Not actually true. Kings of England, including Henry, had fully demonstrated their ability to loot the clergy when they felt it was needed.
His basic motivation was what he felt to be the absolute need for a legitimate male heir. Given that England had in the previous century fought an utterly devastating series of civil wars over the succession, it is difficult to argue with his theory that a male heir was essential. It seems unlikely that his desire for divorce was motivated by sexual desires, since kings of the time had little problem getting all they wanted outside of marriage. As Mel Brooks said, "It's GOOD to be the king!"
Previous kings of England and other monarchs had routinely been granted divorces or annulments under these circumstances. The basic reason Henry couldn't get one from the Pope was because Catherine's uncle, Charles V of Spain and the Empire, exerted extreme pressure on the Pope not to let Henry have what he wanted.
The great irony here is that Henry's male heir was sickly and died young, while his eventual female successor, Elizabeth, turned out to be by any standard one of the greatest rulers of all time.
“His basic motivation was what he felt to be the absolute need for a legitimate male heir. “
While it is no doubt true he wished for a male heir, it was the Catholic Church favoritism of Spain over England that sealed the deal.
Henry did what he had to do to save England, and by doing so, centralized power devolved from Rome, giving rise to the nation state out of necessity.
Removing central political power from Rome was the best thing for western civilization, I don’t think many Catholics would disagree. Rome screwed themselves politically on that score, and thank goodness for it.