marriage with a deceased husband’s brother did contravene the law of the Church.

From Matthew 22, 23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him.
IIRC this is based on Deut. 25… so is this another case of “competing” scripture quotes?