Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZanyProgrammer | Hacker News Reader

" I even think that they were just a useful means to him of justifying this break, which was his prior primary objective." Probably not, since prior to his penis getting the best of him, his regime was impeccably orthodox-the title "Defender of the Faith" was bestowed by the Pope for defending Catholicism against Lutheranism (I believe in a book that was largely ghost written by Thomas More). Even after the Act of Supremacy, his regime officially remained orthodox in a way that ruffled the feathers of many more radical reformers. Despite the fact that Henry was a really bad catholic who skirted the bounds of heterodoxy, and laid the grounds for the more radical reformation of Edward VI.

View on HN

What I have tried to convey, perhaps not successfully, is that as a king he had to think strategically about his kingdom's interests, not about theological disputes. That is why even in those times it was understood that the king, as a worldly power, was separate from the church's power. By emphasising that separation, regardless the finer points of catechisms, he strengthened himself and his country.

OK, you may argue as to whether this was his explicit intention but it undoubtedly was the effect.

You are still reading a very Whiggish, anachronistic view of history into what happened. With a corresponding value judgement that Catholic England wasn't worthy of survival, and that the great achievements of the Glorious Revolution and parliamentary democracy were a given at the time of the break with Rome.

No, it is you who is reading a Popish view into it. My judgement is based on informed comparison with countries like Spain and Portugal, and Bohemia, which either never attempted such separation or failed in it - and their relative importance compared to the British Empire.

Either way the British Empire being helped or hindered by Catholicism (or the lack there of) is mostly conjecture. Its like trying to argue if the Romans had abolished slavery they would have landed on the moon in 1462. Without time traveling and alternate histories to explore we will never know.

Exploring the counterfactual allows us to reveal holes in our understanding, by setting up hypotheses and allowing them to be knocked down by argument. And it's fun.

But it is not a conjecture. The results are plain to see, that is my point. We really did land on the moon. People like Sir Isaac Newton, who by the way refused the holy orders of the Anglican Church too, were nonetheless allowed to pursue their interests without being threatened by the inquisition. That is what laid the foundations.

I am surprised and saddened for you, to get -4 votes here of all places. I would have thought that at least some of you may have understood and appreciated the important connection between free thought and scientific and technical progress and the fact that Henry VIII just may have made that possible in Britain.

Instead all I get is cheap jibes about "whiggish view" and Mussolini. Sad.

And no, it really is not interesting to see regurgitated back the standard TV line that "it was all to do with his gonads". Kings can and do discreetly satisfy their gonads without having to go through difficult public divorces.

> But it is not a conjecture. The results are plain to see, that is my point. We really did land on the moon. People like Sir Isaac Newton, who by the way refused the holy orders of the Anglican Church too, were nonetheless allowed to pursue their interests without being threatened by the inquisition. That is what laid the foundations.

The foundation of what? Is your argument that the success of the British Empire was due to a post-Henri VIII technological superiority over other European powers?

There were other aspects to it apart from good science, education and technology, all based on liberal thinking but, in a nutshell, yes. What I am saying is that these were the main reasons for the British Empire eclipsing the other European powers. It did not just happen totally by chance in one particular lucky country, out of nothing. If that is a "whiggish view", then I guess I am a whig.

I assume you're talking about the Industrial Revolution, something that came rather late. At the time of Newton, and afterwards, there was no shortage of scientists of renown in catholic countries. But considering the English Reformation as the leading reason for the Industrial Revolution to happen in England and not elsewhere is far from an accepted opinion.

When talking about the Spanish Empire, I think it's fair to say that few historians lay the blame sorely on the Church.

There are so many factors involved it is really impossible to even decide on a single factor as the most important.

Spain had huge and unsustainable drains on its treasury caused by it's European wars (and their overflow in the Americas against eg the Dutch) as well as campaigns against the Ottoman Empire and the Barbary pirates, and most would argue that was a huge factor. There is a religious part to some of these conflicts, but they were also about keeping Spanish influence strong in Europe.

>Popish

You're a buster.

http://lajhsslab.com/immigration/cartoon.jpg

>Bohemia

Have you ever heard of Jan Hus?

Of course I have. Bohemia is an excellent example. From being a powerful and wealthy kingdom to loss of sovereignty and resulting poverty and obscurity thanks chiefly to counter-reformation.

Again, I am not talking about this or that religious dogma, as you all are, but about more important things, like being able to pursue its own independent policies and development of thought.

>its own

Whose own?

You seem to think that Henry VIII staying married to Catherine of Aragon is but one step removed from Francisco Franco and Mussolini? Now there is some Protestant Anglo centrism! BTW, the Spanish Empire did manage to convert quite a few more people to Catholicism than the British did to their reformed religion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com