Fat Henry Is Still Dead
It's bad enough that yesterday was Earth Day. Over at NRO, Andrew Stuttaford reminded us that yesterday was also the 500th anniversary of Henry VIII's becoming the King of England. Except that Stuttaford, an English atheist who left England for New York, sees this anniversary as an occasion for celebration, and Henry as a "Liberator" and a far greater hero than the man he murdered, Thomas More.
The main thing that Henry "liberated" England from is, of course, the Catholic Church. Crediting Henry with English liberty, as Stuttaford does, seems a bit much, since the Magna Carta, the common law, and the prerogatives of Parliament all preceded Henry, as did the demise of serfdom, which had largely vanished from England and the rest of Western Europe by Henry's time.
But to Stuttaford and the Daily Telegraph writer he approvingly quotes, that is enough: For them, the Catholic Church is backward, and anything that weakens Her influence is good. Such an attitude is quite common among Englishmen, including those who are atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens and Philip Pullman. Reading Pullman, who makes "the Magisterium" the villain of his atheist children's stories and who dismisses The Lord of the Rings as "infantile" precisely because "For Tolkien, the Catholic, the Church had the answers, the Church was the source of all truth, so 'Lord of the Rings' does not touch those big deep questions," one is reminded of what Tolkien wrote his son: "hatred of our Church is after all the only real foundation of the C[hurch] of E[ngland]—so deep laid that it remains when all the superstructure seems removed." Even, judging from such ex-Anglicans as Pullman (a vicar's grandson) and Stuttaford, after the superstructure of religious belief has itself vanished.
The triumphalism of Stuttaford and the Telegraph is a bit strange, though, since England is no longer Protestant, even if it is not Catholic. It is instead post-Christian and falling fast, with an intellectual class guided by the angry atheism of Richard Dawkins and Philip Pullman and their ilk and a lower class (predictably) assimilating the angry atheist message by leaving behind the strictures of Christian morality for lives marked by the dole, soccer hooliganism, fornication, and drunkenness. Stuttaford is aware of the shambles Britian is becoming; after all, he fled the place. But he apparently thinks it could be even worse: the land of Sir Mick Jagger and Sir Elton John could still succumb to Popery.
Entries(RSS)
I'm reminded of de Maistre's quip about the Anglican Church.According to de Maistre,Anglicanism rests on the proposition that,"Christ died for Englishmen."
Conservative Americanos,even "Catholic" ones,never mention de Maistre.I wonder why?
There is also a link at the bottom to a piece that attempts to demonize More. Why is it that people with the least understanding of theology, philosophy, and history are always the loudest voices. So now Thomas More was basically an authoritarian monster and Henry VIII was a prototypical democratic revolutionary? At some point it has to become obvious that most modern history is simply ideological and revisionist propaganda that serves the purpose of advancing liberalism always and everywhere.
Tom Piatak reads NRO so you don't have to.
"Conservative Americanos,even “Catholic” ones,never mention de Maistre.I wonder why?"
Well because (as Mr. Piatak mentions)
"For them, the Catholic Church is backward, and anything that weakens Her influence is good."
Also I think De Maistre can no longer be understood by contemporary men and women -- Catholic or otherwise. Like Plato, he recognized the existence of divine beings and having glimpsed them, was interested in knowing more about them and their influence on the affairs of heaven and earth. It could take hundreds of years, maybe thousands, to recover what Thomas More and the harmless Carthusians died for --- and it really wasn't to expand freedom and self-rule. No man in his right mind wants to rule himself without God's help -- especially Henry VIII -- but how would anyone begin to teach this truth to a man blinded by the irrational passions of Andrew Strutaford or Chris Hitchens.
Mr. Piatak,
I forgot to add my admiration for your dogged and determined efforts to keep the kids "over there" on the run from our neighborhood. All they do is lie, cheat and steal. In a happier day they would have been tested and their scores published so as to prevent public fraud, waste and abuse of the elderly . As we are now, all we can do is try and keep the doors locked. Thanks for helping.
I remember growing up a child of the 80s. My parents only let in our house three magazines of national origin: Sports Illustrated, Reader's Digest, and National Review. My how things have changed in such a short time.
Within the past year, I saw for the first time the movie *A Man for All Seasons*. It was an excellent movie to me, and I was struck by the quality of the script, the acting, the subtlety of the plot and characters. It was nominated for eight Oscars and won six. Look at what the Academy holds dear now. Hmmmmmm.
I fear our own state now is in some ways worse than the court of Henry depicted back then. Do any of our intellectuals in high places not endorse whatever nonsense is thrown at them by our King? The worst they'd lose is their government pension or research funding or political career, yet still they nod while losing so much more.
If I were an Anglican or Episcopalian, I would have to confront the ugly fact that the gates of hell have prevailed against my church. This would cause me, first, to seriously question my faith, and, second, to look to Rome or the Orthodox Church. Even then, hell seems to have made some inroads into those churches as well. I admit that the more Christian churches rot away, the more I question my faith. Perhaps there is a more knowledgeable and faithful Christian out there who could help me understand what Christ meant when he promised protection to His Church.
American conservatives are generally neither American nor conservative, so they don't mention not only J. de Maistre but hardly anyone else, and, when they do, they are almost always as glaringly wrong as Richard Brookhiser.
English atheists and hooligans should relish the present as long as they can because they will soon be bowing 5 X per day towards Mecca. As for de Maistre, John Rao references him quite a bit but as a Traditional Catholic, he doesn't get a lot of press.
I seem to remember a Chronicles summer school ad in the magazine that had Uncle Sam writing Joseph de Maistre's name on the blackboard. Is that material (if the aging mind isn't playing tricks) available anywhere?
To Josh @ 7,
I have been having the same problem with Christianity for the past several years, ever since it became apparent that the Churches are all under the aegis of the all mighty state. I am Lutherna, but my home church seems hell bent on becoming as close to a "mega chucrch" as possible. THe Church in general is nothing more than an instrument to goad folks into supporting the state. I am starting to think that the "New Right" in Europe might be on to something as they are questioning the very role of Christianity in Western culture or more or less its preservation. Western civilization began well before Christ set foot on the earth, and had an ethos in the Greco/Roman tradition that called on people to strive for excellence in everything they did. The Chruch in its present form actually can be seen as a helper to the progression of cultural Marxism in the West, and thus helping in its demise.
I was quite happy being a quiet, relaxed English atheist (and retired hooligan) until I read this twaddle. Like most of my kind I am a republican who admires the US for having an elected head of state (and I congratulate its people on their recent choice). However, Henry VIII is part of a historic chain that starts with the printers and translators of the bible and includes writers like Hofstadter and Dawkins that have piece by piece removed the dominance of religious superstition, so I will not hear a word said against the good king.
I let my subscription to National Review lapse in 1983 on the grounds that they were becoming irrelevant. In the early 90s I tried to place classified ads in its pages, but was shot with extreme prejudice. Apparently the Conservative Bumper Sticker of the Month Club and Clinton/Gore toilet paper were more than Buckley's minions could tolerate. I ended up moving all my stock at Virginia gun shows, because that's where the true conservatives gather.
@7, Josh Cooney: You said, "Perhaps there is a more knowledgeable and faithful Christian out there who could help me understand what Christ meant when he promised protection to His Church." Well, yes, although I am a sinner and most likely inadequate to give a full answer, until that "more knowledgeable and faithful Christian" comes along, I can only say, "His Church" of course, is the Catholic Church, the only Church that traces its origins to Christ. Our Lord proclaimed that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. At this point in time, from the human point of view, one, including myself, has to wonder where His Church is. Is it the Conciliarist Church of Benedict XVI and the other Conciliarist popes going back to John XXIII? Or is it a remnant of Catholics that have not accepted the Modernist transformation of the Church at and since Vatican II? Whatever, our Lord's are true and forever. His word certainly does not include the Vatican II notion that all Christian sects are part of the Church of Christ, because that would be a contradiction of our Lord.
@9, Lee: In my opinion, especially, after having attended one his (too short) ten-day seminars (with the likes of Michael Davies, Dr. David Allen White, Jeffrey Bond, Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, Fr. Richard Munkelt, etc. delivering lectures) in Lake Garda, Italy, in my opinion, Dr. John Rao is the pre-eminent Catholic historian of our time.
@12, Mr. Baker: If I understand the twaddle you sent this blog, correctly, the only conclusion I can reach is that you are deluded.
@7 Josh
The gates of hell prevailed enough against my beloved Anglican church to make me an Orthodox catechumen way back in 1993. What sealed the deal for me was when Canterbury ordained priestesses. The American (left) wing had already fallen, but the elevation of a man living in New Testament sin to bishop has become a gangrenous wound which will require amputation.
However, the evangelicals have it right when they mention "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." Both the individual believer and the leadership of any denomination needs to understand that. When they argue over money, watch out!
Mr. Baker @ 12,
Sir, did you lose your way in search of moveon.org? This site is out of your league.
Mr. Gervaise@15,
What has happened in the Anglican communion is a tragedy. Despite my dislike of Henry VIII, I happily acknowledge that there have been many great Christians in Anglicanism. To take just one example: it seems that most of my favorite hymns were translated into English by John Mason Neale. Too bad there aren't more Anglican clergymen like Neale today. (And one of the best contemporary Anglican clergymen, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, is, sadly, retiring).
Mr. Piatak @ 17
At lest we forget CS Lewis; his defenses of Christianity can be applied to any of it's variants.
Mr. Baker,
Flattery will get you no where around here. For twaddle's sake please set yourself free again and review the pack of historical lies and dishonorable neglect of your country's faithful departed in Mr. Piatak's link above, "Andrew Stuttaford reminded us", then dust off an old copy of Voltaire, who was a more clever and less arrogant man than the likes of Hofstadter and Dawkins. Then come back to us a more refined and witty republican than you will ever become nursing the dry breast and sour grapes over at NRO.
@17, Mr Piatak: a clergyman is one who is a member of the clergy. The American College Dictionary defines clergy as "the body of men ordained for ministration in the Christian church, in distinction from the laity." On September 15, 1896, Pope Leo XIII's Bull, Apostolicae Curae was issued. That Bull defined that Anglican Orders are invalid. Therefore, there are no Anglican clergymen. They are laymen. They dwell in error.
Perhaps someone who knows more history than I can correct me, but my understanding is that Henry never argued against the basic magisterium of the Church. He declared himself head of the Church of England and was schismatic, but he also published the Statute of Six Articles which punished errant reformers.
In other words, he was never an Anglican in the sense we understand it. He was, however, a very bad Catholic.
Is that right?
@21
Yes, that is my take on Henry VIII. He wrote a beautiful defense of the Eucharist and for the most part was an ordinary Catholic Monarch except for his inordinate infatuation with Anne Boleyn. He was certainly no religious reformer as described in this ridiculous tribute of Stuttaford's. Henry VIII's biggest historical blunder was not his vice with women but his dissolution of the monasterys and allowing their confiscation by ultimate enemies of the throne, inspiring a destructive greed among the new but lower class of landowners that could not satiate their thirsts until they first dominated and then later destroyed England's monarchy. And of course along with the loss of the monarchy came the destruction of the free peasantry, the invention of the Statute of Frauds to create the landless laborers, the destruction of the crafts and all the rest of what the sillies at NRO call "progress." Note that they read history backwards ---"really the world has always struggled to be just like us!" (Which if that's all you know of the world, seems reasonable.) The older view is to give the great men of the past their due meed of praise. Henry VIII while not a particularly vile and/or despicable King, was certainly no neo-con freedom fighter spreading the groundwork for the coming of post-christian ignorance and decadence exemplified in the work of say, Andrew Stuttaford and the editors of NRO.
Mr. Maxwell at @18,
You are of course correct. C. S. Lewis was a great man, and his "Mere Christianity" is a great book and a useful guide to all Christians. If I may paraphrase someone who was not an orthodox Christian, Ben Franklin, my belief is that if orthodox Christians do not hang together, we certainly will hang separately. I therefore try to avoid denominational squabbles in my writing, and I also try to make arguments that I hope will appeal to all those subscribing to Lewis' "Mere Christianity." But when someone like Stuttaford praises a tyrant and traduces a saint, my inclination is to respond forcefully.
Paul Gottfried wrote about Joseph de Maistre on VDARE eight years back:
http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/first_universal_goldberg.htm
As far as I know, R. Cort Kirkwood's comment at #21 is correct, and Anglicanism in the modern sense pretty much started with the reign of Henry VIII's successor, not with Henry himself.
@17 Tom
Western socialism has led to ease and comfort on the part of entire populations from Sweden to Spain, and their loss of faith -- which is mostly manifested by forgetting the Lord during the good times --has delivered these peoples into the detailed curses listed specifically in Deuteronomy 28. It's rather frightening to watch, because not only has my beloved Anglican church tumbeld into tolerance and sin, but the people who a mere 40 years ago were law-abiding and honored their traditions have become loutish, self-indulgent, telly-watching slobs of the lowest caliber.
Maybe Monty Python was on to something in their episode Book At Bedtime where the kamikaze scotsmen invaded the Soviet Union with the plan of providing them with good jobs, and while they were upstairs with the Mrs, the Scotsmen would explode. When I say Scotsmen I mean John Stewart, Rupert Murdoch, and other name-changers.
@21 Cort
The Tudors were the first Welsh family to rule over the Anglo-Saxons, and due to illegitimacy and some left-handed sexual activity, their grip on the throne was tenuous at best. The break with Rome was merely a distracting power grab. And daughter Elizabeth I was a cold-blooded killer who even ordered her friends whacked. She should never have been anointed by the bishops, and England should have only been ruled by kings like the French.
Perhaps if the Spanish Armada's invasion of Scotland had succeeded things might be better today, but that terrible storm is still taught as divine intervention.
The Catholic church is a good thing, probably one of the best things ever, but it is even better now that it is out of power.
The Catholic church did restrain the secular power in the middle ages, and had a huge civilizing influence on the world, but she herself was not restrained properly: corruption and persecution of all sorts sullied the universal Church's good name, mostly because of awful things coming out of Rome. The Reformation forced a shape-up and enabled competition, which are just as good in the service of our Lord as they are in other realms.
I'm three days late,but April 21st is the traditional date of the founding of Rome.According to Varro it was founded between 9:00 and 10:00 AM.That makes her 2,762 years (and three days) old.Henry VIII?A mere lad or ragazzino,to use a word from the Roman dialect.A happy birthday from me to Roma Aeterna.
The mention of C.S. Lewis is quite ironically apropos, yes?
"Oh, to get one's teeth again into a Farinata, a Henry VIII, or even a Hitler!
There was real crackling there; something to crunch; a rage, an egotism, a cruelty only just less robust than our own. It put up a delicious resistance to being devoured. It warmed your innards when you'd got it down."
Excellent quote, Mr. Salyer!
Thanks.
Part of the irony, I think, is that Stuttaford's praise of Henry makes me feel rather sorry for the latter. Robert @ 22 makes the point implicitly...
I mean, whatever sins and villainy Henry chose to commit, I get the impression (from folks like Lewis, and from Bolt's play) that he was one of those potentially-noble men of will, character, and substance who -- in the event that they turn to darkness -- "show evil as a great race horse shows breeding."
Unlike Henry, our modern elites are incapable of showing evil in the heroic manner of Macbeth; they're Calibans dressed up in tuxedos.
Probably not on his wickedest and most degraded day did the great tyrant yearn for association with creatures like the nasty little posthumanized globalist gnomes who populate neocon-dom.
Had he foreseen that he would someday receive from such pathetic and distasteful quarters, he might have stayed on the straight & narrow.
Correction: Had he foreseen that he would someday receive [praise] from such pathetic and distasteful quarters...
"Unlike Henry, our modern elites are incapable of showing evil in the heroic manner of Macbeth; they’re Calibans dressed up in tuxedos.
Probably not on his wickedest and most degraded day did the great tyrant yearn for association with creatures like the nasty little posthumanized globalist gnomes who populate neocon-dom."
Yes, that is the main point. And should be a reminder to all of us that we should first try and learn the ten commandments before we attempt to display them, violate them, practice them or discard them.
(By the way, I really wish I could write as well as you. Now there is some real,honest to God, sinful type of envy that we all, including Henry, must battle some time in our lives. Thanks God for your gift.)
J Meng @20
You're of course correct. Their Episcopal lineage ended when the vows were radically Protestantized during the reign of Edward VI.
That said, I do have a bit of sympathy for them in light of the situation with the Episcopal church USA and their increasingly leftist agenda. Of course my hope is this leads some of the 'Anglo-Catholics' back home to Rome.
Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, intensified the breech with Rome. Elizabeth I built upon Cranmer's foundation. One can suppose King Charles III will radicalize what the Tudors developed when he becomes "Keeper of Faiths" in a kingdom where Muslims outnumber Anglicans.
"One can suppose King Charles III will radicalize what the Tudors developed when he becomes “Keeper of Faiths” in a kingdom where Muslims outnumber Anglicans."
They may as well abolish their monarchy then. No monarchy is better than a politically correct one. Perhaps one day you'll have to take an oath you were never Christian to ascend the throne?
@34, Mr. Daniel Maxwell: thank you for your comments, and I do, too, hope that not only "Anglo-Catholics' return to Rome, but that all men come to the source of eternal life. I must admit, that I am somewhat disappointed that Thomas Piatak did not directly address my points relevant to validity of Anglican Orders. Admittedly, we live in the delusion of false ecumenism, prompted and promulgated by the Modernist renegades who have taken control of Rome (i.e., John XXIII, Paul VI, JP II, and the latest model, Benedict XVI) but it seems to me, that a Catholic who professes Traditional Catholicism, would at least refute the balderdash vomiting forth from the Modernists on this site and throughout the world, especially, those usurpers who occupy the Vatican. I guess political correctness has long, intertwined and oppressive tentacles.
J Meng, personally I believe Benedict XVI is in the process of a slow counter-revolution to Vatican II. It now seems likely there will be some change to it, to accommodate members of SSPX (you?). I am confident the Holy Father will work out a solution.
My hope is you do not subscribe to sedevacantism (effectively, protestantism), for if it were true the Gates of Hell will have prevailed against The Church.
Mr. Meng,
As a Catholic, I of course accept Leo XIII's pronouncement on the validity of Anglican orders. But I set forth my view of what I try to do in my writing in post number 23 above. Indeed, I hope my arguments also appeal to non-Christians who appreciate the role Christianity has played in creating and sustaining Western civilization. I write as a traditional conservative hoping to advance traditional conservatism in America, not as a Catholic apologist.
Mr. Piatak, really, I have much respect for you, but if you are a Catholic, then it follows that you are a Catholic apologist. But what follows in your postings contradicts that. Your #23 begs several questions, one of which is, why did you even include a non-believer, like Benjamin Franklin, in your argument? C.S. Lewis, for all of his literary talents, was living in error about the Faith. By your statement, "As a Catholic,...I write as a traditional conservative hoping to advance traditional conservatism in America, not as a Catholic apologist" you tell us from where you posit your beliefs, not in Catholocism, but in some vague political ideology, even though you are a Catholic. It sounds to me that you are not really interested in establishing a Catholic order of things, but some sort of ecumenical diversification which is nothing but social and religious disunity, which can only result in political/social chaos. It seems to me, that you have bought, hook, line, and sinker, into the Vatican II idea.
J Meng @ 40
One can appreciate the works of men who not learned in the Faith. I admire Thomas Jefferson despite his Unitarian errors. I was the one who originally brought up CS Lewis as an example of a 'good' Anglican, but appreciating his defenses of 'mere' Christianity (remember - directed mainly at ex-atheists like himself) doesn't mean more than that - an appreciation.
"It sounds to me that you are not really interested in establishing a Catholic order of things, "
Well, but in this day and age how do we accomplish that? It is not so much a matter of simply returning a Stuart or a Hapsburg to the throne.
I've never beem a fan of Martin Luther, but always enjoyed his designation of Henry VIII as "fat-ass Heinz, by God's disgrace king of the English."
#41, Daniel Maxwell, you are correct, when you say, "It is not so much a matter of simply returning a Stuart or a Hapsburg to the throne" apropos the establishment of a Catholic order of things. However, part of the solution lies in all Catholics behaving as Catholics at all times, in season and out of season, paraphrasing St. Paul. Christ called us the salt of the earth. Hopefully, the flavor hasn't evaporated.
Robert: Thanks for the kind words.
BTW, I quoted Catholic novelist Ernest Hemingway earlier in this thread.
Just for the record -- though I respect the man's mind and character -- I don't endorse each and every last single view, opinion, and action of Hemingway's.
And from time to time I also cite George Orwell whose writing I find to contain many pearls of insight; please allow me to take this moment to emphasize that I disagree with Orwell on a number of significant theological questions.
Aristotle, Plato, and Virgil too.
"Andrew" Stuttaford and "Christopher" Hitchens and "Richard" Dawkins would, if they were to follow their beliefs fully, change their Christian first names, derived from Catholic saints, to something else. Perhaps: Trotsky Hitchins, Fittest Dawkins, and Boleyn Stuttaford.
Mr. Piatak,
I also believe what you say about orthodox Christians hanging together. May I also suggest another great minister to the readers here: Bernard Iddings Bell. His book 'Crowd Culture' is excellent. (I believe it was reviewed in Chronicles a few years ago upon its republication by the ISI.)
I agree with the verdict on King Henry in 1066 And All That : "Henry was a Bad Man but a Strong King, and upon the whole a Good Thing."