"After Henry read (and perhaps misinterpreted) Leviticus 20:21, he decided the problem was he should not have married his brother’s widow and Julius should not have granted a dispensation. Largely on that basis he asked Pope Clement VII for an annulment."
"Perhaps" is generous. Henry's principal argument in his case was that Leviticus 20:21 barred such marriages AND that no pope had the authority to permit such marriages. Clement was hardly going to accept such an argument, even if he were completely free from any external constraints.
Not the last word on the subject, but the best word to date:
I'm not as sure as you are about Clement's principles. Before the Sack of Rome, he sought allies against the Holy Roman Emperor. I suspect he would have found a way to please Henry. After the Sack, he had little choice but to avoid displeasing Emperor Charles V.
"Perhaps" is generous. Henry's principal argument in his case was that Leviticus 20:21 barred such marriages AND that no pope had the authority to permit such marriages."
I should have added - that was the ONLY argument Henry allowed his legal advocates to put forth, that popes lacked the authority to dispense a man to marry his brother's widow (he was perfectly a-ok with marrying his mistress's (Mary Boleyn) sister (Anne Boleyn). J.J. Scarisbrick, in his 1968 big biography of Henry VIII raised the possibility that a canon law argument that Wolsey invented (concerning technical defects in the dispensation that had allowed Henry to marry Katherine) might have got Henry the annulment he desired, but Henry refused to allow his legal advocates to present it in court. Kelly argued that Wolsey's clever argument would not have worked, and, decades later, Scarisbrick came to the co0nclusion that Kelly was right.
tl;dr Henry's Canon Law case, as well as his argument from Leviticus were both absurd.
"After Henry read (and perhaps misinterpreted) Leviticus 20:21, he decided the problem was he should not have married his brother’s widow and Julius should not have granted a dispensation. Largely on that basis he asked Pope Clement VII for an annulment."
"Perhaps" is generous. Henry's principal argument in his case was that Leviticus 20:21 barred such marriages AND that no pope had the authority to permit such marriages. Clement was hardly going to accept such an argument, even if he were completely free from any external constraints.
Not the last word on the subject, but the best word to date:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Matrimonial_Trials_of_Henry_VIII/2P5KAwAAQBAJ?hl=en
https://archive.org/details/matrimonialtrial0000kell_o7f5/mode/2up
I'm not as sure as you are about Clement's principles. Before the Sack of Rome, he sought allies against the Holy Roman Emperor. I suspect he would have found a way to please Henry. After the Sack, he had little choice but to avoid displeasing Emperor Charles V.
"Perhaps" is generous. Henry's principal argument in his case was that Leviticus 20:21 barred such marriages AND that no pope had the authority to permit such marriages."
I should have added - that was the ONLY argument Henry allowed his legal advocates to put forth, that popes lacked the authority to dispense a man to marry his brother's widow (he was perfectly a-ok with marrying his mistress's (Mary Boleyn) sister (Anne Boleyn). J.J. Scarisbrick, in his 1968 big biography of Henry VIII raised the possibility that a canon law argument that Wolsey invented (concerning technical defects in the dispensation that had allowed Henry to marry Katherine) might have got Henry the annulment he desired, but Henry refused to allow his legal advocates to present it in court. Kelly argued that Wolsey's clever argument would not have worked, and, decades later, Scarisbrick came to the co0nclusion that Kelly was right.
tl;dr Henry's Canon Law case, as well as his argument from Leviticus were both absurd.
A sharp, quick review of Pope Julius. Glad to have been sent over!
Prayers sorely needed for this Conclave.