What really caused the end of the Catholic Church in England?
This information is very important for the Church of
England since it removes a misunderstanding which produced a huge stain on their reputation.
There is a
misunderstanding that the Church of England gained their power and position from King Henry VIII because:
They were willing to compromise and the Catholic Church was not. That
their pre-eminence is based on their unlawful and immoral endorsement
divorce from Catherine of Aragon by King Henry VIII and was due to a compromise of
That the Church of England's
power is supposedly derived
solely by usurpation from an honorable well meaning Catholic Church
refused to bend it's high ethical standing to accommodate a headstrong
and selfish king. That
the Catholic Church always acted
honorably for God and was considering the best interests of
the personal greed of clerics and a king.
It was exactly the opposite.
The real reason for the split between England and the Catholic Church was really about something totally different.
This information changes the establishing factor of the dominion of the Church of England to
that of being a greater force of God and the more honest shepherd for a deserving English people.
hundred boys including about 70
sons of noblemen one year were sent to Italy for 'special' musical
training. Most were students of musical instruments but some were
singers. They were all castrated to make them Castrati (which were coming into vogue at the time).
This was done on the authority and orders of Thomas Cardinal Wolsey the second most powerful man in England. This was when he was the Archbishop of York. He sanctioned it and his
response to the mass castration was adamant, blunt and arrogant. His response was something akin
can't sing (well) if they have those'. Even this statement was a cover up.
These boys had been castrated to make them into soft and compliant
playthings for Wolsey and his fellow gay clergy.
involved not only the Catholic Church in England but the church in
Italy, probably in either Florence or Siena. I think it was Siena. It was thought to be the initial location of Romeo and Juliet and not Verona since
the men in the play all behaved like children.
People accused the Vatican and the Pope of being involved since it was only
a few miles from the Vatican and I thought that at first but later I
found out otherwise. It turned out that the Vatican had no
about it. It was almost a year before the Pope was even told the truth.
He was told that several boys had the operation
mistake. Then he was told several other things.
Then finally the pope
that those who did it were bribed to castrate the boys. Then those men
bribed his secretary not to expose them to the Pope. By then
committed to the lies and cover up so he could not
back down from his support of the castrators.*
That spelled doom for the Catholic Church in England and it completely
Wolsey. The entry concerning his death says that Wolsey died on the way to
London to be tried for treason. However, if those were the only charges
then he probably
would have won since he worked on England's behalf, often when it went
against the Pope's wishes. However, I think the charges were going to be greater than that. They also involved
his ethics which he could not have won. It involved corruption
involving finances though I can't remember the details of it yet.
However, the ethics charges would have reflected on society. So those charges were hidden
or set aside when he died. They arrested him and he was poisoned almost as soon as he got outside
of his archdiocese of York. He was still in denial of what he had done
to those boys. Each of those castrated boys had up to four or even more angry
brothers, one father with blood in his eyes and about a dozen highly upset
friends. That's a fair sized army of poisoners and one of these 4,000
men got assigned to the detail that was sent to arrest and
transport him back to London.
intend to research this then get in touch with me but to get you
started I think most of the boys he had castrated were from
right around the city of York. However,
over to the west of York was where the best records will probably be. Maybe at Wakefield, Manchester or even Liverpool. (It's a real chore to figure out where this occurred as
everything has changed. Just look at these middle ages maps, this Ecleastic map or this traditional map and
see what I mean. I have a hard time figuring out where anything was.
Now most cities are just piles of brick which costs five quid a pop to
Anyway there was one place where a lot of the boys came from where
everyone rioted against the church when they found out about the
mass castration and
that included the mayor. There was actually a siege of the church with the clergy on the inside
furniture against the doors and knights in armor on the outside
debating who would pay for the heavy wood door if they
burned it down. It wasn't quite the 'Hunchback of Notre Dame' but the mayor (or the count) felt all the clergy were real Quasimodo's and
since the clergy did their best to act the part the whole thing was
pretty close to it with the castrated boys playing the part of numerous
The outbuildings, which were mainly the monks homes, were burned down
and the monks were praying like
they are supposed to but don't usually because they never seem to have
the time. I
think it was recorded in the historical records that there was a fire
that burned the out buildings but there never was a siege.
never could find out if anyone got killed or injured. I never got
an answer to those questions (even when those that knew got drunk) so
it may seem to you to be a non sequitur but getting no answer lead me
to believe that there was an even bigger cover up than it appears. It also lead me to believe that at least ten clergy got killed. I recall why I thought this. Those that knew would not look in my eyes when I asked them directly except one who pointed to the letter X (10) and quickly walked away.
(I researched this about 1585 which not long before the invasion of the Spanish Armada in 1588. I was the Queens
personal secretary (as shown in this cartoon I sketched)
and she had asked me to provide her with a
list of the wrongs that had caused the initial split of England from the
There were actually five others who did the actual research included two old castrati's but I gathered their info and made the
final report. The castrati's had great stories and provided most of the
information. As they were boys at the time and they all knew each other they told each other everything that happened.)
You have Queen Elizabeth to thank for this page. Otherwise I never
would have gathered this information and been able to provide it to you
in the first place.
the way the main point that Queen Elizabeth kept foremost in her mind
was that England was just too far
from the Vatican for the English Church to know what was really going on. Also
in general took far too long. Many churches in Europe
would provide for the people when crop yields were low but in England
people often died of starvation before they were able to get
approval from the Vatican.
This great distance was also the cause of their disbelief when the English were
told that the Pope was never informed about the boys being castrated. Since the distance from England often prevented the more timely information from getting to the Vatican most Englishmen
had not believed that the truth had never traveled from Siena to the
Vatican, a distance of less than 100 miles but they were wrong. It was
assumed, wrongly, that the Pope was an accomplice in these horrible
actions. He was only an accomplice long after the fact.
That lack of communication was a large cause of the clergy thinking they could do whatever they wanted. So they did.
horrors this created went far beyond the physical and psychological
problems it directly created for the boys who I think were mainly from around the city of York.
Lineages were often stopped when it had to go through the son which
castrated and they could not have children. Often the lineage stopped
the law stated something to the effect that the title, such as Earl,
went 'to the oldest living son upon maturity'. Since he could never
mature and even though another son might mature the title got stuck
until the first born died. Some of the first born committed
suicide in order to free up the title and others were murdered by their
close relatives. Many lived in fear of being murdered by their own kin.
girls who were betrothed to marry the boys who got castrated were in
real trouble since their marriage in most cases were irrevocable. The boys in question didn't care and the betrothed girls still had to produce heirs. Even if they got annulments nobody else could marry them according to the Catholic Church.
Huge dowries that had been
paid in some cases had to be returned but the rules were different in
Wales, etc. It took more than five years to get the cases through the
choked courts. I can't recall all the problems they
faced but it was incredible and insurmountable in many cases.
It created big problems for a high percentage of the Dukedoms and
Baronies (England peerage). Several hundred thousand of their subjects
'sank or swam'
according to their fortunes and about half of their futures were
suddenly cast into doubt.
Many of these records, especially the trials, should still be available.
Wolsey was then known to be a
bisexual/homosexual but until he had those boys castrated everyone
had just ignored his sexual preferences.
Many historians see Wolsey’s handling of the church as his greatest
failure. Wolsey epitomized all that was corrupt and heretical about the
church prior to reformation. Wolsey is often seen as quite the
hypocrite, condemning the debauchery of corrupt clergymen, yet himself
partaking in the crimes of pluralism, absenteeism (he was archbishop of
York, yet never visited the city until1529), simony
(for example, even when appointed, Bishops and abbots could not take up
their posts unless they had been “confirmed” by Wolsey, at a price),
ostentatious display of wealth, sexual relations, nepotism, and
ordination of minors (the latter three illustrated through the
premature rise to power of his illegitimate son). Here
I think the above is pretty correct except for the illegitimate son part which was actually one of his young lovers.
I now remember
that the boys got sent in ~1529 (I think to Florence) and I think it was
in the early part of that year. Then about 3/4 of the boys had returned
by the end of the year and most of the rest came back by the spring of 1530.**
school said that the boys could not pronounce
the words in all the languages that the songs were written in, like
Italian. Those languages are very different from English. Anyone
including myself could have told them that they would have a very
hard time learning to comfortably roll
their 'r's' and I could have told them that without cutting off a single testicle.
rational the clergy used to have sex with Castrati was this: The
Bible forbid men from having sex with other men but the Castrati were
not men since they had no testicles.
all the rational they needed to be as predatory as they wanted toward
the Castrati. However, they had another argument they used but I can't
recall it. This one justified everything in their eyes. Their
attitude was 'so what, we will do what we want.' That attitude is what
ended it for the Catholic Church in England more than did their direct actions.
is really why England split with the Catholic Church and it was the
noblemen who forced King Henry VIII to do it. He never would have dared
try to do it on his own. The Noblemen would have risen up and overthrown him if it was not for their sons.
issue of the divorce from Queen Catherine of Aragon was simply too
insufficient to warrant a break from the Catholic Church. The divorce
was just the final straw.*** By
that I mean it was not a determining factor. The handwritting was on
the wall. The Catholic Church was going to be eliminated before the
divorce became an issue. A major part of the process was the
passing of the Buggery Act in 1533
It was initially said to have been to protect these very boys from the English clergy and other men when they got
back. The king had no problems with that since it fit his needs (read the box immediately below). He had previously openly
stated to others that he had been molested when
he was a child though he never said who had molested him.
said that King Henry VIII was actually making a 'hit list' of the clergy he
intended to take down one way or another. To make sure it was accurate he personally separated the rumors from the facts in the thousands of various complaints
that had been sent to him and were directed against the Catholic clergy from ~1531-1533.
The problem was that without modern recording methods no
matter what a person claimed, the
priest could counter by saying the person was making it up. No matter how many witnesses King
produced in court the clergy could have just brought in more witnesses to
counter his claim. Since they were the clergy he would lose no matter
what the courts decision was. First it would look like he was
persecuting Christianity and the Catholic Church. Even if he obtained
one conviction, which seemed unlikely, then dozens of other
clerics would have bombarded their congregation with even worse accusations.
King Henry VIII
would have had to go after all of them with little results and if he tried
it was more likely to bring his own reign down than theirs.
noticed that all those clerics who were making the slanderous statements (except one)
about him were the same clerics that he was receiving an increasing number of
complaints of child sodomy about.
Henry VIII realized not only what was behind their complaints but
he also realized that if he got one molested boy in court it could be
much more powerful than
any witnesses the clergy could bring into court. It also meant that he
never got directly involved so it could not dirty his reputation in any
He realized that
making Buggery illegal and then prosecuting those same clergy for that
crime instead of treason he would still achieve the same ends. It would be a lot more
productive than the show trials that would have actually put him on trial more than the clergy.
this decision was made and the act passed then the authorities just waited.
Act was not retroactive so they needed fresh charges against the
clerics. The guilty clerics just hid, got very quiet and decided to leave the boys
alone for awhile. They thought it would cool down within two years but
without their vocal complaints English support for the Catholic
disappeared and within months 'decent deacons' took over. Soon the
molesters were all tossed out as the Anglican Church won out.
way the one clergy member that was not molesting boys was seducing
virgin girls. Also, he was stealing but I forget what the funds were. I
do recall he was also involved in smuggling. The smugglers
may have literally bought that Bishopric from Wolsey to keep from
...This is also an example of Wolsey extorting the money from these
bishoprics, which were bequeathed to foreigners, without their knowing
You have heard
the complaints about the Catholic Church moving child molesting preists
from one church to another. It's nothing new. They used to send them to
England where they were less visible. This created a cabal or cult of child molesters in England back in the middle ages.
It was estimated at the time that about 1/4 of the rulers of the clergy in England were homosexuals. King Henry VIII
realized these were the same 1/4 that were vocally ambitious and were always
causing trouble in England. He thought correctly that the sexual charge
they got from the boys which they molested created perverse territorial
ambitions and possessive behavior. The Buggery Act drove that quarter
of the clergy underground. When they had to chose between being
obnoxiously outspoken or having sex almost every one of them chose the
later. Their support for the Catholic Church was less
important to them than satisfying their carnal desires.
It was amazing
how the pope suddenly and completely lost his support in
England. Then the whole apparatus that supported the Catholic Church
fell apart. It was also an incredible confrontation to the Pope
when it was explained that a relatively small group of brazen
homosexuals had taken over the English Catholic Church by very devious
methods. They had conspired together to lie to the Vatican and
they falsified accusations against competing clergy which
planting gold and money on the innocents which they themselves had
stolen from churches. It also included paying off Vatican spies in England to send
back false reports. Their purpose was mainly to bugger boys and
young men. The English, both clergy and lay people, actually had a term
for this exclusive group which was something like 'the buggers
network'. And Wolsey was at the top of it.
Another point that needs to be cleared up is that the history books say the ease by which the reformation occurred was only because of Wolsey's absence:
Effectively Wolsey was ruling as a dictator, which caused cataclysmic
problems once Wolsey was removed from power, and the church was left
without the leader it was dependant upon, with virtually no influence
at all. It is hardly surprising that the reformists were met with very
little opposition from the weakened body of the Catholic Church. Here
However if that
was so then the change would have occurred right away after
Wolsey's death in 1530 and before new men were installed. Within a year the Catholic Church had completely
recovered from the loss of Wolsey. Instead the change occurred much later, in 1534, which was right after the
Buggery Act of 1533.
Doesn't this fill in a lot more gaps and doesn't this scenario sound a
lot more plausible than a mean king wanting to divorce his wife.
case you don't think that Wolsey was gay then you are not alone. Many
others thought it when I was writing the plasy. In fact just for you I
put this right at the start of one of my plays:
The Life of Henry the Eight
Act 1Scene 1
All this was order'd by the good discretion
Of the right reverend Cardinal of York. (Thomas Wolsey)
The devil speed him! no man's pie is freed
From his ambitious finger. What had he
To do in these fierce vanities? I wonder
That such a keech can with his very bulk
Take up the rays o' the beneficial sun
And keep it from the earth.
I meant that no man's 'pie' (bum) was safe from Wolsey's molesting
finger. The slang for pie has only changed slightly in 400 years from
meaning both male and female to only meaning female genitals. here. finger pie
Noun. The act of manually stimulating of the female genitals. Well for the passage of 400 years that slang hasn't changed that much and is still pretty close to the original meaning.
In any case I
expanded on his molestation. 400 years ago the kind of molestation was considered
the utmost in importance. Touching and penetration were in different
categories. The first was seen more as a violation of ethics and and a
severe corruption of a child's morals (which was usually thought to
cause a permanent change for the worse). Penetration was seen in the
same category as an unjust assault and battery on an unarmed person
causing great physical injury,
So in the
next part of the dialogue of the play I clarify that far more than
touching had gone on.
That such a keech can with his very bulk
Take up the rays o' the beneficial sun
And keep it from the earth.
I explained in greater detail that
Wolsey was also putting his keech where the sun doesn't shine. A keech is a rolled up lump of fat-a cylinder of fat, I.E. his penis. We use the slang salami and sausage. Same thing.
What part don't you understand?
The 'no man's pie is free' is a reference to King Henry VIII. When
Henry VIII was a child he apparently was also molested by Wolsey who was his father's
personal chaplain and other clerics. Other's have observed and commented often about the strange power that Wolsey held over King Henry VIII.
Now you know why. [Though the records state that Wolsey was only
introduced to King Henry VII about 1503 when Henry VIII was at least 11
I seem to recall that Wolsey had known Henry VIII for about five years
prior to then.]
In the plays it is well known that all the parts for women were played by 'boys'. The boys were actually Castrati and not children. I explain it here.
There are numerous ways to prove all the information I have stated
about the boys getting castrated. Court record, church records and
Parliamentary debates when passing the Buggery Act. I think that
Wolsey targeted Canterbury to get at his biggest enemy William Warham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, There
was a big tie in to Canterbury but it's such a vague memory that I
can't remember what the tie in was. I'll see if I can find something on
it. Warham probably recorded everything that went on during those
years. That would certainly remove a stain on both King Henry VIII and the Anglican Church.
Why a split with the Catholic Church could not have been over a divorce.
having a male heir was not worth the destruction of England so the
split with the Catholic Church could not have been because of that
It is now
generally thought that back then male heirs were considered to be
essential but they weren't (except where matriarchal rule was illegal as it was in France).
apparently not that essential for England to have a male heir because
when Henry VIII died (and then Edward) they did without one for fifty
years and England is now doing quite
well with a second Queen named Elizabeth. In fact King Henry VIII had
placed women in his will as his successor over many men. That included
Queen Elizabeth and my own mother. Here
According to the will of Henry VIII, Ferdinando (my brother) was second-in-line heir
to Elizabeth I following after his mother. But he predeceased his
mother by two years and the queen by nine years. Wikipedia
most people don't realize is that the Holy Roman Empire and other
European countries often went to war for less than what King Henry VIII
other European countries had larger populations and massive well
equipped armies compared to what England had. France was still aching to get even from the last war, the Hundred
Spain was especially
powerful and it's coffers were filled with the gold of the new world.
It had recently
terminated the last Moslem remnants of that big slug fest called the Crusades by slitting tens of thousands of
Moslem throats. Spain had just taken over most of the New World so they were especially looking for another good fight.
the split from the Church had been anything other than fully justified then all of
Europe would have gone to war against England and that would have made the concept of a Tudor male
heir a very mute point.
This was the political situation when
Henry VIII made that split with the Catholic Church. Just the fact that
no war was declared when he split from the church tells you there
must have been much more to it
than just a divorce.
Really what it boiled down to was going to war for Florences right to castrate boys and no one could have abided that.
the conflict was over the castration of young nobles the Catholic
Church could not find very many people who would have sided with them in a war. I recall reading
what the Spanish royalty thought in a report sent by our spy in Spain who
was either the wife of the Netherlands ambassador or the German ambassador to
Spain and was related only one or two steps from Henry VIII. (It was
blood and not through marriage as I recall. She may have been a distant
cousin. Why have I gotten sidetracked on this?) The Spanish royals and their 'assemblage' had discussed the
situation and decided that if it had been done to their children then they would have been unanimous in their decision to declare war against Florence but they were split, about sixty percent in favor of also declaring war on the Vatican.
Had that been the case then the rest of Spain would have fallen in line with those 60% and destroyed the Catholic Church.
* The Pope's initial statement was that others prevented him from learning about
the boys complaints but he was well known for hiring only the kind of
persons that blocks important information.
those under him did not intercept the information because none was ever
sent from the church that did the castrations. Had any been sent then it may have been intercepted and prevented
from getting to the Pope but it never got to that. Had the information been sent the Vatican clergy
would have acted on it and immediately prevented the castrations because it was in their best interest . Complaints by the boys did get sent but it was intercepted and suppressed.
The English thought that the Pope must have known. All denials fell on deaf English ears. Most Englishmen did not believe that the information did not get from Siena to the pope, a distance of less than 100 miles.
What was underlying the Pope not reacting to this and lots of other issues? The invention of an opium extract, laudanum,
which was 20 times as strong as what had been around for thousands of
years. When he had been imprisoned earlier in 1527 they made him addicted to it
so he would comply with their wished. It didn't work since he escaped
in spite of his drug addiction. Pope Clement VII
reigned for another 11 years and during that time he was hopelessly
opiated beyond feelings or emotions (but he looked good even with those laud-numbed eyes, right).
Some people lose a home when they use drugs but Pope Clement lost an
entire country, England. That new opium extract created a need for a new word
'addiction' which the bard promptly invented and inserted in one of the plays, King Henry V.
English knew is that the pope just didn't seem to care about England
and therefore he was undeserving of their devotion or support.
beneath the Pope tried to state that the English boys did not complain
which nobody who knows the English ever believed. Then they said their
English was not understood. However, of the boys who were aristocrats
about half were fluent in
Latin and/or Italian and they stated they had complained endlessly, as the
English are known to do when wronged. The boys stated to their butchers that they were not to be made
Castrati but their crying and screaming was just ignored.
Italy castrated around 10,000 boys a year to produce only one or two
that would eventually be good singers. It had been the established,
secret practice for over 200 years so those in Italy were long since made insensitive
the damage they were doing. They saw what they did to the English boys as
being of little consequence.
of the Italians saying it was a mistake or that it was done to the wrong
boys they mainly tried to ignore the English complaints. That does not
work with the English as they can complain more effectively by which I
mean more convincingly, louder and more often when they put their
unified minds to it than just about anyone else on the face of the
Since England's diplomats warned all of Europe
at least a million people knew about this hidden crime. Since about three quarters
of these million people were outside England it should be easy to locate proof in
numerous countries. Some of the German states that endorsed Luther will
have the most information and there are possibly even some indicting sermons that have
survived. The Catholic's probably covered this event up where ever they were or came to power.
This information got out and brought this previously secret practice out
into the public eye more and more.
The church kept right on defending the
practice. Then it began to
be considered to be in support of the
Catholic Church to put in writing which churches used Castrati in
their choirs. Finally it came to a head when the Pope issued a bull in 1589 which reorganized choirs to include Castrati. Here. That
had the powerful effect
of endorsing mass castration in the same way as would the Mexican
government offering to buy cars stolen in the U.S. support the theft of cars in the U.S.
Of a hundred castrated boys who could sing only about 2% became successful in choirs. The
other 98% of the castrated boys whose voices were inadequate for
singing usually had very short difficult lives of endless
abuse (as did the successful
2% after their voice wore thin in about 15 years). Half were dead within a few years.
Only the testimony of men was accepted in most European courts. After
the boys were castrated they would never mature to men and hence
they could not testify. (However they could testify in England to a crime if they
were a victim of that crime but not in someone else's case.
Oop's, as I recall in parts of England they could. Wales and Scotland
were different in regards to this but Wales laws were often different
than English or Scottish laws. Never mind.) So in the end the effect was that there were
very few ways to find the
Writing it down and having the authorities find the writing
was one of the few ways a conviction
could reliably be obtained. Writing
about it and not telling the legal establishment constituted a
written admission of complicity or involvement in a heinous crime
of a grievous physical assault causing permanent physical
So nobody wrote anything about it until the Pope's bull.
The wholesale castration of boys was a topic that was not talked about much but was an accepted
practice within the Catholic Church until the 1800's.
**I have two
problems here. First this is not what I experienced but only what I was
told. So what I am doing is remembering what someone told me 430 years
ago. Hence, it's a little vague but surprisingly these memories are often
stronger than my memories of this life.
This event happened long before I was even born in that life and it was all gossip, rumor
and story. The numbers may be off but everyone knew about it so I am
almost certain the story itself was very true. Many of the boys who were castrated went to work for the government at the Tower of London. When I was a small child we lived just west of the Tower of London at the 'downs' (and stables) and I often brought horses to the tower. I
often talked with these kindly beardless men with high voices
who were all the same age and who seemed to run the tower. I liked them
a lot because without the maturity caused by hormones they were still
mentally almost like us children and they understood us in a way
that adults never could. They were not guards but worked there as
administrators, receptionists and cooks.
***Divorce was not
the only route taken in cases like this. Queen's who didn't produce
male heirs, like Catherine of Aragon, were sometimes
tossed off the castle wall but they more often were poisoned. In these cases it was covered up.
It's hard to defend this practice of murder but this was often
considered the down side of being royalty. Not having an heir affected
the lives of millions of people and determined the future of a country,
You might think it is not that important but when you have France and
Spain eager to take over and strip you of your rights, land and
property, believe me, you would think differently about it.
It was usually accepted that either
you functioned in all aspects as the queen or your reign ended one way
or the other so that someone else could
do what was needed and that included producing an heir and a spare.
All rights reserved. © J Pinil, Inc. 2006