Does anyone still want to talk about St. Thomas More

[1234]

I did a great deal of research on St. Thomas’s family life for a paper once. I came to opposite conclusion. It seemed to me that he was an exemplary father and husband. I’m not sure what you see as so contemptible about remarrying quickly. He had young children who needed a mother. Everything that I read seemed to indicate that he had good relationships with both wives. And he was outstanding for his involvement in his children’s education. That you describe this aspect of his life as contemptible leads me to question your credibility. I find it difficult to imagine an unbiased person reaching such a conclusion.

I agree that Man for All Seasons is not especially historically accurate but that is not our basis for believing that Thomas More was a Saint. He was canonized by the Church. You seem to be claiming that She was wrong to do so and the more you write the more I question your judgment on this topic.

I am merely quoting More’s own writings regarding his apparent relish in burning people and his own actions, which were on occasion, were harsh even for the period. To kick a young orphan, the son of a man you persecuted, out of your house after you have taken him in is tantamount to making him starve. Hospitality is the first rule in most societies on earth. To publicly beat a stripped (naked?) young orphan and turn him out are not the actions of a civilized man, let alone a saint. The very fact that More describes this incident suggests to me that he felt guilty about it.

The Catholic church loses credibility by canonizing people about whom a great deal is known, or about whom, by examining the historical record, a great deal can be learned that does not support the reputation of the individual in question. I trust in the future the church will be far more selective about its candidates. The church can’t afford to lose any more credibility.

St. Francis de Sales (vide supra) has stood the test of time.

 

[floresco]

I am merely quoting More’s own writings regarding his apparent relish in burning people and his own actions, which were on occasion, were harsh even for the period. To kick a young orphan, the son of a man you persecuted, out of your house after you have taken him in is tantamount to making him starve. Hospitality is the first rule in most societies on earth. To publicly beat a stripped (naked?) young orphan and turn him out are not the actions of a civilized man, let alone a saint. The very fact that More describes this incident suggests to me that he felt guilty about it.

The Catholic church loses credibility by canonizing people about whom a great deal is known, or about whom, by examining the historical record, a great deal can be learned that does not support the reputation of the individual in question. I trust in the future the church will be far more selective about its candidates. The church can’t afford to lose any more credibility.

St. Francis de Sales (vide supra) has stood the test of time.

I agree that St. Francis de Sales is a great saint and the *Introduction to the Devout Life * is a wonderful book. (I try to reread it at least once a year, often as a project for Lent.) However, you are placing yourself in judgment over St. Thomas and, even worse, the Church who canonized him. Who are you to do such a thing?

St. Thomas took in quite a few orphans whom he raised and educated with his own children. He turned away one of these when this young man embraced heresy. St. Thomas refused to cooperate with the evil of heresy, even indirectly, by supporting a heretic. This is a sound Catholic moral principle, not grounds for doubting anyone’s sanctity.

The Catholic Church is not likely to have credibility with people whose values who are formed by the world because these values are often opposed to each other. It is not the task of the Church to conform to the world in order to “seek credibility”. It is our task as Catholics to allow the Church to form our values and our minds. One of the ways She does this is by putting forward people as models of Christian life. When the Church tells me that Thomas More is a saint, my response is to look for what I can learn from him (and to ask for his prayers). I do not argue with the Church’s decision.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Hmm… is St Thomas More the guy who refused to sign to recognise Henry VIII as the Head of the Church in England?

He refused to sign even know he knew it would leave his wife and children without a home or any money, and condemn them to the poor house or worse. All for his immortal soul. Surely it would have been Christian of him to sacrifice his immortal soul for the sake of saving his family, if he truly thought it was a mortal sin?

Is that the right guy?

 

[floresco]

He refused to sign even know he knew it would leave his wife and children without a home or any money, and condemn them to the poor house or worse. All for his immortal soul. Surely it would have been Christian of him to sacrifice his immortal soul for the sake of saving his family, if he truly thought it was a mortal sin?

We could make similar arguments about almost every canonized martyr in history. Didn’t they just throw their lives away by refusing to deny God and His Church? Wouldn’t they have been of more use alive? Wouldn’t God have understood what was really in their hearts, if they denied Him with their words?

These sorts of questions have been discussed from the earliest centuries of the Church’s existence because we became a persecuted Church very early in our history. And the answer is always the same. The blood of martyrs waters the seed of faith. It is a good thing to share in Christ’s death.

 

[LemonAndLime]

We could make similar arguments about almost every canonized martyr in history. Didn’t they just throw their lives away by refusing to deny God and His Church? Wouldn’t they have been of more use alive? Wouldn’t God have understood what was really in their hearts, if they denied Him with their words?

These sorts of questions have been discussed from the earliest centuries of the Church’s existence because we became a persecuted Church very early in our history. And the answer is always the same. The blood of martyrs waters the seed of faith. It is a good thing to share in Christ’s death.

You missed what I was trying to argue. Not that it was a waste of his life. But that he was selfish in choosing to be a martyr when he could have saved his family from the poorhouse. He had young children.

 

[TCostello]

He refused to sign even know he knew it would leave his wife and children without a home or any money, and condemn them to the poor house or worse. All for his immortal soul. Surely it would have been Christian of him to sacrifice his immortal soul for the sake of saving his family, if he truly thought it was a mortal sin?

Just curious, are you being serious or are you joking? Do you really think one should sacrifice their soul for anything, even their family? If so, then you might want to consider a little more studying during your RCIA and dig a little deeper into the Catholic Church’s teachings.

 

[TCostello]

You missed what I was trying to argue. Not that it was a waste of his life. But that he was selfish in choosing to be a martyr when he could have saved his family from the poorhouse. He had young children.

That’s when we are called to TRUST God and follow Christ first…always…in everything, even when it calls for the most difficult decisions and that may even lead to leaving your family behind. We must trust that God will take care of our family and cannot live out of fear.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Just curious, are you being serious or are you joking? Do you really think one should sacrifice their soul for anything, even their family? If so, then you might want to consider a little more studying during your RCIA and dig a little deeper into the Catholic Church’s teachings.

But the thing is, he wasn’t being asked to sacrifice his soul exactly, was he? Just sign to say that he recognised that Henry VIII was the head of the Church in England. He was a Catholic, he believed in confession and reconciliation. Are you saying that committing a sin that could later be forgiven is not worth saving your family?

 

[SunnaB16]

But the thing is, he wasn’t being asked to sacrifice his soul exactly, was he? Just sign to say that he recognised that Henry VIII was the head of the Church in England. He was a Catholic, he believed in confession and reconciliation. Are you saying that committing a sin that could later be forgiven is not worth saving your family?

Tell that to the thousands of early Christian martyrs who died because they refused to burn a bit of incense.

It would have made Sir Thomas More a public sinner, and “Bluff King Hal” would have made plenty of capital out of it. How much scandal would it have caused?
As it is, the martyrs` deaths suffered by St. Thomas, St. John Fisher et al were gestures of encouragement to countless others to stand up for their Faith, even to the point of death.

To publicly acknowledge the tyrant as head of the Church in England, with the intention of confessing some time later, would have made him a hypocrite; and if he then truly repented, to help repair the damage, he would have had to PUBLICLY retract his oath…so the outcome would have been no different!
Recently, an American Archbishop (i think) stated that if “Catholic” pro-abortion politicians repent, they`ll have to make a public statement of repentance. Public sinners causing public scandal. Therefore, it has to be public repentance.

Remember our Lords words: "What would it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his soul." Mark 8:36 Keeping in mind our ultimate destiny, the salvation of souls outweighs anything this present world can throw at us. i know thats easy to say when we`re not facing the sort of choice Sir Thomas More and the others had to face. Being a coward, i hope never to be put in a similar situation!

PS
A question to you more knowledgeable folks:
Apart from his daughter Margaret, did any of St. Thomas More`s family members offer him support?

PPS
1234:
John Fisher was a bishop: not a cardinal.

 

[Shin]

‘Know for a certainty that if men understood how terrible is even one solitary sin, they would rather be cast into a heated furnace, and there remain, living both in soul and body, than to support such a sight. And if the sea were all fire they would cast themselves therein and never leave it, if they were certain of meeting the sin on doing so.’

St. Catherine of Genoa

‘God pardons sin; but He will not pardon the will to sin.’

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

'Anselm… If you should find yourself in the sight of God, and one said to you: “Look thither;” and God, on the other hand, should say: “It is not my will that you should look;” ask your own heart what there is in all existing things which would make it right for you to give that look contrary to the will of God.

Boso. I can find no motive which would make it right; unless, indeed I am so situated as to make it necessary for me either to do this, or some greater sin.

Anselm… Put away all such necessity, and ask with regard to this sin only whether you can do it even for your own salvation.

Boso. I see plainly that I cannot.

Anselm… Not to detain you too long; what if it were necessary either that the whole universe, except God himself, should perish and fall back into nothing, or else that you should do so small a thing against the will of God?

Boso. When I consider the action itself, it appears very slight; but when I view it as contrary to the will of God, I know of nothing so grievous, and of no loss that will compare with it; but sometimes we oppose anothers’ will without blame in order to preserve his property, so that afterwards he is glad that we opposed him.

Anselm… This is in the case of man, who often does not know what is useful for him, or cannot make up his loss; but God is in want of nothing, and, should all things perish, can restore them as easily as he created them.

Boso. I must confess that I ought not to oppose the will of God even to preserve the whole creation.

Anselm… What if there were more worlds as full of beings as this?

Boso. Were they increased to an infinite extent, and held before me in like manner, my reply would be the same.

Anselm… You cannot answer more correctly, but consider, also, should it happen that you gave the look contrary to God’s will, what payment you can make for this sin?

Boso. I can only repeat what I said before.

Anselm… So heinous is our sin whenever we knowingly oppose the will of God even in the slightest thing; since we are always in his sight, and he always enjoins it upon us not to sin.

Boso. I cannot deny it.’

St. Anselm of Canterbury, ‘Cur Deus Homo’

 

[Victorious]

But the thing is, he wasn’t being asked to sacrifice his soul exactly, was he? Just sign to say that he recognised that Henry VIII was the head of the Church in England. He was a Catholic, he believed in confession and reconciliation. Are you saying that committing a sin that could later be forgiven is not worth saving your family?

Yes, it is true that the question over which he gave his life – the primacy of Peter – was not yet defined doctrine during More’s time (which is not as much as to say that it was not believed by the Church during More’s time). Because it was not yet defined, More was certainly left without the absolutely certain guidance that he would otherwise have had. But the Church has since ratified his judgment.

When faced with a choice between saving our hides and saving our souls, we are required to save our souls – on pain of damnation. It is a mortal sin to refuse to make the ultimate sacrifice for our faith. We must flee mortal sin as the plague, because it offends God, and because it is the one thing that can land us in hell. By presuming on God’s forgiveness, we compound our guilt. And by failing to repent of our sin by taking the position that it was the right thing to do in the circumstances, we not only compound our guilt but harden our hearts against forgiveness: repentance is necessary for absolution. God is not mocked.

St. Thomas More himself had something to say on this issue: perhaps, having chosen our hide above our soul, we can repent later. This is from Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation, which he wrote in the Tower of London while awaiting execution:

All his forgiveness hinges, Nephew, as you clearly see, on this “perhaps.” A “perhaps” can turn into a “yes,” but it can also turn into a “no.” And then where is he? And besides, as you well know, per no kind of haps will he happen to permanently escape from death – the very thing for fear of which he forsook his faith.

 

[Victorious]

PS
1234:
John Fisher was a bishop: not a cardinal.

The Pope created John Fisher a cardinal in hopes that it would induce Henry VIII to be merciful toward him. However, Henry VIII forbade the red hat to enter his realm, undertaking instead to send the Pope Fisher’s head. Of course, Fisher went to the block.

The red hat of a cardinal signifies his willingness to suffer martyrdom for the Faith; as far as I know, Fisher is the only cardinal ever to actually suffer martyrdom. (I could very well be wrong on this.)

 

[1234]

More shouldn’t have agreed to become Lord Chancellor, which he did long after the divorce was in process. Henry VIII would not have insisted on his assenting to the Act of Succession if he hadn’t have been Lord Chancellor. More set himself up for what was to come.

 

[SunnaB16]

More shouldn’t have agreed to become Lord Chancellor, which he did long after the divorce was in process. Henry VIII would not have insisted on his assenting to the Act of Succession if he hadn’t have been Lord Chancellor. More set himself up for what was to come.

And because of that, we have another saint whose example of fidelity and courage we can follow.

In this age of political and judicial decadence, we can pray for his intercession.

 

[TCostello]

Being Catholic does not mean that we pick and choose what we want to believe or portray to the secular world. It means that we believe and follow all the teachings of the Church, even the most difficult ones. Christ was sent to divide with a sword, not to unify. He came to separate the darkness from the light - even within families. We are always to remain true to God and God only, no matter the cost. Even when we suffer the greatest losses, if it is in line with The Truth, we are still blessed in the eyes of God. No one said it would easy! I’ve lost my father and my step-mother as a result of remaining true to Christ and his teachings, they no longer speak to me…and my current pregnancy is highly controversial to my friends and family because I may lose my life in order to have this child because I chose not to use artificial birth control or sterilization as everyone wanted me to after my last child (last time my Dr. informed me that the mortality rate would be significantly higher if I have any more children and now I’m in a very high risk situation in which my life and my baby’s life may be taken). So, you see, it’s not easy - but my love for Christ and obedience to Him is so much higher than anything else in this world - even my husband and four, soon to be five children. I trust that if anything happens to me that God will provide for them.

 

[Anna_jane]

One other point about the burning of heretics: the state took charge of executing them for thier own reasons as well. The fact of the matter is that we are judging them by today’s situational standards, where if someone changes religions, it doesn’t necessarily impact the political life. In that time period, heresies went along with rebellion. The Albigensiens, the Hussites, the Arians, and most importantly, the protestant revolt leading to the Peasant Wars all used their heresy as the basis for a revolt: a change in government. So, from the pragmatic view of the medieval state, punishing heretics helped keep the present system of government in power.

 

[Warrenton]

I do not believe that we need to judge St. Thomas More by some historical standard, because the standard by which he acted and was judged by the king have not changed. Remember, the nascent Reformation was accurately seen at the time as a wholesale attack on not the individual realms, but all of Christendom iteslf. For a much smaller threat, namely that of Al Queda, this country has tortured scores of people, imprisoned hundreds, burned cities and towns, killed thousands. And there is no end in sight. Why? Because the government perceives a threat to the people of the United States.

Look at the legacy of the Reformation, from the Peasant’s Revolt, to the Army of Grace, to the 30 Years’ War. The Germanies alone lost from between 1/4 to 1/5 of their population. St. Thomas More was correct in his assesment of the meaning of heresy in England a the time.

The questions are, what is the just response to those who would destroy the peace of the country? To what extent is the destroyer’s subjective intent relevant? The terrorists who attacked on 9/11 may have believed sincerely in their cause, as did the men whom it is said St. Thomas More prosecuted. What difference does it make if the result of a sincere man’s actions result in war and destruction?

 

[1234]

One other point about the burning of heretics: the state took charge of executing them for thier own reasons as well. The fact of the matter is that we are judging them by today’s situational standards, where if someone changes religions, it doesn’t necessarily impact the political life. In that time period, heresies went along with rebellion. The Albigensiens, the Hussites, the Arians, and most importantly, the protestant revolt leading to the Peasant Wars all used their heresy as the basis for a revolt: a change in government. So, from the pragmatic view of the medieval state, punishing heretics helped keep the present system of government in power.

The only reason for the church to keep the state in power was that the state supported the church.

The heretics and reformers rebelled not against the state but against the state’s religion. All were religious reformers.

The Roman Catholic Church committed genocide against the groups you mentioned, which directly threatened the power of the Roman Catholic church. Any government or army which threatened the power of the church was met with opposition by armies under the control of the church and the Holy Roman Emperor. The church didn’t care who was in power as long as it was in power. If the state in power didn’t protect the church, the church would support a government that did. To the church, the reformers were heretics, not traitors. To Henry VIII however, those that opposed him, his church, his marriage and his heirs–were traitors.

As an aside, the RCC has learned dearly how much the persecution of heretics has cost them. The history of the tortures and persecutions have been brought up again and again over the centuries, and judging by comments on this forum, show no sign of abating. Protestants of all stripes, evangelicals, pentecostals, Mormons, and Anabaptists, who especially suffered (Brethren, Hutterites, Amish and related groups), and Jews either constantly remind Catholics of their sordid past, or keep vivid reminders of their own suffering very much alive. My Jewish in-laws refused to visit Spain in their European travels because of the Inquisition.

In future years and possibly centuries, the memories of the current pedophile scandals will be kept alive, too. You can count on it.

 

[Warrenton]

1234: The Catholic Church view on its relationship to civil authority in the medieval period is more complex. The limits of Church-state authority were never completly resolved prior to the reformation. The main difference between then and now is that the medieval state usually acknowledged that the Church had a spiritual authority that had to be respected and that the state had an obligation to defend the Church. Most modern states, certainly the USA, deny both propositions.

Heretics attacked Christendom in the same degree as Al Queda attacks the modern state. The Church and the state took the position that heretics had no right to de-Christianize Christendom, and they mobilized - sometimes forcefully - against all such attempts. We still do today, by the way. If you give money, or plan for jihad, even conceptually, you are liable to be prosecuted under a variety of federal and state anti terrorism laws. Under conspiracy theory, the state will prosecute your friends and family. I leave it to your judgment whether modern prisons are cruel or not.

It is true that many protestants nurture memories and grievances regarding their suppression in Catholic realms. I learned about
Bloody Mary" when I was in public grade school. Not surprisingly, the school board ommitted any reference to what happened in Ireland and the Catholic highlands of Scotland in the 1600 and 1700s. The religious wars were fought over the soul of Europe. Having denied the existence of the soul, it is easy for the modern state to claim the wars were fruitless instances of reactionary violence.

As to the Jews in Spain, that is a historically vexed question. The Jews had a unique relationship with the Moslem rulers of Granada. As in many wars, there were those in society who did not accept the verdict of the battlefield as dispositive of the final decision. The Spanish crown did not consider the Jews to be loyal subjects, and did not consider its hold on the new territory to be complete. It therefore moved to consolidate its power. It was not very different from what Israel is presently doing in the West Bank today.

I agree that the sex scandal in the contemporary Church will cast a long and unpleasant shadow. If the bulk of the cases in the USA are examined closely, however, a disconnect in societal thinking is quickly revealed. A very large number of these cases pertain to a homosexual relationship in which the priest perceived the tendency toward homosexuality in a teenage boy, and successfully encouraged a physical relationship. The public outrcy was great. At the same time, homosexual activists are praising the development of teenage physical homesexual relationships - if they occur between people close in age. To the Catholic mind, this is sophistry, and logically, it is hard to say why it a good thing - one to be fostered - when two 17 year old engage in a sexual relationship, but the same act is felonious if one of the people is over 18.

The unifying principle in the examples you cite is not so much that Catholics and their Church have perpetrated injustices (who can deny it?), but that the enemies of the Church bring up the examples for the purpose of destroying her.

Though both were reformers, there is a world of difference between Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther.

 

[Lamafacaja]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Less cheesy? Err, don’t know really.