“The irony is at this very moment, the Pope was recognizing Henry VIII as Defender of the Faith. Boy, I bet HE’d get granted an annulment for the asking, huh?”
Since you have obviously spent more time researching this than I have, you undoubtedly are aware that Catherine was the youngest child of King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile. She had been married to Henry VIII for, I believe, 16 years and had multiple children by him, with only Mary surviving.
When Henry VIII asked for an annulment, the Pope (Pope Clement VII) was the prisoner of Catherine’s nephew, Emperor Charles V.
Given Catherine’s importance politically, and the number of children she bore over the many years of their marriage, it speaks volumes that Henry VIII felt capable of ASKING for an annulment.
Of course, that wouldn’t happen in modern times, would it - unless your name is Kennedy?
You are quick to claim others are biased, when your own thought reeks of it.
There has been in the American Catholic church a crisis of annulments. Part of the justification of these has been the woeful state of catechesis, leading to many marriages in which one partner or the other claims to be incapable of understanding the theological basis of marriage. The Kennedy who wanted to run for Governor of Massachusetts, for instance, was granted an annulment... on the grounds of mental incompetence. But clearly, there are many abuses of annulments, where weak-wristed or even heretical magistrates have dispensed them far too easily.
Such was not the case in 16th century Europe. Annulments were very rarely given, and only for specific instances. The truth is Henry VIII might well have had grounds for annulment, on the basis of affinity, but Henry, fearing at the time that some would perceive the marriage as invalid, went to great lengths to ensure that there could be no grounds for illegitimizing the marriage.
The charge that annulments could easily be purchased is simply completely ahistorical. Everyone then knew what the valid reasons for an annulment was, and absent those, granting an annulment to a prince without grounds would be as politically impractical as the 1980 Democratic House of Representatives declaring Jimmy Carter the winner of the presidential election. This is not to say for certain that invalid grounds could not be deceitfully trumped up, or to concede or deny that no bishop had ever been influenced by political or financial pressure to accept false evidence. But isn’t it interesting that the defenders of Luther’s rationalization of adultery have never put forth grounds under which Phillip might have attempted annulment, especially considering that lying was plainly on the table?
And let’s not miss some of Luther’s moral depravity. The whole notion of “secret bigamy” is a perversion of the notion of marriage that would make a New Hampshire judge blush. A marriage is a public covenant that protects the rights of the woman by ensuring that she will be financially cared for when child-bearing and maternal responsibilities inhibit her need to provide for herself. (The name “marriage” refers to an oath.) There’s no such thing, therefore, as a “secret marriage.” He was adding legalistic terms to what was nothing more than adultery, plain and simple.