Crosspost from r/Anglicanism: Do any other Protestants feel that Henry VIII, while certainly something of a tyrant, was justified in some of his most significant (and controversial) actions?

The deaths of Catholic martyrs such as John Houghton and others have been condemned by among others Rowan Williams and are entirely indefensible. However, they do need to be seen in the broader context of wanton religious violence and theological dispute that cost thousands of Catholic and Protestant lives throughout the sixteenth century. Catholic and Protestant monarchs were mutually guilty of extraordinary cruelty during the Reformation.

The desire for an annulment was entirely defensible; he wanted to avert civil war and ensure the survival of his dynasty (the Wars of the Roses were a recent memory that had destroyed the country). Secondly, according to biblical taboos as understood by sixteenth century contemporaries his concern over incest was rational. He had married his brother's wife and his perception of divine disapproval over her inability to conceive was a common interpretation in the period.

His denial of papal authority was rational. Like Henry I believe the Church should be self-governing in its own regional domains and that secular authorities can and should play a role in its administrative affairs if they are to enjoy the political power they did.

His dissolution of the monasteries was legitimate. According to contemporaries they were highly corrupt, controlled a third of all English land and it is understandable that he wanted to return their revenues to his treasury.

Submitted January 07, 2016 at 04:04PM by Unknown

Categories: Faith , Hot Christian Topics , religion