How can we call Thomas Moore a saint?

[ddarko]

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.

Oh yes you are absolutely right!. During St. More’s time, the burning of heretics was considered a good thing by people in authority.

That is why I said even in the case with Masturbation, since it is hard for us to judge what went on in the mind of the person, it is only God who can judge. So yes, your masturbation example highlights the point very well. Just as we can’t judge where the person would go in that case, we can’t judge where Thomas More would go just based on the burning of heretics. We do not know if St. Thomas More repented or whether the situation was such that it is possible that there was invincible ignorance.

But considering that Thomas More is definitely considered a saint, it would appear that St. Thomas More did repent at some point in time about such actions, or was in a position of invincible ignorance on the matter. In either case, we know he is a saint for sure because the Church has declared that

Sorry I misunderstood your point before.

God Bless

 

[antihippy79]

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?

I agree with you…King Henry is not Saint either.

 

[antihippy79]

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.

I am thinking. I just think you are incorrect in your understanding of mortal sin and its requirements. STM wrote Utopia and is regarded as one of the greatest political thinkers in human history. In his Utopia there are no state sanctioned executions and certainly there is no human incineration (why do you put that in quotes?). There is little doubt in my mind that STM knew that burning another person alive was a moral evil. His Utopia was void of moral evils…including his actions as Chancellor. For me to cede your point of his ignorance of the evil of human incineration I would have to believe that one of the most sophisticated political authors was ignorant of a basic tenant of human dignity. In fact, the act of burning a heretic (who really was a just a traitor as a crime of heresy was disobedience to the crown) was specifically designed to stoke fear in any other potential heretics. Its torturous attributes were obvious to any discerning Christian and certainly STM was more discerning than most! I think he is guilty of burning people alive and for the culpability it brings, you seem to disagree. God may have forgiven him at his judgment, but that is beyond the scope of my question. I am stuck with stubborn Earthly history. As an historian…I also do not believe we can transfer mores across culture or time. As a Christian, morals do transfer across all human hearts in all time. You do a disservice to the great mind of STM to transfer some imagined innocence of the evils of human incineration. He was not innocent at all, or certainly his actions were not. He committed a crime against God’s children and his guilt it Christ’s to forgive, not yours.

 

[ddarko]

I am thinking. I just think you are incorrect in your understanding of mortal sin and its requirements. STM wrote Utopia and is regarded as one of the greatest political thinkers in human history. In his Utopia there are no state sanctioned executions and certainly there is no human incineration (why do you put that in quotes?). There is little doubt in my mind that STM knew that burning another person alive was a moral evil. His Utopia was void of moral evils…including his actions as Chancellor. For me to cede your point of his ignorance of the evil of human incineration I would have to believe that one of the most sophisticated political authors was ignorant of a basic tenant of human dignity. In fact, the act of burning a heretic (who really was a just a traitor as a crime of heresy was disobedience to the crown) was specifically designed to stoke fear in any other potential heretics. Its torturous attributes were obvious to any discerning Christian and certainly STM was more discerning than most! I think he is guilty of burning people alive and for the culpability it brings, you seem to disagree. God may have forgiven him at his judgment, but that is beyond the scope of my question. I am stuck with stubborn Earthly history. As an historian…I also do not believe we can transfer mores across culture or time. As a Christian, morals do transfer across all human hearts in all time. You do a disservice to the great mind of STM to transfer some imagined innocence of the evils of human incineration. He was not innocent at all, or certainly his actions were not. He committed a crime against God’s children and his guilt it Christ’s to forgive, not yours.

I think you did not understand TantumErgo’s point.

(First as an aside, In Utopia, there are no burnings at the stake because there were no heretics In case you did not notice, there were no atheist either… how do you think that happened )

But yea, in short, Tantum Ergo is simply pointing out to you the fact that you or we are in no position to say whether Thomas More was guilty of moral sin. As with the example of masturbation he presented, it is impossible to say what was going through the mind of Thomas More. It is possible that either he repented later on for his sins or he did those actions under invincible ignorance.

Therefore, it is only God who can judge Thomas More in this case. Considering the fact that the Catholic Church has deemed him a saint, it appears that either Thomas More repented or he clearly satisfied invincible ignorance.

Now even if the above does not make much sense to you, from a logical perspective, you should be able to see why St. Thomas More can indeed be called a saint. His crimes are no less than those of St. Paul whose writings we accept as being part of the word of God. So we are simply treating St. Thomas More with the same way we treat the case of St. Paul.

So in short, all saints, other than the Holy Virgin Mary were all sinners once. We do not call them saints for their sins . On the contrary, we call them sinners for their greater sacrifice, sometimes with their own lives, for God.

I hope this clarified your issue.

God Bless

 

[estesbob]

I am thinking. I just think you are incorrect in your understanding of mortal sin and its requirements. STM wrote Utopia and is regarded as one of the greatest political thinkers in human history. In his Utopia there are no state sanctioned executions and certainly there is no human incineration (why do you put that in quotes?). There is little doubt in my mind that STM knew that burning another person alive was a moral evil. His Utopia was void of moral evils…including his actions as Chancellor. For me to cede your point of his ignorance of the evil of human incineration I would have to believe that one of the most sophisticated political authors was ignorant of a basic tenant of human dignity. In fact, the act of burning a heretic (who really was a just a traitor as a crime of heresy was disobedience to the crown) was specifically designed to stoke fear in any other potential heretics. Its torturous attributes were obvious to any discerning Christian and certainly STM was more discerning than most! I think he is guilty of burning people alive and for the culpability it brings, you seem to disagree. God may have forgiven him at his judgment, but that is beyond the scope of my question. I am stuck with stubborn Earthly history. As an historian…I also do not believe we can transfer mores across culture or time. As a Christian, morals do transfer across all human hearts in all time. You do a disservice to the great mind of STM to transfer some imagined innocence of the evils of human incineration. He was not innocent at all, or certainly his actions were not. He committed a crime against God’s children and his guilt it Christ’s to forgive, not yours.

What insight into St. Thomas Moore’s life you have is
that eluded the church ? It appears the only thing you know about St. Thomas Moore’s life is that four heretics were burned when he was Chancellor.

 

[antihippy79]

What insight into St. Thomas Moore’s life you have is
that eluded the church ? It appears the only thing you know about St. Thomas Moore’s life is that four h aeretics were burned when he was Chancellor.

Now you’re just being mean!

 

[estesbob]

Now you’re just being mean!

I’m not being mean. I very specifically asked you justify your position that the Catholic Church was wrong in declaring St. Thomas Moore a Saint The man had very long and rich life and wrote brilliantly about the problems facing the church during his time. He accepted death rather than deny his faith The works of St. Thomas Moore are still read today and have led millions to greater understanding of their faith. And yet all you seem to know about him is that four heretics were burned at the stake while he was Chancellor. I ask you again -what insight you have in his life that eluded the church?

 

[antihippy79]

I’m not being mean. I very specifically asked you justify your position that the Catholic Church was wrong in declaring St. Thomas Moore a Saint The man had very long and rich life and wrote brilliantly about the problems facing the church during his time. He accepted death rather than deny his faith The works of St. Thomas Moore are still read today and have led millions to greater understanding of their faith. And yet all you seem to know about him is that four heretics were burned at the stake while he was Chancellor. I ask you again -what insight you have in his life that eluded the church?

I suppose none. But then again, I’m not the one determaining his Sainthood. Just a guy asking questions of my fellow Catholics. Not sure where you get the number of “millions” led to a greater understanding of their faith. But maybe he did. There is much I admire about STM. I just don’t feel we should white wash his sins, or any other Saint’s failings. Most of the arguments I’ve seen so far either obfiscate, equivocate or minimize truly evil behavior.

While lost in the weeds with his St. Paul arguement, I do think DDarko’s (fantastic movie by the way) arguement is most logical. Unfortunately it is circular in nature. The Catholic Church is always right. The CC deems STM a Saint. Should be be a Saint? Yes, because the CC said so. It’s an appeal to authority argument and does not validate the premise any more than claiming the infallability of the Mormon Prophet would prove the claims of the Mormon Church. The “because my Church says so” arguement is philosphical toilet water.

 

[TedDC]

I think you do not understand what makes a Saint. The person that makes on a Saint is God (well actually, three persons). A Saint is one that is admitted into Heaven directly. This is the first requirement. Then the Church investigates and claims this to be so, and deems the person a worthy example. This is an infallible act of the Church. So it is a matter of Faith that we accept that God deemed St. Thomas More worthy of entering heaven.

As to the deaths that occurred, yes in the sixteenth century a bunch of people suffered execution while St. Thomas More was Chancellor. During the presidenciens of Lincoln and Washingon, there were also people executed. Of course by then, society had developed more civilized laws in regard to executions and people weren’t burned, but children of God still died. Under Moses, a whole city was killed off at the direct order of God.

Who are we to question the Almighty God, who authored life and to whom all owe their existence?

God doesn’t declare anyone to be a saint - men do.

 

[PPeterson]

These action did not happen “in our own time”. We simply can not hold people of other time eras to the same sensibility of our time. This is the mistake critics make when looking at the Old Testament and say that God is cruel. The historical context is essential in understanding any event.

LOL.
logical, balanced, nuance beliefs = “common sense” when you agree, “relativism” when you don’t.

 

[limabeanerson]

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?

Well, you are questioning/disagreeing with at least two of the teachings of the Catholic Church which you are a part of.

I’m not questioning your faith in Jesus Christ per say since there are many extremely faithful (if misguided) protestants. I believe you are asking your questions in order to better understand this topic which is a good thing. The problem I see with your questions are that you start out saying basically that STM should not be a saint. You begin with the assumption that you are right about this Saint. I would argue its better to assume the Catholic Church (which was around at the time of STM and knew him and ALL his actions far better than we do) is right about things while questioning them. Sometimes it takes Faith to be a Catholic.

I honestly don’t mean to offend you at all and I recognize that you are attempting to find the Truth about this topic and that’s always a good thing…Maybe I’m just being overly critical in my reading of your comments. Sorry.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

God doesn’t declare anyone to be a saint - men do.

Really? So you have proof that God doesn’t speak to humanity? That there is simply nobody other than ‘men’ who speak?

When God spoke through the authors of Sacred Scripture, were the words ‘what men said’ or what God said through them? Where is the Scripture that says that God will now be silent?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I suppose none. But then again, I’m not the one determaining his Sainthood. Just a guy asking questions of my fellow Catholics. Not sure where you get the number of “millions” led to a greater understanding of their faith. But maybe he did. There is much I admire about STM. I just don’t feel we should white wash his sins, or any other Saint’s failings. Most of the arguments I’ve seen so far either obfiscate, equivocate or minimize truly evil behavior.

While lost in the weeds with his St. Paul arguement, I do think DDarko’s (fantastic movie by the way) arguement is most logical. Unfortunately it is circular in nature. The Catholic Church is always right. The CC deems STM a Saint. Should be be a Saint? Yes, because the CC said so. It’s an appeal to authority argument and does not validate the premise any more than claiming the infallability of the Mormon Prophet would prove the claims of the Mormon Church. The “because my Church says so” arguement is philosphical toilet water.

Actually, as others have mentioned, “The Catholic Church” is not the one ‘declaring him a saint’,

God (the Holy Spirit, the One whom Jesus sent to ‘lead us to all truth’) has determined and has spoken through the Church.

The Church doesn’t have the ‘power’ to ‘make’ people saints. But the Church does have the power and the authority to proclaim what God has revealed to His people.

Or don’t you think that God has the power to do what He wills?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Nobody is whitewashing people’s sins.

But you know, St. Paul never proclaimed himself a saint. God made it known through His Church that St. Paul is in heaven. . .and you seem to accept that without difficulty, even when Scripture itself not only records that St. Paul persecuted (and that means killed) Christians before he converted, St. Paul even refers to himself as the worst of sinners. Yet somehow ‘the worst of sinners’ was made (by God) one of the saints above. Why can you accept God’s judgment (proclaimed by the Church) about St. Paul, but you can’t accept it about St. Thomas More?

 

[JReducation]

I don’t understand how we can call Thomas More a saint. The main burnt several people alive…

From Wikipedia…

“In total there were six heretics burned at the stake during More’s Chancellorship: Thomas Hitton, Thomas Bilney, Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbery, Thomas Dusgate, and James Bainham. Burning at the stake had long been a standard punishment for heresy—about thirty burnings had taken place in the century before More’s elevation to Chancellor, and burning continued to be used by both Catholics as well as Protestants during the religious upheaval of the following decades.”

It is disgusting to think that someone who aided in the incineration of children of God should be called a saint. The argument that it was common practice at the time is ridiculous…burning a man alive is an assault on our conscience in any time.

Anyone have an answer to this concern?

A decree of canonization is an infallible decree. We do not have a choice in the matter. Once the pope has declared that someone is a saint, the faithful must give their assent. In the decree of canonization the pope actually orders the Church to practice a public cult to the saint. What is not mandated is personal devotion to the saint.

But yes, you must call him Saint Thomas More and you must believe that he is in heaven and intercedes for the Church. This has been proven and confirmed by an infallible statement. We do not get to choose who goes to heaven. God chooses that. We only get to know about some of those who are in heaven through the study of their lives and through the miracles that happen through their intercession.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A decree of canonization is an infallible decree. We do not have a choice in the matter. Once the pope has declared that someone is a saint, the faithful must give their assent. In the decree of canonization the pope actually orders the Church to practice a public cult to the saint. What is not mandated is personal devotion to the saint.

But yes, you must call him Saint Thomas More and you must believe that he is in heaven and intercedes for the Church. This has been proven and confirmed by an infallible statement. We do not get to choose who goes to heaven. God chooses that. We only get to know about some of those who are in heaven through the study of their lives and through the miracles that happen through their intercession.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Right. When God has spoken, and He wants to make it clear to His people what He has said, He does give the Church the authority to proclaim in such matters of faith and morals His ineffable and infallible teachings.

Some posters seem to think that the Pope --or even groups of ‘plain men’ (the commission set up to investigate) just 'examine the evidence and then ‘make a decision’ without God being involved at all. But that is not the case. The Church listens to what God says to them and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit they are able to discover what God wants to communicate to us, and then to teach what God wants us to hear.

 

[Rence]

A decree of canonization is an infallible decree. We do not have a choice in the matter. Once the pope has declared that someone is a saint, the faithful must give their assent. In the decree of canonization the pope actually orders the Church to practice a public cult to the saint. What is not mandated is personal devotion to the saint.

But yes, you must call him Saint Thomas More and you must believe that he is in heaven and intercedes for the Church. This has been proven and confirmed by an infallible statement. We do not get to choose who goes to heaven. God chooses that. We only get to know about some of those who are in heaven through the study of their lives and through the miracles that happen through their intercession.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

We are required to call him “Saint Thomas More”? What sin are we committing if we leave out the “Saint”? How is sainthood proven and confirmed? In other words, what backs up the infallible statement? In this case, how was it determined that Thomas More is in heaven? Of course the only One who gets to pick and choose who goes to Heaven is God, but how does man know who goes to heaven? Who tells him? I don’t understand how God reveals the afterlife status of someone to others here who are still living.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Has anyone explained the executions in light of the CCC’s teaching on capital punishment?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We are required to call him “Saint Thomas More”? What sin are we committing if we leave out the “Saint”? How is sainthood proven and confirmed? In other words, what backs up the infallible statement? In this case, how was it determined that Thomas More is in heaven? Of course the only One who gets to pick and choose who goes to Heaven is God, but how does man know who goes to heaven? Who tells him? I don’t understand how God reveals the afterlife status of someone to others here who are still living.

Short answer: God.

Either you trust that He speaks through the Church. . .or you don’t.

If you trust that He does, then you have the freedom of that trust.

If you don’t. . .well then, who DO you think He speaks through?. Because if you ‘think’ you hear Him, but you don’t have any authority except your ‘feeling’, your feeling can be an error. Instead of being free, you’re in a prison where there is no way to ‘know’ what God is speaking, no one to trust to have ‘the truth.’

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Has anyone explained the executions in light of the CCC’s teaching on capital punishment?

Have you found the Church’s teaching on capital punishment to say, "No government has now, or has ever had, the right to determine whether an individual can be condemned to death?’