Who says so?

I am surprised to have seen so little comment on the Anne Widdecombe programme in the history of Christianity series, "Reformation", on Channel 4. The general idea of the programme might be outlined thus: Church was corrupt, Luther set in motion Reformation (a good idea), things went wrong, people started being beastly to one another and, golly! some of them are still being beastly. Much as I sympathise with her for the treatment she got at the time of her conversion I suspect that, in her case, the abuse derived from her long-standing persona in the gutter press as "Doris Karloff"- the woman they loved to hate. Add to that the animosity of the pro-abortion lobby and it is not difficult to imagine her conversion being as much the occasion as the cause of the "no popery" outbursts. Channel 4's selection of Miss Widdecombe and Mrs Blair for the series is interesting. If one has few friends in the media then it is to be doubted if the other has any!
The idea that the medieval church was corrupt and therefore in need of reform is a mainstay of protestant historiography. It is given some credence by the observations of reformers within the Catholic Church. There was much hand-wringing and individuals like Cardinal Pole declared, "We have only ourselves to blame!" as the whole bloody business unfolded. Such claims should, however, be seen in perspective and thoroughly questioned. The only specific example offered in the programme was the so-called "sale of indulgences",an indulgence being defined as "a piece of paper saying that your sins were forgiven". Please! Later the monasteries were said to have become too wealthy and once more the accepted protestant view was reiterated.
On the plus side, it was good to see Professor Duffy putting in an appearance - alas all too briefly.
All in all I feel that, were I not a christian, the programme would have simply confirmed the view that religion is simply a force for setting people at one another's throats.