How can we call Thomas Moore a saint?

  • Thread starter Thread starter antihippy79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
I thought you were Catholic? You dismiss the teachings of the church as toilet water
???

I haven’t seen anybody whitewashes his sins.I have seen people commenting on your assertion that he couldn’t be a St. because you read in Wikipedia that four heretics were burned at the stake while he was Chancellor. Other than the Wikipedia entry have you read anything about St. Thomas Moore’s life.? Have you read any of his voluminous writings? Why would you dismiss the teachings of the church about St. Thomas Moore based on nothing more your reading of an unsourced Internet article?
Click to expand...
Yes I have. Shall we compare our literacy? I even quote STM directly. Maybe you should be fully versed in my posts before you critique my knowledge of STM’s “voluminous writings” (which actually aren’t that voluminous). I would also hope that the sophistication of my arguments, whether you agree or not, would point to a knowledge beyond a wiki article. In fact, I specifically address this claim in an earlier post.

You haven’t seen anyone whitewash his sins? There was an earlier post which argued that the burning of people was both justified and not that bad in light of the fact that the victims were strangled first.
 
antihippy79 said:
Thank you to those of you who responded to my OP. While I appreciated the thoughtful responses, I am always surprised by the uncharitable/snippy responses by Catholic posters on this website. But oh well…

So I see the answers to my concerns falling into a couple categories:
  1. Your source is flawed, therefore the question is invalid (do more research etc.)
  2. STM did not directly incinerate people, therefore he is not responsible.
  3. Other Saints slaughtered people; therefore STM is given a pass as well.
  4. The people burned alive deserved it because they committed other crimes.
  5. I don’t know how a Saint is made, therefore I can’t question who is a Saint. (i.e. the CC says it’s true, therefore it is)
Let’s look at the first answer: that my source is flawed. I only used wikipedia as a convenience citation. I would cite Peter Ackroyd, The Life of Thomas More as an authoritative work on the life of More. He is no anti-Catholic and his work is regarded with respect. He clearly shows More as authorizing the burning of six people (heretics of course). There are numerous other respected historians who back Ackroyd up…take a look for yourself if you like. I do not believe the Church even contradicts the claims of these modern historians. STM himself was a ferevent supporter of the burning of heretics as can be seen in his own writings (see More, “The confutacyon of Tyndales answere” where he calls his first victim/executed a “the devil’s stinking martyr”).

The argument that STM did not directly incinerate people therefore negating his guilt is ridiculous. Whether or not he lit the match under the peoples’ feet is irrelevant. He specifically authorized (and by all accounts I have seen) encouraged the burning of Protestant dissidents. Please show me a source that says otherwise and I would be happy to concede that he did not authorize the burning of people. There is zero evidence that he opposed these murders.

Another interesting answer to my concern was that STM is no different than St. Paul, as Paul also killed people. Of course this answer is a classic example of “two wrongs make a right” and also acts as a Red Herring. St. Paul renounced his sins against Christ and converted. There is no evidence that I have found that STM did any such thing.

A really strange argument is that the people burned alive were deserving of such treatment because, as the poster wrote: “St. Thomas More wasn’t the one who actually burned them. And many of the heretics that were burned were guilty of a number of other things, like enticing rioting, destruction and theft of Church property from their iconoclastic frenzies, the attacking of laymen and clergy, and general gang-like violence…” Certainly these alleged atrocities would not absolve STM of his complicity in burning other human beings. It doesn’t seem very “saintly” behavior at all.

The final answer to my concerns is that I don’t know how a saint is made a Saint. Well…I do (just take my word on it please). One of the posters stated that we honor STM because of his martyrdom and we do not honor him for his actions as a civil administrator. Considering he is the patron Saint of politicians, I would have to disagree with the contention that he is not to be honored for his actions as a…politician. In fact, he was martyred specifically because the political tide turned away from More in the Tudor monarchy.

I basically have a hard time swallowing the idea that a man who intentionally burned (either through participation or authorization) other people and who never renounced his actions should be Sainted. If as Catholics we cannot admit that people who incinerate other humans (unrepentant) deserve to be shunned and not venerated, how can we ever face the atrocities of our own time? Hiding behind intellectual arguments of infallibility won’t get us anywhere with people outside our faith as our justifications appear only as the flawed logic of an appeal to authority.
Click to expand...
I pointed you to the fact that the Catholic Church celebrates, liturgically, Thomas More as a Saint. So, your question is answered, yes?

You can disagree with whether or not he should be considered a saint, that’s fine.
 
St.Thomas More was a man of his times in some ways, it was incomphresensible for both Catholics and Protestants to think of there being tolerated more than one Church in the state at a time. This was for two reasons:religious diversity tends to destabilize the state, and secondly it was considered a moral obligation to suppress religious error. Why was it considered a moral obligation to suppress religious error you might ask…well it stems from the profoundly religious culture of those times heresy was considered(and still is) by the Catholic Church as a sin, and a potentially daming one as well. A heretic was considered a far greater danger to soceity than a murderer because the death the heretic spreads is the death of the soul which is infinitely more serious than the death of the body. St.Thomas More would have had a troubled conscience if he had not excecuted those heretics he would probably think that he had been neglecting his duties, you(the OP) seem to be using a modern perspective to judge the people of the past. Prior to Vatican II it seems the teaching of the Church was that religious error has no rights after Vatican II the stance seemed to change considerably this seeming inconsistancy is a serious doctrinal problem that has yet to be fully resolved. St.Thomas More is a Saint because of his outstanding personal virtue and martyrdom for the faith.
 
antihippy79 said:
I basically have a hard time swallowing the idea that a man who intentionally burned (either through participation or authorization) other people and who never renounced his actions should be Sainted. If as Catholics we cannot admit that people who incinerate other humans (unrepentant) deserve to be shunned and not venerated, how can we ever face the atrocities of our own time? Hiding behind intellectual arguments of infallibility won’t get us anywhere with people outside our faith as our justifications appear only as the flawed logic of an appeal to authority.
Click to expand...
You have to remember serveral things here.
  1. Saints are human beings on a journey. When the Church says that they are in heaven, she’s addressing their state at the time of death. You can certainly have a person who navigages from A to Z. What concerns us, as Catholics is whether or not they reach Z.
  2. In this case, the appeal to authority is not only justifiable, but required by Christ himself. “Whatever you bind shall be bound.” or “He who hears you hears me.” This is Divine Authority to which people are appealing, not the CEO of a company or the President of the USA whose authority is temporal and of human creation.
  3. There is objective evil and subjective culpability. This also enters into the equation in studying the actions of people. Something can be evil and the person can may not be culpable, because he’s acting based on what he knows, not on what we know.
  4. There is communion. To remain part of the Catholic Church one must believe everything that the Church authoritatively teaches. A canonization is an authoritative teaching. The Church does not sned soemone to Heaven. God does that. The Church informs us of what God has done. In this case, we are being told, without the possibility of error, that God has welcomed Thomas More into heaven.
  5. Error is not possible, because this is a statement of faith in which the pope declaring the canonization invokes infallibility. It’s an Ex Cathedra decree just like the Assumption of Mary or the Immaculate Conception. The Church is bringing to a close a question about a person’s holiness, just as it brought to a close the discussions on Mary’s Assumption, her Immaculate Conception, the dual-nature of Christ, the death of the God-Man and many other points that were up for discussion. At some point the Church, in the person of the pope, authoritatively says, “The conversation is over. It is what it is. Take it or leave.” Notice, the Church does not say, “Take it or leave it.” Leaving it is not an option. It’s take it or leave the Church. In fact, the Church makes legal provisions so that she does not have to take the time to show someone the door. That’s what a Latae Sententiae Excommunication is all aboiut. It’s simply a law that says, if you don’t take it, you’re out.
The Church is not particularly interested in the world’s logic if that logic does not submit to faith. Pope Benedict has made this very clear. Reason must be enlightened by faith, not the other way around. If the world’s logic is not guided by faith, then such logic is faulty.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I don’t get it. 🤷 Christopher was never canonized.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, but my point is, “everyone” knows of St. Christopher (whether officially canonized or not). 99% of the world (at least?) assume that “St. Christopher” is “canonized” (according to their understanding). Just look at car dashboards. And somey know that he’s “no longer” an “official” saint. Do they remove their dashboard figure? Or stop wearing their medal? Maybe. Maybe not. A grey area. Unlike dogma.

And whether or not Papal definitions/teachings regarding sainthood are infallibly taught or not is a grey area. Yes, a very high form of papal teaching, authoritative, binding, etc…but no need to bring in the murky “infallibility” issue.
 
diggerdomer said:
Yes, but my point is, “everyone” knows of St. Christopher (whether officially canonized or not). 99% of the world (at least?) assume that “St. Christopher” is “canonized” (according to their understanding). Just look at car dashboards. And somey know that he’s “no longer” an “official” saint. Do they remove their dashboard figure? Or stop wearing their medal? Maybe. Maybe not. A grey area. Unlike dogma.

And whether or not Papal definitions/teachings regarding sainthood are infallibly taught or not is a grey area. Yes, a very high form of papal teaching, authoritative, binding, etc…but no need to bring in the murky “infallibility” issue.
Click to expand...
The Church has declared that a canonizaiton is an infallible statement. That’s not speculation. In fact, it was introduced in the 11th century to avoid complications. Prior to this people were not canonized. They were declared saints by popular culture. Some were right and some were not. Other people were canoniized by a local bishop, which was sometimes right and sometimes wrong. For example, Augustine was never canonized. But that’s one that we go right.

It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: “Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.”

The formula is very telling too.

“In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast.”

The pope issues a binding order to the universal Church. He’s not giving options. He’s not saying, “you may celebrate his memory”. He says, “You MUST celebrate his memory.” It’s not a council speaking, either. It’s the pope speaking from the Chair of Peter. It’s an Ex Cathedra decree.

He is ordering an act of faith. Popes cannot err in ordering acts of faith, as St. Thomas points out.

In cases such as St. Christopher, the position of the Church is very simple. We have no idea if the legend is true or not or even if some parts of it are related to some true story. However, since praying to a saint, even one who never lived, is really praying ot God, because that’s where all prayers are directed, the Church just leaves it alone. There is no harm done. Prayer is prayer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
The Church has declared that a canonizaiton is an infallible statement.
Click to expand...
Reference? Thanks.

I know canonizations are typically communicated by a Decretal Letter, which is a highest form of papal teaching, but I’ve never come across any Church teaching regarding infallibility in this instance.

Thanks!
 
diggerdomer said:
Reference? Thanks.

I know canonizations are typically communicated by a Decretal Letter, which is a highest form of papal teaching, but I’ve never come across any Church teaching regarding infallibility in this instance.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Go to the Summa.{Summa, s.v. Canonizatio}. I believe that EWTN had a good summary of this too. If I find it, I’ll post it here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Here it is.

The pope cannot by solemn definition induce errors concerning faith and morals into the teaching of the universal Church. Should the Church hold up for universal veneration a man’s life and habits that in reality led to [his] damnation, it would lead the faithful into error. It is now theologically certain that the solemn canonization of a saint is an infallible and irrevocable decision of the supreme pontiff. God speaks infallibly through his Church as it demonstrates and exemplifies its universal teaching in a particular person or judges that person’s acts to be in accord with its teaching.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CACANONI.htm

You people and your requirements for documentation on everything are going to drive the rest of us to drink. 😃

As I sadi in another thread, “The Church is not American.” :eek:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Here it is.

**The pope cannot by solemn definition induce errors concerning faith and morals into the teaching of the universal Church. Should the Church hold up for universal veneration a man’s life and habits that in reality led to [his] damnation, it would lead the faithful into error. It is now theologically certain that the solemn canonization of a saint is an infallible and irrevocable decision of the supreme pontiff. **God speaks infallibly through his Church as it demonstrates and exemplifies its universal teaching in a particular person or judges that person’s acts to be in accord with its teaching.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CACANONI.htm

You people and your requirements for documentation on everything are going to drive the rest of us to drink. 😃

As I sadi in another thread, “The Church is not American.” :eek:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Thank you.

But…for me, EWTN does not qualify as the Magisterium.

Good reference, nonetheless.
 
diggerdomer said:
Thank you.

But…for me, EWTN does not qualify as the Magisterium.

Good reference, nonetheless.
Click to expand...
This is where you and other run into problems with the Church. At some point, people are going to either take the Church as she is or leave, because if they persevere on having everything signed, sealed and presented in official magisterial format, it’s not going to happen. The Catholic Church does not function that way. I know that many people have pushed her in that direction and she has resisted. Popes have been the most resistant.

This reminds me of an interview that someone quoted today. I saw the interview, but had forgottten it. It has nothing to do with this subject, but it gives an insight into how the Vatican works. Someone asked Cardinal Arinze about those bishops and priests who give communion to pro-abortion politicians. He said that even a child knew the answer to that question. Then he was asked what the Church was going to do about it. He started to laugh and said, “What do you want us to do, send twelve Swiss Guards to arrest them?” He thought that the question was ridiculous.

One has to understand that he was not being mean. He was trying to help this American be real. This is the Church. We don’t do business the way that Americans do business and we think that the way the Americans do business or want to do business is humorous. As I said to some poeple. The Vatican policy has always been, “Take it or leave.” It has never been “take it or leave it.”

I settled these questions for myself a long time ago, very simply. I figured, if the Church says that there is a Trinity, an Assumption, an Immaculate Conception and none of it is in the bible. I jus take her word for it. I can take her word for it when she tells me that someone is in heaven, especially when they have miracles to prove it. It’s more than they have to prove other things that we believe.

My other one is, “St. Francis was never a pope. However, he said in his rule that if we disobey him, we;re going to hell. and we believe it.” He also said that Jesus himself had told him what to write in the rule, therefore, it cannot be changed. We believe that too. I’ve never heard anyone argue against it.

There are many things that are harnded down to us via different means.

By the way, EWTN just reprinted it. The original was published by Catholic Answers in the Rock Magazine in 1994. You can ask for the references from them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
diggerdomer said:
That may apply to some, but not to me.

I’m simply saying EWTN does not have the same credence for me as the Magisterium does.

That’s all.
Click to expand...
That’s OK, as long as we all understand that not everything has the seal of the Magisterium or needs it to be fact. Much of what we believe has never been signed and sealed by the Magisterium. It has been accpeted from other credible sources. Just look at all the things that we believe.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
That’s OK, as long as we all understand that not everything has the seal of the Magisterium or needs it to be fact. Much of what we believe has never been signed and sealed by the Magisterium. It has been accpeted from other credible sources. Just look at all the things that we believe.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Right. Like “saints”
 
diggerdomer said:
Right. Like “saints”
Click to expand...
That’s right. On the other thread “the hieararchy”, we were talking about this. I gave the example of our rule. Or maybe it was in this thread. Anyway . . .

You have the Rules of St. Benedict, Augustine, Francis, Albert and Basil. None of them come from the Magisterium. However, all forms of religious life in the Church are governed by one of these rules. After St. Francis wrote his rule for the Secular Franciscans, the pope said that no one else could write a new rule for religious life.

From 1223 to this day, every founder of a new religious community has had to go to one of these rules or several of them and take what he or she can use to construct a constitution for his or her community. The content and direction in these rules are accepted without questioning. They are not Magisterial writings. However, they are the models for every religious community in the Church. Most communities use the Rule of St. Augustine, because it’s the most flexible.

Find one lay person, bishop or pope who would say that one can dismiss any of these rules, because they are not magisterial. You won’t They are part of what we believe. St. Francis goes as far as saying that those brothers who vow obedience to his rule an disobey him will go to hell unless they repent. He went as far as have a brother excommunicated, because he disagreed with him. The excommunication was not lifted until the brother recanted. That brother later became Francis’ successor. Francis also punished Anthony of Padua, because he believed it was good for his soul. Anthony suffered a great deal as a result. He dearly loved Francis. But when Anthony went to meet him at Assisi, Francis would not speak to him. Anthony waited for days and finally went bakc to Padua without even an introduction to his superior general. Francis would not allow it. He invoked the rule, which commanded absolute obedience. Anthony accepted it as it was written in the rule.

The Church never declared any of these rules to be infallible. However, the Church put Papal Bulls on all of them and has insisted that they mey not be changed. They can be borrowed by new communities and they can add whatever is not mentioned in the rule, but not change what is in them. We have many things that we belief are right that have never received a Magisterial seal or have been decreed by the Magisterium.

Just last week someone asked me to go for a walk. I went to get permission and could not find the superior. I couldn’t go for that walk. My superior will not allow us to leave the house wihout telling him. When I was superior, I could care less, as long as you were back for your duties. But the rule is very clear, obey without questioning and also, superiors are the canonical successors to the founder. So we believe and we follow.

It’s not just religious who have to believe and comply, whether it’s magisterial or not, as long as it’s authoritative… It’s all of us. It’s part of being Catholic. We simply trust that God will protect his Church and God rewards the faithful man.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Wow!! 8 pages of speculation on the sins of St. Thomas Moore. Unbelievable!

What makes anyone think that St. Thomas ordering these executions was sinful? The church has never condemned capital punishment, and has even used capital punishment in her governance of the Papal States. Capital punishment has been used by the church as late as 1870, and the church has kept an executioner on the payroll until that time.

Execution was legal in the Vatican until 1969, when Pope Paul VI outlawed it.

As much as our modern sensibilities tell us capital punishment is abhorrent (especially burning at the stake), the church teaches us it is NOT sinful or wrong.

There was no sin in St. Thomas ordering theses executions no matter what the OP says! :eek:
 
Rence said:
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.
Click to expand...
C’mon, you’re making a bigger deal out of this than it should be. Even non-Catholics recognize certain saints, if not most of them. Yes, and even some Lutheran (and other denominations) have churches named after saints.
 
PPeterson said:
LOL.
logical, balanced, nuance beliefs = “common sense” when you agree, “relativism” when you don’t.
Click to expand...
No, and no need for laughter or insults. There is a difference between moral relativism and using historical context. That topic is not for this thread or this forum, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top