Thank Henry VIII for laying those foundations of freedom

Telegraph ^ | 22 Apr 2009 | Simon Heffer

[Sherman Logan]

... Every half-millennium or so an event occurs in our history that changes the basis of society. The Romans come, the Romans go. The Normans come; and between their arrival in 1066 and the outbreak of the Great War in 1914 there is one seismic event after which society sets off (after a false start or two) on an entirely new course: the Reformation in England. When the Convocation of Canterbury of the Church in England agreed in March 1531 to accede to Henry's demands about church governance that included the clergy's recognition of him as head of the English church, it also triggered a process of such profound economic and political change that even today there is still dispute about the extent of the consequences. Let me add my three ha'porth: without the Reformation we would not have had what Seeley called "the expansion of England", we would not have had a middle class educated and powerful enough to initiate the industrial revolution, we would not have had the empire we did, and would not have had the land and sea power that kept us free from invasion and foreign influence: not to mention the theological consequences.

[Wonder Warthog]

Balderdash. The “English Reformation” set the Industrial Revolution BACK by two hundred years. Recent historical research has shown that a bunch of “artisan-monks” at a convent in what was eventually the heart of England’s “iron revolution” area were on the brink of inventing the production of steel. When ole Henry dissolved the monastery, the technology was lost. Imagine where we would be now, if those monks had been allowed to continue their work.

[AlaskaErik]

Irregardless of what made England so great, there should be no doubt that socialism will be the end of her.

Correction...my "t" is sticking!

[meandog]

Henry VIII was someone who publicly showed that God's Will can be disposed with whenever it is "inconvenient," thus setting an example for future licentiousness, sin, and crime. Was he the first to do this? No. But he was probably the first head of state to do so, and to enforce his heresy by rule of "law."

What the hay? Kennedy got an annulment, so did Kerry...that's all that Henry Tutor was asking! Clement VII (first cousin to (gay Leo X) is one of worst popes in history. He should have ex-communicated Charles V (the real power behind denial of Henry's request) as he allowed a sack of Rome which made the Vandal raids 1,000 years earlier look like a tea party.

[RoadTest]

“Henry VIII was someone who publicly showed that the Pope’s Will can be disposed with whenever it is “oppressive,”

[count-your-change]

Perhaps had there been no Hank the Eight history would have turned out differently but even that is not clear.
What is certain is that no one can say what would be an alternative history. Even being certain about did occur is often in question.

So while the author’s musings are interesting.......

[pbear8]

The art, etc is held in trust for all to enjoy. The land is used for good purposes. Should we sell the hospitals and orphanages and schools?

And if one sold the 'Pieta' and one fed all the poor for one day, what then? Better to continue the Church's educational mission and teach them to feed themselves.

If this question is the only one keeping you from the Church do some reading by others far better than I and once your questions are answered come join us. The door is always open to you.

[RoadTest]

“Also one of history’s great murderers.”

Not compared to some Popes.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I would further say it was the Protestant movement that started the scientific revolution.

Please. Roger Bacon was a Franciscan monk who all but invented the scientific method. Copernicus, who developed the geocentric cosmology named for him, was a Catholic priest. Galileo was a practicing Catholic all his life. The universities were all Catholic institutions. Georges Lemaître was a Catholic priest who pioneered the development of Einstein's theory and first theorised the Big Bang cosmology.

Practically no manuscripts from antiquity survived past the first millennium; all we have is the work of (mostly monastic) copyists who preserved pre-Christian texts.

You are a victim of propaganda.

As someone who was raised in a Methodist church and a (de facto protestant) government school, I will note that

The Theme is Freedom:

Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition
by M. Stanton Evans

should be read. Catholics will enjoy it, and protestants who like to learn will also enjoy it.

[A.A. Cunningham]

You sound like Judas whining about the cost of spikenard.

I'll bet you give money to panhandlers, don't you?

[A.A. Cunningham]

These threads always bring the illiterate out of the woodwork. You need to get an education, toots and stop regurgitating the pap you've gullibly swallowed. Start by reading the following:

Twisting the Knife
How Galileo Brought His Troubles with the Church on Himself
By Wil Milan

If you ask people what Galileo Galilei is famous for, most will say that he invented the telescope, used it to prove the earth goes around the sun, and that the Catholic Church condemned him for his discoveries. That much is common knowledge, no?

In fact, none of those things is true.

Galileo did not invent the telescope. When and where the telescope was invented is not certain, but what is certain is that in 1609 Galileo heard about the new invention and made one for himself. Soon he turned it on the heavens, and it was at that moment that his destiny turned to fame.

Every night brought new discoveries. He discovered that the Milky Way is not a soft band of light but a cloud of millions and millions of stars, that the moon is covered with craters, that Venus has phases like the moon, even that the sun has spots on its face. (Looking at the sun through a telescope is probably what doomed Galileo to blindness later in his life.) Excited beyond measure by his discoveries, Galileo in 1610 published a little book, Siderius Nuncius (The Starry Messenger), detailing his discoveries.

The Starry Messenger made Galileo an overnight celebrity, and his discoveries did not go unnoticed by officials of the Catholic Church, many of whom were scholarly individuals with an interest in the sciences. Some of the leading cardinals of the Church were fellow members of the scientific society to which Galileo belonged and took great interest and pride in the discoveries of their most famous member.

The Church also lauded Galileo publicly. He had a friendly audience with Pope Paul V, and in 1611 the Jesuit Roman College held a day of ceremonies to honor Galileo. When in 1614 a Dominican monk criticized Galileo from the pulpit, the leader of the Dominicans reprimanded the monk and apologized to Galileo on behalf of the entire order.

What did get Galileo into a bit of hot water with the Church was a conclusion he drew from one of his telescopic discoveries: He discovered that Jupiter has four moons that orbit around it just as the moon does the earth. He was fascinated by this, and from this and from observing the phases of Venus (which indicated that Venus orbits the sun, not the earth) he concluded that the earth goes around the sun (a view known as heliocentrism), not the sun around the earth (known as geocentrism).

Today Galileo's conclusion seems obvious. But it was not obvious at the time, and the truth is that Galileo was jumping to conclusions unsupported by the facts. The fact that four moons orbit Jupiter does not in any way prove that the earth goes around the sun and neither does the fact that Venus shows phases as it orbits the sun.

A popular theory at the time (known as the Tychoan theory after Tycho Brahe, the famous Danish astronomer who had formulated it) proposed that all the planets orbit the sun, and the sun with its retinue of planets then orbits the earth. This theory explained Galileo's observations quite well, and many pointed that out to Galileo. But Galileo insisted that what he had found was proof of the earth orbiting the sun. He eventually turned out to be right, but what he had at the time was not proof.

It was that lack of proof, along with his own abrasive personality, that precipitated his troubles with the Church. Galileo was known for his arrogant manner, and during his career there were a great number of people whom he had slighted, insulted, or in some way made into enemies. In 1615 some of them saw a chance to get back at Galileo by accusing him of heresy for his assertion that heliocentrism was proven fact. And so it was that the Church was prompted to inquire whether Galileo was holding views contrary to Scripture.

It must be pointed out that at the time the Church did not have an official position on whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa. Though geocentrism was the prevailing view, both views were widely held, and it was a matter of frequent debate among the science-minded.

Indeed, most of the resistance to heliocentrism came not from the Church but from the universities. Within the Church some believed heliocentrism to be contrary to the Bible, others believed it was not. In fact, Galileo had wide support within the Church, and Jesuit astronomers were among the first to confirm his discoveries.

So when Galileo was accused of statements contrary to Scripture, the matter was referred to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the Church's Master of Controversial Questions (quite a title, isn't it?). After careful study of the matter and of Galileo's evidence, Cardinal Bellarmine-who was later canonized and made a doctor of the Church-concluded that Galileo had not contradicted Scripture. But he did admonish Galileo not to teach that the earth moves around the sun unless he could prove it. Not an unreasonable admonition, really, but it had the effect of muzzling Galileo on the matter, because by then he realized he really did not have proof, though he still thought he was right.

And so it was that Galileo chafed under the cardinal's admonition for most of a decade, until in 1623 the luckiest event in his life occurred: Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, a member of Galileo's scientific society and a great fan of Galileo, became Pope Urban VIII.

This was Galileo's dream come true: a pope who was learned in the sciences, who had not only read all of Galileo's works but was a friend and admirer as well. Galileo was soon summoned to Rome for an audience with the Pope to discuss the latest in astronomy, and Galileo took the opportunity to ask the Pope for his blessing to write a book about the motions of the solar system.

Pope Urban VIII readily agreed to Galileo's request, with one condition: The book must present a balanced view of both heliocentrism and geocentrism. The Pope also asked Galileo to mention the Pope's personal view of the matter, which was that bodies in the heavens perhaps move in ways that are not understood on earth (not an unreasonable view at the time). Galileo agreed, and set forth to write his book.

Had Galileo written his book as promised there would have been no problem. But as he had many times before, Galileo was bent not only on arguing his case but on humiliating those who disagreed with him, and he wrote a book far different from what he had promised.

As was common at the time, he wrote the book in the form of a discussion among three men: one a proponent of heliocentrism, one a proponent of geocentrism, and an interested bystander. Unfortunately, the "dialogue" was one-sided-Galileo portrayed the proponent of heliocentrism as witty, intelligent, and well-informed, with the bystander often persuaded by him, while the proponent of geocentrism (whom Galileo named "Simplicius") was portrayed as slow-witted, often caught in his own errors, and something of a dolt. This was hardly a balanced presentation of views.

But Galileo's greatest mistake was his final twisting of the knife: He fulfilled his promise to mention the Pope's view of the matter, but he did so by putting the Pope's words in the mouth of the dim-witted Simplicius. This was no subtle jab-the Pope's views were well-known, and everyone immediately realized that it was a pointed insult. This was too much for the Pope to bear. He was furious, and Galileo was summoned to Rome to explain himself.

This time things did not go well for Galileo. He was charged with a number of offenses, and though he was not imprisoned or tortured, he was shown the implements of torture. Galileo, by then an old man, was terrified, and agreed to something of a plea bargain: In return for publicly recanting his heliocentric view, he was allowed to return home with a sentence of permanent house arrest. He lived out his remaining years in his home, eventually going blind. Curiously, it was during his years of house arrest that he wrote his finest work, a book dealing with motion and inertia that is a cornerstone of modern physics.

It's interesting to note that during all of Galileo's conflicts with the Church, other astronomers, including the equally famous Johannes Kepler, were openly writing and teaching heliocentrism. Kepler even worked out and published the equations that describe the orbits of the planets about the sun. Yet he never had the problems Galileo did, in part because he had less to do with the Catholic Church but also because he did not have Galileo's biting arrogance.

So it was that Galileo's spiteful manner, his knack for turning even his best friends into enemies, repeatedly got him in trouble. His accomplishments cannot be overstated-Galileo is truly one of the giants of science-but in recounting his famous run-in with the Church, it's also important to remember that the root of his problems were not his scientific views but his own unbridled arrogance.

Wil Milan is an astrophotographer based in Arizona.Though he is not a Catholic, he takes great interest in the history of astronomy. Some of his work can be seen on the World Wide Web at www.astrophotographer.com.

And when you're done with that take a trip to the library and check out the following:

[Romulus]

Not compared to some Popes.

Names?

[A.A. Cunningham]

Martin Luther only proved what damage a paranoid, schizophrenic, anti-semitic, alcoholic who couldn't control his libido could cause when he put his mind to it.

Failing to admit that is, at best, disingenuous.

[goodwithagun]

I said that the church’s money was ONE of my concerns. That means that there are a few others.

Sell the Pieta to help educate and teach the poor to feed themselves. Many more people could be reached.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Kennedy got an annulment, so did Kerry...

Do you have proof of that or are you just repeating what you heard and saw on the boob tube?

Boston Prelates… Deny Kerry Got An Annulment

[Romulus]

The Church knew all about annulments. The fact is that Henry had no grounds for one, having specifically petitioned for a dispensation to marry Catherine in the first place. Every marriage should be as well-vetted as that one was.

Leo X’s affective disorders (if any) are a matter of speculation and in any case irrelevant unless you’re looking for a cheap drive-by slur.

[Romulus]

Sell the Pieta to help educate and teach the poor to feed themselves.

The foremost duty of the Church is to pursue the salvation of souls -- a mission that religious art advances. Care for the poor is an important duty, but unlike the care of souls, it is not an end in its own right.

[RoadTest]

“Names?”

Oh, say Innocent III, in 1209, who sicked the Crusaders (they were out of work) on the inhabitants of Southern France around Languedoc and Beziers, because they were Christians who didn’t submit to the Pope. He called them Albigenses and heretics.

Thing is, they had a much higher civilization than the rest of Medieval Europe. They were clean-living, productive and loyal to their Count (Raymond VI) of Toulouse. They were his best citizens. They were what we call today “fundamentalist”or “evangelical”. They believed in justification by faith and they didn’t believe in transubstantiation. In other words, The Word of God.

The Pope told the Count to either convert these people or get rid of them. Quite understandably, Raymond couldn’t bring himself to do either, so 50,000 to 500,000, depending on your source, Crusaders descended on the towns of Provence, slaughtering men, women and children for the promise of (1) Heaven without purgatory and (2) splitting with The Church the loot they took.

The most beautiful part of thirteenth Century Europe was a smoking ruin.

Want more?

[spyone]

It’s not that the poor are so stupid they don’t know how to feed themselves. They live in areas where there efforts are thwarted. Ie. stolen crops, lack of irrigation, lack of access to fertilizer, lack of access to mkt, transportation...etc. etc. Mainly because they live in countries with corrupt regimes.

[TheOldLady]

—

[frithguild]

Only for the king's friends. Catholic institutions could be despoiled (all that political muscle doesn't work for free, you know) and Catholic families taxed into ruin.

I was referring more to the Statute of Uses, the Statute of Wills and the Statute of Enrollments, all of which were intended to curtail fraudulent use of cestui que use. As a result, ownership of land and its alienation became more predictable, which is a precursor to economic growth. Wringing cestui out of the system and reducing holdings in mortmain I would agree would disproportionately effect Catholics - who were disproportionately benefitting from fraudulent cestui que use holdings. A quarter of the real proerty in Heary VIII realm changed hands, which increased royal revenue and took land out of dead hands and put it into those willing to work toward making their fortune.

I think that is the point - while the English moved toward refining fraud out of land ownership, lands governed by those beholden to the Papacy were more concerned with doing things like persecuting heresy, i.e. enforcing the "consensus" of thought upon those like Gallileo.