How can we call Thomas Moore a saint?

[pnewton]

I think when some one posts here and says they are Catholic, yet compare Church teaching to toilet water, there is cause for suspicion as to just what kind of Catholic, if any they are. If we are to disregard the teaching and the decisions of the Catholic Church, then we realy have no common ground, regardless of the label placed on the profile.

If a Catholic does not find any spiritual benefit in St. Thomas More, then simply do not read about him, or honor him in any way. Seek some other form of spirituality. There is no need to tear others down for one’s own spiritual growth.

 

[Prophesy]

I already answered this objection, but your sarcasm must be a product of your abundant Christian charity.

And your answer must be the product of your abundant understanding of philosophy.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
St. Thomas Moore’s confession don’t need to be written down, we know that he went to confession. There’s also the understanding of heresy in the times (whereas the fear of heretics leading lambs astray, refusing to confess, was punishable as was blasphemy according to Scripture). But I’m not saying that we should reinstate blasphemy laws since we live in a very different society (and now I have to say that time is a matter because we are affected by our societies and our understandings are influenced by the cultures we are in.

But as has been said, St. Thomas Moore’s example is one to orthodoxy and devotion. But it’s only earthly action that will move a person to venerability, not canonization.

And yes, I know you claim to know the process of canonization, but it is from miracles attributed to St. Thomas Moore, after his death, that he was canonized.

-Prophesy

 

[estesbob]

. I am curious if anybody knows if the Chancellor of England had the power to commute death sentences? I thought that was a power reserved for the King? It would seem this would be an important thing to know as if Thomas Moore had no power to commute the sentences there really is no room to criticize him over the executions.

 

[Ben_F]

If I started questioning the rights of Saints to be Saints, then I believe that I’m coming awful close to judging God’s judgments. What do you think? I read a book once that talked about Jesus and Peter. Jesus knew that Peter would deny Him three times and and yet He still gave him the Keys to the Kingdom. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[roveau]

Even IF any of that were true, then you would have to answer the question, “Why is St. Paul a Saint?” He murdered and persecuted many Christians before his conversion.

The answer is simple to see from this perspective…I hope.

The only problem with this argument is that St Paul had a massive conversion after he killed those people.

This is an interesting question and I’m sure someone that has studied the life of St Thomas will be able to shed light on this.

 

[roveau]

If I started questioning the rights of Saints to be Saints, then I believe that I’m coming awful close to judging God’s judgments. What do you think? I read a book once that talked about Jesus and Peter. Jesus knew that Peter would deny Him three times and and yet He still gave him the Keys to the Kingdom. God bless:thumbsup:

Oops I should have written ‘after he was supposed to have killed…’. I really am sorry.

Ben it is a legitimate question for we are going to have that question about St Thomas levelled at us by unbelievers and perhaps some Protestants. So, it would be good to have a ready answer.

CAF is a forum to examine ordinary and controversial questions without fear of censure unless there is a clear intention to abuse the forum.

 

[pnewton]

Ben it is a legitimate question for we are going to have that question about St Thomas levelled at us by unbelievers and perhaps some Protestants. So, it would be good to have a ready answer.

CAF is a forum to examine ordinary and controversial questions without fear of censure unless there is a clear intention to abuse the forum.

That is the intent of the **apologetics **forum. This forum is on spirituality, where the authority of the Catholic Church is presumed. From a Catholic point of view, the elevation directly into heaven was God’s decision, His judgement. No Catholic should question the judgement of God. If one does not relate to one specific area of spirituality, then move to something else, but to not tear down others.

 

[JReducation]

If I started questioning the rights of Saints to be Saints, then I believe that I’m coming awful close to judging God’s judgments:

This is a very good point.

The only problem with this argument is that St Paul had a massive conversion after he killed those people.

This is an interesting question and I’m sure someone that has studied the life of St Thomas will be able to shed light on this.

The problem with the argument against St. Thomas is that we’re forgetting that he was a martyr. The Church recognizes this fact. A person is canonized for having lived a life of extraordinary virtue. When you look at St. Thomas More, how much more extraordinary can you get. The man chooses to take his chance with execution rather than compromise his faith.

Someone mentioned miracles after death. The miracles are not necessary for canonization. They are the part of the process that the popes can dispense with. However, we keep them in the process, because they serve a purpose. They confirm what the Church has concluded about the perosn. That being said, we know of at least three saints where there was no beatification and no required miracles. All of this was waved: Francis of Assisi, Clare of Assisi and Anthony of Padua. Francis’ canonization was based on the pope’s personal knowledge of the man. They had been very good friends for many years. They important piece is the extraordinary life of virtue.

If we look at More’s life very closely, this was a man of prayer, penance, poverty, uncompromising faith, absolute obedience to the Church, and a man of courage. Whatever his crimes against heretics may have been have to be looked at in the context of the time and the Church in which he lived, not our time. If you take saints out of their historical context, they cease to be the people they are. One has to ask, “Did More act contrary to conscience and moral law?” The answer is, “No.”

The moral law has not changed. We do not advocate the execution of people for heresy. However, we do not condone heresy either. In that time period, it was believed that the only protection against heresy was execution. The use of the death penalty as a last resort continues to be part of our moral law. Notice, “last resort”.

Today, we have other means to combat heresy. In addition, heresy today does not pose physical threats. At that time, the battle between Catholics and heretics was often war. These people went after each other with violence. I have always tried to understand it by looking at the Muslim world. In many Muslim societies, heresy is often confronted with imprisonment or even death. I do not not condone it. That’s not my point. My point is that this was the mindset of the Western world in which Thomas More lived. Protestants and Catholics believed that the other was a heretic and a threat to the stability of society. Their fears drove their reactions and actions. In this context, one can understand the actions of both sides. They were terrified of each other. I would like to think that we, as a society, have matured over the centuries.

Take away the histeria of the time period and what have you left when you look at Thomas More? A man of great faith, a deep life of prayer, faithful to the Holy See, generous with the poor, a man who lived a penitential life, an individual who was a good father and model husband, and a martyr. That certainly worthy of public veneration and imitation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

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!

More, not Moore.

This has not been 8 pages on the speculation of the sins of St. Thomas More. Only a few of the posts referred to this.

Whether there was sin or not in St. Thomas supposedly ordering executions is open to speculation.

Simply saying the “church teaches us it [capital punishment] is NOT sinful or wrong” is inadequate. One needs to consider all of Catholic moral teaching and its development.

Whether St. Thomas sinned regarding executions is not known nor taught, objectively, by the Catholic Church.

 

[JReducation]

More, not Moore.

This has not been 8 pages on the speculation of the sins of St. Thomas More. Only a few of the posts referred to this.

Whether there was sin or not in St. Thomas supposedly ordering executions is open to speculation.

Simply saying the “church teaches us it [capital punishment] is NOT sinful or wrong” is inadequate. One needs to consider all of Catholic moral teaching and its development.

Whether St. Thomas sinned regarding executions is not known nor taught, objectively, by the Catholic Church.

That’s because at this point, it’s irrelevant. The man died a martyrs death. What else do we want? If that does not expiate his sins, what else will?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

Would someone more knowledgeable than I explain exactly what it was that St. Thomas More and Henry VIII disagreed about? All I remember was something about whether the Church, or the secular powerw had the right to punish prelates who (I think) had stolen from the coffers of the King???

Thanks.

 

[mjs1987]

If he AntiHippy doesnt like STM, He would really dislike Saint Louis IX of France. A lot worse killing happened during his reign under his orders.

Same can be said for Canute IV of Denmark.

Henry II the Holy is a Saint and yet he was quite brutal in his wars in Poland and Italy.

Pope Leo IX led an army on the battlefield.

Olaf II of Norway did cruel things but became a famous saint.

 

[JReducation]

Would someone more knowledgeable than I explain exactly what it was that St. Thomas More and Henry VIII disagreed about? All I remember was something about whether the Church, or the secular powerw had the right to punish prelates who (I think) had stolen from the coffers of the King???

Thanks.

Let’s begin with the fact that relations between Church and King were always fragile in England. Often, there were legitimate complaints on both sides. They did not end with the death of Thomas More.

The issue that got More killed was divorce. Henry wanted a divorce and the papacy denied it. By that time, Henry was furious with the Church, because of the internal conflicts between the bishops and him. The pope’s denial, which was legitimate, was the straw the broke the camels proverbial back.

Henry tried to get Catholics to sign an oath of allegiance to him. In effect, the oath gave the King authority over the Church in England. Henry needed this in order to justify his adulterous marriage. Thomas tried every legal maneuver that he could to avoid signing it.

He was finally arrested, tried and found guilty of treason. That was Hentry’s point of view. Thomas’ point of view was that he was a loyal subject of the King and a faithful servant of the Pope.

The other part that is rarely mentioned in popular books and movies, is that Thomas was a Franciscan. This very important detail gets swept under the rug, because people don’t understand the vocation of the Secular Franciscan Order. Thomas was a Secular Franciscan. In the rule of the order there was a clause that said that no member of the order could pledge allegience to any monarchy that did not submit to the Church. In effect, St. Francis defends the primacy of Church over state. The members of the Order make a solemn vow to obey the rule until death.

Even if Thomas could promise allegience to the King, as long as he did not have to recognize his adulterous marriage, Thomas would have been excommunicated for violating the Rule of St. Francis. That’s the penalty for disobeying Francis of Assisi. He wrote that into all three of his rules for the three orders that he founded. The Church has always enforced it. You disobey Father Francis, you’re excommunicated until you fix it. Pope Honorious sealed the three rules with this clause in effect. Today, the Church allows for allegience to the civil state in all matters, except those that are in conflict with the Church. Then the allegience to the Church takes priority. Obviously the Church defends the moral law and the state does not. That’s the usual conflict between the two. So the regulation is that in those cases where the Church and state are at odds over a moral issue, the Church is the boss.

In any case, Thomas, wanting to be faithful to the Church, as he had promised, accepted the death penalty. Thus he was proclaimed a martyr.

It’s a very complicated story. I’ve simplified it for the sake of fitting it in this window. It’s a beautiful story of faith, courage, honesty and love. Thomas and Henry did not like this conflict at all. They were good friends and they dearly loved each other. It pained both of them to be in this situation. But Henry did not want to lose face and Thomas did not want to be unfaithful. The only logical conclusion was Thomas’ execution.

It’s incredible what sin can do to people who had such a great capacity for love, what it does to relationships between friends, and what it does to a family. It destroyed the More family.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

That’s because at this point, it’s irrelevant. The man died a martyrs death. What else do we want? If that does not expiate his sins, what else will?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I don’t believe dying a martyr’s death simply and completely obviates all other considerations, does it?

Given that dying a martyr’s death is subject to historical information that may be more or less accurate…the manner of death is not the sole criterion for sainthood. That’s my point.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t believe dying a martyr’s death simply and completely obviates all other considerations, does it?

It can. The death of St. Thomas More was a particularly courageous statement of his faith.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t believe dying a martyr’s death simply and completely obviates all other considerations, does it?

Given that dying a martyr’s death is subject to historical information that may be more or less accurate…the manner of death is not the sole criterion for sainthood. That’s my point.

2473 Martyrdom is the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith: it means bearing witness even unto death. The martyr bears witness to Christ who died and rose, to whom he is united by charity. He bears witness to the truth of the faith and of Christian doctrine. He endures death through an act of fortitude. "Let me become the food of the beasts, through whom it will be given me to reach God."

That’s why martyrdom absolves from all sin, just as if it were baptism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[GEddie]

**2473 Martyrdom is the supreme witness **given to the truth of the faith: it means bearing witness even unto death. The martyr bears witness to Christ who died and rose, to whom he is united by charity. He bears witness to the truth of the faith and of Christian doctrine. He endures death through an act of fortitude. “Let me become the food of the beasts, through whom it will be given me to reach God.”

That’s why martyrdom absolves from all sin, just as if it were baptism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

But it doesn’t automatically make you a saint, else Miguel Pro would be there. You still need the miracles.

 

[JReducation]

But it doesn’t automatically make you a saint, else Miguel Pro would be there. You still need the miracles.

Actually, you don’t. This is a rather interesting point and I’m not sure if we may be getting off-topic here. If we are, I apologize to everyone and ask the moderator to delete the post. I can’t just pass up a teaching moment.

You don’t need any miracles for canonization. A canonization is an Ex-Cathedra decree from the pope that he can make with or without any proof. The miracles are for the purpose of complying with the process. But the process is subject to the wishes of the pope. The process was created by the papacy and can be changed by the papacy.

I don’t know if you read some of my other posts on canonization. Just in case, here goes.

Until about the 12th century there was no process of canonization. None of the Apostles, the Blessed Mother, or the Fathers of the Church were ever canonized. It was accepted on faith and confirmed by the faith of Peter.

The process, as we know it, with the study of the person’s life, writings, and other details, the study of the alleged miracles was established in the 1100s. Shortly after it was established, Pope Gregory IX decided to dismiss with it in order to canonize St. Francis of Assisi. Francis was never studied. There was never a beatification. There were plenty of allegations of miracles, but none of them were ever scrutinized. Pope Gregory simply wrote that he believed that Francis was a saint, because he knew him personally. They had been good friends and he knew of his heroic life of virtue.

When Anthony of Padua died, the Franciscans asked the pope to dispense with the miracles and the investigation. The pope, who was a Franciscan and knew Anthony personally, did so. Anthony was canonized, the fastest canonization in history. When Clare died, again the Franciscans asked for the canonization to take place without the study and without the miracles. Another pope, decided that the request was valid. He canonized her about 18 months after her death. After the death of St. Thomas More, the Franciscans again asked and again the Church waved the study of the miracles, based on the argument, which comes from the Fathers, that Thomas had died a martyr’s death. Therefore, no other miracle was needed.

In all the cases above, there have been miracles through the intercessions of these holy men and women. But the miracles are not necessary for the pope to declare, as a statement of faith, that a person is in heaven.

If the Holy Spirit guides the pope to affirm and declare that a person is in heaven, he can declare him a saint and it is binding on the faithful. The Holy Father can also change the rules as he goes along. I remember reading that this happened with Elizabeth Ann Seton. She had two miracles that were proven to have resulted from her intercession. At the time, three miracles were necessary. Finally, the promoter of her cause was able to argue that the third miracle was her life itself… The pope dispensed with the third miracle and canonized her.

As you can see, the miracles are important to strengthen the faith of the people, not necessary to prove that a person is in heaven. The pope’s word is enough. In this case, the Church teaches that a martyr’s death cleans the soul of sin. This goes back to the early Church. It’s part of Tradition. That’s why the Church always venerated the martyrs, not because of the miracles, but because of their martyrdom.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JaredR]

Br. JR,

When you say martyrdom absolves you from all sin, are you referring to the baptism of blood or is this something different? I have not heard that about martyrdom and I would like to know more.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR,

When you say martyrdom absolves you from all sin, are you referring to the baptism of blood or is this something different? I have not heard that about martyrdom and I would like to know more.

Martyrdom is the baptism of blood. It is efficacious to both the already baptized by water and to those who have not been baptized.

The teaching on martyrdom is a very ancient one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF