What caused nations to "Go Protestant?"

[The Undead Martyr]

The Reformation is one of the most important and controversial parts of history, but it's also something that is, I think, rather more difficult to conceptualize in terms of cause and effect. Like most big events, there probably isn't an easy one-off answer, but probably a multiplicity of factors and trends. The Weberian thesis always seemed dubious- at best, a blithely shallow correlation, at worst propaganda; but if the link between culture and capitalism isn't easily empirically grounded, then the link between culture and religion is perhaps rather more substantial. It's called the Roman Catholic Church for a reason, after all.
Politics are a far better answer than culture when trying to muddy out the tendencies of Early Modern Confessionalism- places that went Protestant stayed that way ultimately because they were able to fend off attempts to crush them into submission, while the Counter-Reformation saw a serious reduction in Protestantism among the Habsburg territories (Bohemia, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, Transylvania etc.) Martin Luther was defended by the Elector of Saxony, who wanted to stick it to Emperor Charles, and fears of Habsburg hegemony in Germany led Catholic France to funnel arms and money to Protestant powers. Then of course there is Henry VIII, probably the most blatantly cynical example of how Protestantism was exploited by monarchs for their own secular ends...

But "Politics" is still somewhat unsatisfying, since it only changes the question- why did certain princes find it useful to convert? It also takes a top-down approach ignoring the other forms of conversion- Protestantism wasn't just an elite phenomena, after all (or was it?).

 

[Polish Eagle]

I don't know how much evidence there is for is, but I've always been struck by how much ground Catholicism held in Romance-speaking Italy, Spain, Portugal, and France (Huguenots aside), compared to the triumph of Protestantism in regions that generally didn't speak Romance languages (Germany, Scandinavia, England, the Netherlands, to a lesser extent Hungary and Poland-Lithuania) and the absence of a comparable movement in the Orthodox world. Could the early success of Protestants in using the vernacular language have been a factor--one weakened by the vernacular being closer to Latin in the first place in Italy/Spain/France?

 

[Metempsychosis]

Distance from Rome helped.

 

[Lalli]

Distance from Rome helped.

Surely partially at least. But Ireland and Poland still remained as Catholic.

With Scandinavia definitely distanse and geographic isolationism helped. And it seemed that Swedes and Finns weren't so intrested to be under pope's boots.

 

[dualmonarchy]

It was mentioned in the first post but a reason for Protestantism for kings was to seize church lands. On the common people, many who converted probably just agreed with it, and the ones who were particularly outraged about practices rather than doctrine most likely returned to Catholicism with the Counter- Reformation

 

[Concerned Brazilian]

The Reformation is one of the most important and controversial parts of history, but it's also something that is, I think, rather more difficult to conceptualize in terms of cause and effect. Like most big events, there probably isn't an easy one-off answer, but probably a multiplicity of factors and trends. The Weberian thesis always seemed dubious- at best, a blithely shallow correlation, at worst propaganda; but if the link between culture and capitalism isn't easily empirically grounded, then the link between culture and religion is perhaps rather more substantial. It's called the Roman Catholic Church for a reason, after all.
Politics are a far better answer than culture when trying to muddy out the tendencies of Early Modern Confessionalism- places that went Protestant stayed that way ultimately because they were able to fend off attempts to crush them into submission, while the Counter-Reformation saw a serious reduction in Protestantism among the Habsburg territories (Bohemia, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, Transylvania etc.) Martin Luther was defended by the Elector of Saxony, who wanted to stick it to Emperor Charles, and fears of Habsburg hegemony in Germany led Catholic France to funnel arms and money to Protestant powers. Then of course there is Henry VIII, probably the most blatantly cynical example of how Protestantism was exploited by monarchs for their own secular ends...

But "Politics" is still somewhat unsatisfying, since it only changes the question- why did certain princes find it useful to convert? It also takes a top-down approach ignoring the other forms of conversion- Protestantism wasn't just an elite phenomena, after all (or was it?).

Conflicts between the Catholic Church and the emerging national states of the early modern period.

 

[Jürgen]

Surely partially at least. But Ireland and Poland still remained as Catholic.

Poland did go Protestant among the nobility and then the Counter-Reformation reconquered it. The Countries with a Counter-Reformation Church should be seen as counties in danger of falling to the Reformation.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

Surely partially at least. But Ireland and Poland still remained as Catholic.

With Scandinavia definitely distanse and geographic isolationism helped. And it seemed that Swedes and Finns weren't so intrested to be under pope's boots.

With Scandinavia, the Baltic ties with Northern Germany were significant, opening up and reinforcing dynastic and political connections.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

Poland did go Protestant among the nobility and then the Counter-Reformation reconquered it. The Countries with a Counter-Reformation Church should be seen as counties in danger of falling to the Reformation.

20% of nobles and 1/3 of magnates converted to Protestantism (mostly Calvinism), but still, even among nobles Catholics remained solid majority. And Protestant nobles didn't bother to convert their serfs. Thus without Counter-Reformation Poland may be 20-30% Protestant (like part of Hungary, that avoided Habsburg rule until 1699).

 

[holycookie]

In general, the Latin people remained Catholic and the Germanic people became Protestant. The rest is kind of a coin flip. Ireland remaining Catholic, Hungarians becoming Protestants etc. I think a mixture of geography (distance from Rome), culture, language, situation found (we see this with Hungary and Ireland, with both being vassals of Catholic and Protestant powers and perhaps out of disgust that followed the inverse religion of their lord. Ireland remained Catholic with England being Protestant and Australia remained Catholic with Hungarians becoming Protestant).

 

[Mildtryth]

In general, the Latin people remained Catholic and the Germanic people became Protestant. The rest is kind of a coin flip. Ireland remaining Catholic, Hungarians becoming Protestants etc. I think a mixture of geography (distance from Rome), culture, language, situation found (we see this with Hungary and Ireland, with both being vassals of Catholic and Protestant powers and perhaps out of disgust that followed the inverse religion of their lord. Ireland remained Catholic with England being Protestant and Australia remained Catholic with Hungarians becoming Protestant).

Circumstance also played a part - i don't really think that England would have gone Protestant if, say, Henry VIII had some living male heirs with Catherine of Aragon, or if Prince Arthur had lived, or if Mary I had lived longer...

 

[holycookie]

Circumstance also played a part - i don't really think that England would have gone Protestant if, say, Henry VIII actually had some male heirs with Catherine of Aragon, or if Prince Arthur had lived, or if Mary I had lived longer...

Yep the situation impacts on conversion in general (apart from latins and germans), england, for example, was a cultural mix of germanic and latin peoples and could have remained catholic or become protestant. The situation generated the Anglican church, but I tend to think that if England had not converted the country would probably have a religious war (similar to France but on a larger scale).

 

[Nuraghe]

I would say a series of factors all mixed together : on the one hand we naturally have the religious aspect ( i.e. the sincere feeling of wanting a reform of the church at the beginning ) on the other we have politics ( of the princes and also of the papacy ) and the economic one immediately in the background compared to the first ones, but let's go in order to understand how the reform took place, we need to understand what was happening in Rome before 1517 ( so we have to see the post-schism period in the West and the deep traumas it left in the church, then in follow the Renaissance and finally the political situation caused by the Italian wars ( without these we can not understand why the popes did not act immediately against Luther and co ) on the other hand we have a growing sentiment in Europe, where the church is seen as weak at a central level, corrupt and no longer worthy of being called catholic ( from the Greek : Universal ) because with rare exceptions it is now an instrument in the hands of the Italian noble families who openly contend for it ( until now, one would say nothing new, it has always been like this, the Italians have been the majority of the clergy and, due to transport, those who are more likely to be in Rome in time for a conclave ) but there is a clear demarcation between the pre-Avignon papacy and the post-Council of Constance papacy, i.e. the great fear of making the papal office a puppet in the hands of one or the other power of the moment ( in this period mainly France and Spain, the main contenders for supremacy in Italy ) if a foreigner were unfortunately elected to the throne of Peter, if he has this let us also add a growing xenophobia fueled by the wars we understand why the Italians were so reluctant to elect non-locals ( as explains the tremendous defamation against Alexander VI or before him against Cardinal Bessarion, who many times came very close to being pope, but was always stopped for his Greek origins )


another detail worthy of note is that the countries that have remained Catholic are also those that benefited the most from its wealth : see France, the Iberian kingdoms, the Habsburgs themselves as emperors ( which to better govern HRE leaned heavily on the imperial church, given its homogeneous diffusion throughout the empire, is that by Imperial bond she was subordinate to both Vienna and Rome and was usually faithfully in the Habsburg camp, which cannot be said totally for secular princes ) because for them it was essential that the papacy was functioning ( certainly it was very convenient for them that it was still weak, given that to regain control of the Catholic hierarchy in Europe, the popes relied on the help of the rulers and did not have too many problems in giving up some of their prerogatives over the local clergy in exchange for their help ( which the rulers found very useful in their plans to centralize power to the detriment of the nobles )


England is a particular case apart (also considering its tumultuous past) but the whole can be reduced to a mere political situation in which the English influence, usually well received in Rome, this time was totally hindered (see sack of Rome by the imperial troops in 1527, and it must be remembered that Charles was Catherine's nephew, Clement did not want to repeat the experience he had just undergone) furthermore Henry had already received a previous papal dispensation to marry Catherine from Julius II therefore requesting its annulment would be been legally very complicated ( but not impossible ) but to obtain this Clemente had to affirm that the previous pontiff was wrong ( at a time when papal power was attacked from all sides, not a good idea )



in conclusion, I would like to tell you how my history teacher jokingly explained this period to us ( the Romance-speaking countries fought to have their pope who would support them, even England would not have minded but was always hindered by France or the Habsburgs, and in the end the hypocrite Henry did it on his own, we Italians were fine with almost anyone as long as we ate ( provided he was not French ) Austria wanted to remain Caesar and being without Rome would have been absurd, the others were too distant and insignificant, while the German Princes had rediscovered Arminius, and so they wanted to pay him homage

 

[Nuraghe]

Distance from Rome helped.

very true, in both senses, both their being physically far from Rome but also their almost zero influence in the papal curia helped them ( just think that almost all the Scandinavian clerics were usually educated in the universities of northern Germany )

 

[Polish Eagle]

very true, in both senses, both their being physically far from Rome but also their almost zero influence in the papal curia helped them ( just think that almost all the Scandinavian clerics were usually educated in the universities of northern Germany )

I wonder, then, whether Pope Adrian VI, if he'd been elected earlier, might have been able to stack the Curia with more northern Europeans, who might in turn help keep their native churches in Rome's orbit.

 

[Nuraghe]

Circumstance also played a part - i don't really think that England would have gone Protestant if, say, Henry VIII had some living male heirs with Catherine of Aragon, or if Prince Arthur had lived, or if Mary I had lived longer...

I fully agree, for them the game was not worth the candle, Henry was geopolitically forced to make the break, even he had the annulment i'm sure he wouldn't have created his church in any way ( of course his immense ego partly helped the pro-Protestant party to promote their ideas at court, knowing well what struck the king's ear and what didn't )

 

[Nuraghe]

I wonder, then, whether Pope Adrian VI, if he'd been elected earlier, might have been able to stack the Curia with more northern Europeans, who might in turn help keep their native churches in Rome's orbit.

hardly, Adrian didn't have the pulse to make himself respected by the Curia, then you can't create so many northern European cardinals (remember that in the first place, the cardinals must serve to help the pontiff govern the church, then Rome more easily, therefore in practice they must know how the city works, know how to communicate with the population, manage relations between Italian states and Catholic powers and finally they must always be within the pontiff's reach in a short time, the only ones that would even vaguely make sense would be the English cardinals, but perhaps Adrian could work to get better representation for non-Italian cardinals in the curia )

 

[Some Bloke]

Depends on the country.