if Henry had not sought a Papal dispensation to marry Catherine he probably could have gotten his Decree of Nullity. But he was basically asking one Pope to over rule another Pope, in effect saying the first Pope made a mistake in determining what was a valid marriage.
That’s partially correct. It was Henry’s father who sought the dispensation, after toying with the idea of picking Catherine up for himself; Hank was of two minds on the subject, but was an obedient boy.
Hank Sr. was anxious to keep the marriage in the family, in order to retain the down-payment portion of Cathrine’s dowry that had been paid, plus the rest to come. Isabella and Ferdinand still wanted the marriage alliance with England that they had sent their final daughter off to procure; a northern ally, helping to surround France, everyone’s favorite enemy.
As I mentioned above, Henry sought a commonplace; a decree of nullity for reasons of state( plus, he had acquired an itch for La Boleyn). And his solution (after a long time working on the idea of using either Mary his daughter, or Henry Fitzroy, his illegitimate son, as a dynastic solution (long interesting story there), decided on the old-fashioned way, a decree of nullity. Easy.
Again, as I mentioned, he chose to base it on the Leventine Prohibition, which was as sound as would normally have been required in such circumstances, though there was a stronger one, in the probable existence of an undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty, which Julius had overlooked (detailed technical issue). But Wolsey was the only one advocating that approach. And Henry’s
causa did, indeed, poke Julius in the eye, by asserting that the impediment (Leventine Prohibition) was a divine law, not a natural law, and thus beyond the authority of anyone (
ultra vires), Pope included, to dispense. There are indeed such impediments; no one can dispense an impediment of consanguinity, in the first degree, direct. And the Leventine Prohibition was sometimes thought of as of divine origin, sometimes natural. Henry’s case was a fair one, but not a slam dunk. The point of an undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty was a stronger one, but, in the normal course of such matters, It would not have been needed. But the normal course of such matters did not include the Aunt of the Holy Roman Emperoror, and a man with a Pope well in hand.
A long and complicated story, all this. Point: Henry did not ask for something unknown in the day. His case was as strong as many, his opposition stronger than almost any could imagine. The process of decrees of nullity/impediments/dispensations was designed to allow a mix of theology and politics to govern such problems. To Henry’s dismay, it did just that.
GKC
Did I miss the Rapture?
I remember last year there was a thread asking what would happen if the Catholic Church disappeared tomorrow. I said there would be a whole lot of Protestants worried they missed out on the Rapture. My Catholic friends realized I was joking. Protestants didn’t find it so funny.
