How can we call Thomas Moore a saint?

[antihippy79]

**“If he did not see his actions as sinful, he could not have sinned mortally in doing what he did.” **

This is a frightening concept. If a person doesn’t think their sin is mortal or a sin at all then they are not guilty or mortal sin? Really? This in moral relativism in its starkest light. No man with a functional conscience could burn another human alive without pang of guilt. It is written on his heart.

Imagine all the mass murderers in history who believed that murderering the innocent was just and right! All saints?

 

[antihippy79]

This might not be related but just to set something clear though, Saints are sinners and not PERFECT people apart from Mother Mary. Take St. Augustine for an example. He was a Hedonist for a large part of his life. But he converted and became a Doctor of the Church.

Similarly, even in the case of Thomas Moore, he gave his life for the TRUTH i.e the Indissolubility of marriage and his refusal to accept a false annulment. That is indeed an act worthy of sainthood which I am sure you would agree

God Bless

I do agree. His martyrdom is extraordinary especially in light of his abandonment of King Henry (also justifiable!). I just find it strange that Catholics justify and brush aside some of the most astonishing acts of cruelty imaginable…live incineration. As Christians we must be able to clearly identify evil in every form. Burning other people is objectively evil.

 

[ddarko]

**“If he did not see his actions as sinful, he could not have sinned mortally in doing what he did.” **

This is a frightening concept. If a person doesn’t think their sin is mortal or a sin at all then they are not guilty? Really? This in moral relativism in its starkest light. No man with a functional conscience could burn another human alive without pang of guilt. It is written on his heart.

Imagine all the mass murderers in history who believed that murderering the innocent was just and right! All saints?

You are missing the point. Saints could have sinned terribly. Take St.Paul. He persecuted Christians. CHRISTIANS!!!

But in the end, he died for Christ.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I do agree. His martyrdom is extraordinary especially in light of his abandonment of King Henry (also justifiable!). I just find it strange that Catholics justify and brush aside some of the most astonishing acts of cruelty imaginable…live incineration. As Christians we must be able to clearly identify evil in every form. Burning other people is objectively evil.

Sure, that is why we do not treat St. Paul as a saint for his excellence in persecuting Christians

Similarly, with St. Thomas More, we treat him as a saint NOT because he burned people at the stake BUT because he was faithful to Rome and stood by the TRUTH.

Just as an aside, even in the case of burning at the stake, Thomas More was on the side of the truth. He as just going about it the wrong way.

God Bless

 

[Tantum_ergo]

**“If he did not see his actions as sinful, he could not have sinned mortally in doing what he did.” **

This is a frightening concept. If a person doesn’t think their sin is mortal or a sin at all then they are not guilty? Really? This in moral relativism in its starkest light. No man with a functional conscience could burn another human alive without pang of guilt. It is written on his heart.

Imagine all the mass murderers in history who believed that murderering the innocent was just and right! All saints?

If it’s a frightening concept, blame God.

This is Catholic teaching. Very clear Catholic teaching.

In order for a sin to be mortal, one must meet three conditions: Grave matter, full consent, and full knowledge.

I don’t think you read my post completely as I was quite specific.

Let’s try again.

Here is man A. Man A does not believe that masturbation is a mortal sin. Why? First, he was never taught this truth. Second, all the people he honored, from his own parents to qualified medical doctors to his own pastor, told him that it was ‘normal and natural’.

So man A commits this mortal sin over and over, never knowing it is a sin.

So when he dies, is he going to hell because of those sins, even if he never realized he was committing mortal sin? Inquiring minds want to know. . .

 

[Tantum_ergo]

**“If he did not see his actions as sinful, he could not have sinned mortally in doing what he did.” **

This is a frightening concept. If a person doesn’t think their sin is mortal or a sin at all then they are not guilty or mortal sin? Really? This in moral relativism in its starkest light. No man with a functional conscience could burn another human alive without pang of guilt. It is written on his heart.

Imagine all the mass murderers in history who believed that murderering the innocent was just and right! All saints?

Not what I actually said at all.

Would you like a link to the Catechism?

**1857 **For a *sin *to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
**1858 **Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
**1859 **Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. **1860 **Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

As chancellor it was his duty to enforce the laws against heretics and, by doing so, he provoked the attacks of Protestant writers both in his own time and since. The subject need not be discussed here, but More’s attitude is patent. He agreed with the principle of the anti-heresy laws and had no hesitation in enforcing them. As he himself wrote in his “Apologia” (cap. 49) it was the vices of heretics that he hated, not their persons; and he never proceeded to extremities until he had made every effort to get those brought before him to recant. How successful he was in this is clear from the fact that only four persons suffered the supreme penalty for heresy during his whole term of office.

It is rather clear that St. Thomas considered that the anti-heresy laws were morally just laws.

Which seems to indicate that in following those laws he would have considered that he was following the moral law.

 

[estesbob]

First we need to remember the Catholic Church does not make Sants. People make themselves Saints-the church, after careful investigation, merely acknowledges that they are.

I have read absolutely nothing that said Thomas Moore is a Saint because he burned heretics. To the contrary- Thomas Moore is a Saint in spite of the fact he burned heretics. Only two perfect people are in Heaven-Thomas Moore is not one of them.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

First we need to remember the Catholic Church does not make Sants. People make themselves Saints-the church, after careful investigation, merely acknowledges that they are.

I have read absolutely nothing that said Thomas Moore is a Saint because he burned heretics. To the contrary- Thomas Moore is a Saint in spite of the fact he burned heretics. Only two perfect people are in Heaven-Thomas Moore is not one of them.

Very true.

Unfortunately it seems that the position of the “St. Thomas More is no saint of mine” rests on a misunderstanding of the concept of sainthood itself.

What really bothers me, as a historian, is the attempt of people to put 21st century ‘mores’ (as opposed to ‘morals’) onto the backs of non-21st century people.

Now murder is always wrong. As a Catholic I believe that.

But murder is not simply putting a person to death against that person’s will. In our legal system we know that there is a difference between the person who deliberately and with malice aforethought kills a person, and the person who ‘accidentally’ is responsible for a person’s death, and points between. In both cases, a life is taken against the will of the person who dies. But the intention of the one responsible for the death can make a difference as to whether that person acted with the intent to murder, or not.

Now, take for example the public hangman in say Brittain in the 16th century. This was the person who actually physically set the flames, pulled the rope, swung the ax, etc., as the legal representative of the King and Crown. Did this man ‘murder’ people? Or was he performing a legal, indeed a moral, duty so far as his own understanding was capable of knowing AT THE TIME?

I find it. . .interesting. . .that we hear of the culpability of St. Thomas in the deaths of 4 people ‘incinerated’. . .yet we hear nothing of the REST of the crown (including King Henry) and above all, we hear nothing about the man or men who actually ‘set the fires’.

Are all of them to be considered equally guilty?

How about for non-heresy ‘capital crimes?’ What of the many people who were sentenced to death for murder, or poson, or some such? And when did the judgment of this as murder 'start"? Who made the judgment?

Were people guilty of murder when they would execute a person after a trial? When did that start? Before Jesus, or after?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Very true.

Unfortunately it seems that the position of the “St. Thomas More is no saint of mine” rests on a misunderstanding of the concept of sainthood itself.

What really bothers me, as a historian, is the attempt of people to put 21st century ‘mores’ (as opposed to ‘morals’) onto the backs of non-21st century people.

Now murder is always wrong. As a Catholic I believe that.

But murder is not simply putting a person to death against that person’s will. In our legal system we know that there is a difference between the person who deliberately and with malice aforethought kills a person, and the person who ‘accidentally’ is responsible for a person’s death, and points between. In both cases, a life is taken against the will of the person who dies. But the intention of the one responsible for the death can make a difference as to whether that person acted with the intent to murder, or not.

Now, take for example the public hangman in say Brittain in the 16th century. This was the person who actually physically set the flames, pulled the rope, swung the ax, etc., as the legal representative of the King and Crown. Did this man ‘murder’ people? Or was he performing a legal, indeed a moral, duty so far as his own understanding was capable of knowing AT THE TIME?

I find it. . .interesting. . .that we hear of the culpability of St. Thomas in the deaths of 4 people ‘incinerated’. . .yet we hear nothing of the REST of the crown (including King Henry) and above all, we hear nothing about the man or men who actually ‘set the fires’.

Are all of them to be considered equally guilty?

How about for non-heresy ‘capital crimes?’ What of the many people who were sentenced to death for murder, or poson, or some such? And when did the judgment of this as murder 'start"? Who made the judgment?

Were people guilty of murder when they would execute a person after a trial? When did that start? Before Jesus, or after?

And remember, burning at the stake was for particular crimes. There are more horrific ways to be executed in medieval England.

 

[limabeanerson]

It seems like the OP has an issue with Church teachings. We call St. Thomas Moore a saint because he was declared a saint by the Church (as others have said).

You also seem to have an issue with Church teaching on what it takes for a sin to be a mortal sin. Are there any other teachings you don’t agree with and therefore don’t believe? Picking and choosing which parts of the Churches teachings seems like a bad idea to me and appears prideful. You are saying (in a less direct way) “I believe that my ideas concerning these subjects is better than the Church’s ideas” Which can also be taken one step further to say that you believe your ideas on these things are better than Jesus’s since I think both the sainthood of St. Thomas and the teachings regarding what constitutes a mortal sin are considered infallible (correct me if I’m wrong on that).

Now, assuming for the moment that I’m right on the infallibility of those two things, you than must also disagree with the infallibility doctrines. What else about the RCC do you think is incorrect? Its hard when you start disagreeing with official Church teachings it really starts to snow ball.

 

[antihippy79]

If it’s a frightening concept, blame God.

This is Catholic teaching. Very clear Catholic teaching.

In order for a sin to be mortal, one must meet three conditions: Grave matter, full consent, and full knowledge.

I don’t think you read my post completely as I was quite specific.

Let’s try again.

Here is man A. Man A does not believe that masturbation is a mortal sin. Why? First, he was never taught this truth. Second, all the people he honored, from his own parents to qualified medical doctors to his own pastor, told him that it was ‘normal and natural’.

So man A commits this mortal sin over and over, never knowing it is a sin.

So when he dies, is he going to hell because of those sins, even if he never realized he was committing mortal sin? Inquiring minds want to know. . .

And what of Hitler and Stalin and Manson and all the other murderers who believe what they are doing is good? Saints?

 

[antihippy79]

It seems like the OP has an issue with Church teachings. We call St. Thomas Moore a saint because he was declared a saint by the Church (as others have said).

You also seem to have an issue with Church teaching on what it takes for a sin to be a mortal sin. Are there any other teachings you don’t agree with and therefore don’t believe? Picking and choosing which parts of the Churches teachings seems like a bad idea to me and appears prideful. You are saying (in a less direct way) “I believe that my ideas concerning these subjects is better than the Church’s ideas” Which can also be taken one step further to say that you believe your ideas on these things are better than Jesus’s since I think both the sainthood of St. Thomas and the teachings regarding what constitutes a mortal sin are considered infallible (correct me if I’m wrong on that).

Now, assuming for the moment that I’m right on the infallibility of those two things, you than must also disagree with the infallibility doctrines. What else about the RCC do you think is incorrect? Its hard when you start disagreeing with official Church teachings it really starts to snow ball.

You are going overboard with your critique of my faith. I disagree with your teachings and also Tantum’s explanation of moral culpability in the case of STM. Can’t I honestly question your opinion without you questioning my committment to Jesus Christ?

 

[antihippy79]

Sure, that is why we do not treat St. Paul as a saint for his excellence in persecuting Christians

Similarly, with St. Thomas More, we treat him as a saint NOT because he burned people at the stake BUT because he was faithful to Rome and stood by the TRUTH.

Just as an aside, even in the case of burning at the stake, Thomas More was on the side of the truth. He as just going about it the wrong way.

God Bless

If killing heretics is on the side of truth, then count me out! Jesus is Truth and he does not ask us to incinerate those who dissent from his teachings.

 

[ddarko]

And what of Hitler and Stalin and Manson and all the other murderers who believe what they are doing is good? Saints?

Hi,

I think you missed my last post

As I said in that one, take the example of St. Paul. He Killed and persecuted Christians. Was that ok? NO.

BUT, then he changed his life around and is considered a saint. We do not consider him a saint because of his persecution of Christians. We consider him a saint for his love for Christ.

Same is the case with Thomas More, you can use this same principle. It does not matter what he did prior to his final act. The final act shows a true allegiance to God, Truth and the Church.

When it comes to Hitler, Stalin, and Manson, what did these people do that were so religiously profound? Did they give their lives for the Truth, God and the Church?

So without going in to any issues on culpability or deep in to moral theology, you should see that calling Thomas More a saint is consistent with others who we call saints like St. Paul and St. Augustine and many many many more.

One day you might be proclaimed a saint

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

If killing heretics is on the side of truth, then count me out! Jesus is Truth and he does not ask us to incinerate those who dissent from his teachings.

Aaah, severe misunderstanding here.

When I said ‘side of the truth’, the fact that the reformation was a heresy WAS TRUE. So Thomas More was on the side of the TRUE TEACHING. Burning heretics at the stake however was of-course the WRONG course of action.

So nothing to worry, no one is asking for you to burn a heretic to gain sainthood

God Bless

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And what of Hitler and Stalin and Manson and all the other murderers who believe what they are doing is good? Saints?

I would be delighted to respond to your question when you respond to mine. I asked first.

In the scenario I gave (let me repeat it here for you)
Here is man A. Man A does not believe that masturbation is a mortal sin. Why? First, he was never taught this truth. Second, all the people he honored, from his own parents to qualified medical doctors to his own pastor, told him that it was ‘normal and natural’.

So man A commits this mortal sin over and over, never knowing it is a sin.

So when he dies, is he going to hell because of those sins, even if he never realized he was committing mortal sin? Inquiring minds want to know.

Kindly answer the question. Does a man who was never taught that a mortal sin (masturbation) is a sin, and indeed was informed by the most reliable sources (parents, medical experts, and religious authorities) that this was not sinful --having ‘committed that sin’ many times. . .go to hell for those mortal sins?

Please answer. It’s simple–either, “yes he does even though he didn’t know he was sinning mortally” or ‘no he doesn’t, because he didn’t know’.

And please cite the relevant passage from the Catechism to explain your answer.

 

[ddarko]

I would be delighted to respond to your question when you respond to mine. I asked first.

In the scenario I gave (let me repeat it here for you)
Here is man A. Man A does not believe that masturbation is a mortal sin. Why? First, he was never taught this truth. Second, all the people he honored, from his own parents to qualified medical doctors to his own pastor, told him that it was ‘normal and natural’.

So man A commits this mortal sin over and over, never knowing it is a sin.

So when he dies, is he going to hell because of those sins, even if he never realized he was committing mortal sin? Inquiring minds want to know.

Kindly answer the question. Does a man who was never taught that a mortal sin (masturbation) is a sin, and indeed was informed by the most reliable sources (parents, medical experts, and religious authorities) that this was not sinful --having ‘committed that sin’ many times. . .go to hell for those mortal sins?

Please answer. It’s simple–either, “yes he does even though he didn’t know he was sinning mortally” or ‘no he doesn’t, because he didn’t know’.

And please cite the relevant passage from the Catechism to explain your answer.

Actually, if I may answer that, though the person might not have been taught, it is possible that he was aware through natural law that there was something wrong about it. I am sure even most non-Catholics would admit there is something that does not feel right about Masturbation. After-all, how many atheist do you know who would tell you ''yea, I masturbate like crazy"?

Therefore I think it is not possible to claim Ignorance to that level of it being invincible ignorance. The true answer to your question is, only God can judge whether it is a mortal sin in that case.

God Bless

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually, if I may answer that, though the person might not have been taught, it is possible that he was aware through natural law that there was something wrong about it. I am sure even most non-Catholics would admit there is something that does not feel right about Masturbation. After-all, how many atheist do you know who would tell you ''yea, I masturbate like crazy"?

Therefore I think it is not possible to claim Ignorance to that level of it being invincible ignorance. The true answer to your question is, only God can judge whether it is a mortal sin in that case.

God Bless

Thanks.
But the point I was trying to make with antihippy is that he was ‘assuming’ that St. Thomas ‘should have known’ that ‘killing people’ was ‘evil’ and that since St. Thomas “never repented” doing this evil, he should never have been 'sainted.

I was trying to make the point that we have absolutely no indication that St. Thomas thought that the laws of the land were ‘unfair.’ In fact, since St. Thomas later went to the block himself over a law that he thought was ‘wrong’, a reasonable deduction to make is that if he HAD felt the law on heresy was unjust, he would have protested. (I cited a passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia earlier which also mentioned that St. Thomas thought the laws on heresy were just).

And that being the case, I brought the further example that IF a person did not think an action was ‘sinful’, then the person could not be guilty of MORTAL sin. (which requires grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent) This is where the ‘man A’ came in as an example.

The point that I keep trying to make is that antihippy has absolutely no basis whatsoever to claim:

A. That St. Thomas More not only ‘knew’ that killing heretics was ‘wrong’ and evil, he did it anyway.
B. He never ‘repented’ of freely doing ‘evil.’
C. Thus, he should not be a saint and anybody who ‘supports’ him is condoning evil.

But antihippy keeps trying to turn this into a ‘you moral relativist’ (which I am not) or to compare St. Thomas to various ‘mass murderers’.

I simply want him to stop and THINK. Where is his PROOF that St. Thomas More not only viewed the capital punishment of heresy as EVIL, engaged in evil anyway, and NEVER REPENTED? How does he get off presenting this as ‘fact’ and in trying to claim that anybody who doesn’t think as he does is some kind of moral villain?

I don’t mind discussing all sorts of historical ‘who-dunits’ (personally I do not think Richard III murdered the boys in the tower, my money is on Henry VII). … but people need to SUPPORT THEIR PREMISES.

I brought in the Catechism and the Encyclopedia (New Advent) to support mine.

 

[estesbob]

If killing heretics is on the side of truth, then count me out! Jesus is Truth and he does not ask us to incinerate those who dissent from his teachings.

You are aware that being a Saint means one is in heaven. Since you have a problem with St. Thomas Moore being declared a Saint it would appear you are convinced he is burning in hell. Such a opinion and would be indication of two things:

1. You believe the Church is incompetent
2. You believe some sins are unforgivable

I was wondering if there any other sins you believe are unforgivable. How about denying Jesus? How about doubting Jesus? How about participating in the stoning of one of Jesus disciple’s ?