King Henry VIII of England’s divorce, or annulment, of Catherine of Aragon in 1533 is one of the most infamous separations in history. And while we nearly all know the end result of the divorce proceedings, in hindsight who had the stronger case? In part 3 of the series, Victor Gamma considers Catherine’s arguments - and how Henry’s arguments related to consummation and the Bible were not terribly strong.
You can read part 1 on the background to the great divorce here and part 2 on how Henry’s efforts to overturn the marriage in the courts failed here.
An 18th century painting of Catherine of Aragon.
Catherine's Case
From the start Catherine of Aragon refused to entertain the slightest notion that her marriage to the king was anything but holy and entirely acceptable. Moreover, she indicated that she would not accept any decision not coming from the Roman Curia or the Pope himself. Nonetheless, she appeared at the Blackfriars tribunal. On June 18, when both king and queen were present at Blackfriars, Catherine presented her case publically. When the clerk called out "Catherine. Queen of England, come into the court," she did not answer. Instead she went to the King directly, kneeling before him. In an unforgettable scene, Catherine pled her case before the king and the assembled court officials and nobles gathered that day. She knew that everything depended on her words and actions. She may never again have another chance to sway the mind of her husband and sovereign, King Henry VIII. In a "posture of absolute submission" Catherine ignored court protocol and knelt before Henry;
"Sir, I beseech you for all the love that hath been between us, and for the love of God, let me have justice. Take of some pity and compassion, for I am a poor woman, and a stranger born out of your dominion. I have here no assured friends, and much less impartial counsel."
Then in a brief but eloquent speech, she laid out her case. It included four main points. First, she reminded him and all those present that she had been a dutiful, good wife and had given no cause for offense. Second, lack of a male heir was not her fault. Third, she had been a virgin when she had married Henry and finally, she indicated that the court was biased against her and that she needed counsel.
Catherine’s supporters
But Catherine was not alone. Numerous supporters had come to her aid. Their arguments will be considered hers. Bishop Fisher, on behalf of the queen declared "this marriage of the king and queen can be dissolved by no power, human or divine." During the Blackfriars tribunal, the effort to build Catherine’s defense began in earnest. One argument was simply the insincerity of the king; “the idea of separation originated entirely in his own iniquity and malice” averred the Spanish ambassador, Eustace Chapuys. Furthermore he asserted that “The King’s passion for the Lady, (Anne Boleyn) combined with his obstinacy were such that there was no chance of recalling him by mildness or fair words to a sense of his duty.” Chapuys here referred to the fact that at this time King Henry was deeply involved with another woman, Anne Boleyn.
As to the character of Catherine, since no direct evidence existed, the character of the witnesses counted for much. Those who knew her were universal in their high opinion of her. Eustace Chapuys noted of Catherine that she was ‘so virtuous, devout and holy, so truthful and God-fearing’ that it was unthinkable for a lie to proceed from her pious lips.’
Consummation claim
The critical point of debate was over whether Arthur and Catherine's brief (four months) marriage had been consummated. In the words of the catechism, “the marriage bond has been established by God Himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved.” In Medieval thinking, an impediment of affinity only existed if the marriage had been consummated. If the marriage had never been consummated then it could be considered not legally binding, thus for Henry to marry his brother’s widow would upset no precepts of Biblical or Canon law. Henry strove mightily, then to prove the marriage had been consummated. He could then more easily make the case that he and Catherine had been living in sin. The queen insisted that she was a virgin when she married Henry. Catherine had begun asserting this as early as 1502, within months of Arthur's death, and stood firm on this point to the end of her days. There is no record of Arthur's opinion on the subject. Catherine, known for her extreme piety, had sworn on the sacrament that her four-month marriage to Arthur had never been consummated. Rather than believe his saintly wife, Henry insisted otherwise. Despite this, Henry VIII himself had stated that he had found her a 'maid' on their wedding night and he never publicly called Catherine a liar, indeed he even publicly admitted she was right.
In October 1529, when his wife once again publicly proclaimed her maiden status, Henry shouted “I am content, but you are not my wife for all that.” Furthermore, the 'bedding' of Catherine and Arthur was a ceremonial part of a royal marriage process and did not require consummation. In marriages of state, the wedding and the consummation did not necessarily go hand in hand. Additionally, the health of the bridegroom was taken seriously. Arthur was frail and physically immature. Soon after the wedding ceremony to Arthur it was arranged that Catherine stay in London under the tutelage of her mother and grandmother-in-law while Arthur did some more growing up without the distraction of a wife. As to witnesses; after his wedding night, Arthur is reported to have asked for ale to quench his thirst "for I have been in the midst of Spain last night." These words indicating consummation repeated seventeen years later are doubtful. In each case they were most likely the self-serving claims of courtiers who wished to win their sovereign’s favor or the nervous, youthful boasting of the Prince who wished to hide his failure to consummate his marriage.
Biblical claim
Now for the biblical grounds. Here Catherine’s cause was helped by several facts. First, whether the marriage of Arthur and Catherine was consummated or not does not bear on the scriptures of Leviticus that relate to the issue. The verses in Leviticus do not mention anything about the status of the relationship at the point it was violated.
Another weakness with Henry's argument was that the verse states the offending couple shall remain childless. It said nothing about sons. Since Henry and Catherine had a daughter, he thus could not make a valid argument that God was punishing him. Henry argued that the Greek had been improperly translated into Latin. "Liberis" - "children," should have been rendered "filiis" - sons. However, in Leviticus 20:20, the verse before the one Henry used, a curse is placed on a couple if a man had relations with his uncle's wife. The same Hebrew term "childless" is used in verse 20. It is highly unlikely that a translator would use a different term just one verse later.
Even more damaging to his case was Deuteronomy 25:5 that specifically stated a man's obligation to his brother's widow, namely, that he must marry her and raise up children so that his dead brother’s name would continue. The brother is not simply encouraged but commanded to fulfill this obligation. To marry Catherine King Henry had brushed aside this seeming contradiction to his interpretation of the Leviticus verses as an example of Jewish custom rather than Divine Law. But, as was pointed out, one cannot simply decide which verse is Jewish custom and which is Divine Law arbitrarily. Leviticus or Deuteronomy are silent as to any such distinction. Sound Biblical exegesis demands the two verses be harmonized. Bishop Fisher argued that a brother is never to marry his sister-in-law with one exception: that in Deuteronomy of the brother dying without children. The light shed by comparing scripture with scripture further withered Henry’s argument. The Old Testament contains multiple occasions in which someone is enjoined to fulfill this very duty. In Genesis 38:8 Judah twice orders his sons to perform this obligation with his daughter-in-law Tamar. In fact, when Judah’s son Onan refused to comply, he was struck dead by God! Here and in many other places it is clear that this was a well-established custom of the Jews, codified in the Law. In the New Testament, John the Baptist’s condemnation of Herod for marrying his brother’s wife was due to the fact that his brother was still alive. This clearly demonstrates the common Jewish understanding that the prohibition applied only in that case of a dead brother dying without offspring. If that weren’t enough, all the great Catholic theologians including St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, Thomas Aquinus, and others had analyzed the apparent contradiction between Leviticus and Deuteronomy and stood squarely opposed to the King.
Henry VIII’s solution
Ultimately, King Henry VIII solved his problem not with canonical or Biblical argumentation but a unilateral solution in which England would act independently of Roman law. As for Clement VII, he finally got around to ruling against Henry in 1533. He then went further and ordered him to take Catherine back and, finally, excommunicated him for not doing so. But at that point, the English no longer recognized his authority anyway.
Having reviewed the opposing sides, who do you think had the better case? Let us know below.
