Having been raised Roman Catholic, you can imagine that Thomas Cranmer has received fairly short shrift in my religious historical studies. He was one of the clergy instrumental in Henry VIII's divorce of Catherine of Aragon, and three guesses as to whose side I've been on in that...ahem...insignificant bit of history. As a result, he has been portrayed as an opportunist and political schemer, and not as a principled cleric.
In attempting to remedy this, I am presently reading Diarmaid MacCulloch's biography of Cranmer, which is considered definitive for a popular bio. Unfortunately I must admit that, so far, I still don't like the guy very much. We shall see if I reform my opinion before Bloody Mary burns him at the stake this time.
Monday, May 3, 2010
March 21st, huh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
He's not very likable. Few religious leaders from that period are very likable.
You are absolutely right. I'm hard-pressed to think of somebody in a major religious role who wasn't rather a creep, for one reason or another.
My agnostic's opinion, worth what you paid: Cramner was sort of a worm, though he paid more dearly for it than worse ones have.
Anyway, if some idle surfing through the Episcopalian blogosphere is anything to go by, the Anglican Communion could use a little less Cramner and a lot more Elizabeth I.
I completely agree with you, Rick. :-)
You have an utterly AWESOME blog, by the way. You've made this hard SF fan very happy!
Post a Comment