How can we call Thomas Moore a saint?

[TedDC]

This is a very good point.

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

That sounds a bit like - dare I say it? - the all-purpose battle cry of this forum: moral relativism!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That sounds a bit like - dare I say it? - the all-purpose battle cry of this forum: moral relativism!

As in: We reject moral relativism?

No. It is not ‘moral relativism’ to understand that cultural practices of centuries past may have differed from our own.

The fact is, in 16th century England (or France, or Spain, or Poland, or Russia, or China, or Japan, or Syria, or South America, etc. etc. etc.) there had been no ‘400 years’ of tolerance’ regarding religious beliefs such as we have today. And in fact, that ‘tolerance’ would not itself have come into play had it not been that one religion (Protestant OR Catholic) was not able to ‘conquer’ the other. For while in Brittain the Protestant majority triumphed, there were still ‘pockets’ of Catholicism. And while in France the Catholic majority triumphed, there were still many Protestants.

Faced with the reality that complete eradication might never be ‘possible’, and using strict ‘laws’ to further ‘subjugate’ the ‘minority’ religion, countries explored the possibility as to whether or not it was possible to ‘co-exist’ and found that it was indeed possible. That is what tolerance is --not ‘acceptance’, but ‘putting up with’ something one does NOT accept, because the only other alternative is to DESTROY, and the cost of that destruction is considered ‘too high’. (Ever hear of "PYRRHIC VICTORY? That may help to explain it. It is a victory which comes at so high a cost that it is not finally a victory at all. For example, if there were to be a final World War in which all peoples of the earth fought to a point where only one human being survived, that human could claim his country ‘won’. . .but what would he have won? There would be no ‘future’ for him.)

In the time of St. Thomas More, heresy was considered a capital crime because it ‘killed the soul.’ Today we are so ‘tolerant’ that we ‘accept’ that a person might not believe in complete truth, but it’s enough that he believe in ‘some truth’. Because in our materialistic world we’ve confused the original toleration (which always hoped that with time the heretics would convert to the truth, and which permitted life with that hope) to a wrong idea that it is the ultimate ‘life’ of the person which is more important than him EVER converting to or believing in full truth.

Certainly life is important. But it isn’t important just for the sake of ‘living’, what is important is that one spend one’s life as much as possible in loving and serving Christ on earth, in order that one be prepared to spend one’s eternity doing the same thing in heaven.

Life on earth is not about doing what one pleases, throwing God the occasional ‘bone’ of attendance at some service, or having vaguely spiritual ‘feelings’, all the while focused on whatever one can ‘get out of life’, while patting oneself on the back about how ‘tolerant’ and ‘enlightened’ one is compared to those HORRID people who used to KILL others in the name of religion. We don’t kill over religion now. We laugh about religious differences, we don’t really care about truth because, “what’s true for you might not be for me and besides, as long as we aren’t bad people who kill or steal or are homophobic bigots, we’re going to heaven because we DESERVE IT.”

Poor St. Thomas. He went to the block defending the Church (even when, as Hillaire Belloc notes, it was over a question of Papal supremacy which St. Thomas himself did not understand and in fact would have personally rejected had he not been convinced that this was Truth) and sacrificed himself. . .so that generations later people could sneer that THEY deserved to be saints and that HE did not. . .

 

[StTommyMore]

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?

Thomas More was a martyr, executed for standing with the Church in the face of the tyrant King Henry VIII. You cannot apply modern sensibilities to one who lived 500 years ago. Europe was in the grip of the Reformation. But of course this doesn’t matter. Neither does the fact that under his leadership, executions for heresy decreased dramatically. Just remember that Saint Thomas More was canonized by the Church in her wisdom, and do not rely on the self-professed wisdom on liberal ne’er do wells.

 

[adrift]

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.

please document your opinion

 

[TedDC]

Thomas More was a martyr, executed for standing with the Church in the face of the tyrant King Henry VIII. You cannot apply modern sensibilities to one who lived 500 years ago. Europe was in the grip of the Reformation. But of course this doesn’t matter. Neither does the fact that under his leadership, executions for heresy decreased dramatically. Just remember that Saint Thomas More was canonized by the Church in her wisdom, and do not rely on the self-professed wisdom on liberal ne’er do wells.

Right, the Church relies on her own self-professed wisdom.

 

[estesbob]

Right, the Church relies on her own self-professed wisdom.

What do you think they should rely on?

 

[TedDC]

What do you think they should rely on?

I have no problem with the Church relying on its own wisdom - I was just trying to make the point that it’s not necessarily better than anyone else’s wisdom.

 

[StTommyMore]

I have no problem with the Church relying on its own wisdom - I was just trying to make the point that it’s not necessarily better than anyone else’s wisdom.

Sure it is. The Church’s wisdom is God-granted, directed towards Christ, and guided by the Holy Spirit. Human wisdom is self directed.

 

[TedDC]

Sure it is. The Church’s wisdom is God-granted, directed towards Christ, and guided by the Holy Spirit. Human wisdom is self directed.

So says the Church.

 

[StTommyMore]

So says the Church.

No offense, but I would believe the Church before an individual who’s judgement is cluded because thay are angry with the Church for some reason.

 

[TedDC]

No offense, but I would believe the Church before an individual who’s judgement is cluded because thay are angry with the Church for some reason.

I would believe whoever has the most compelling facts and reasoning.

 

[StTommyMore]

I would believe whoever has the most compelling facts and reasoning.

if this were true, then you would not label yourself as “fallen away”

 

[TedDC]

if this were true, then you would not label yourself as “fallen away”

Obviously we’ve come to different conclusions about the strength of the Church’s claims.

 

[pnewton]

That sounds a bit like - dare I say it? - the all-purpose battle cry of this forum: moral relativism!

Not in the least. I think you do not understand the difference between moral relativism and cultural context. I could be wrong, but since you offered a one-line insult and nothing more, it is hard to say.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I would believe whoever has the most compelling facts and reasoning.

Compelling? Compelling in what way? I have heard people whose brilliance and sincerity and ‘documented sources’ are absolutely top notch come to the most ridiculous possible conclusions, even though they have ‘compelling facts and reasoning.’

To give a tiny sample: Those who argue that the Eucharist is ‘just a symbol’. They can quote Scripture up the wazoo, they can bring all sorts of ‘great minds’ to support them, they have book after book devoted to this, and their ‘logic’ IF one accepts the flawed premise at the heart (that Christ ‘meant’ to speak symbolically only) is also ‘compelling and reasonable.’ But. . .it’s wrong.

Now make no mistake. The Church also has ‘compelling reasoning and facts’ to support ITS premise. But hundreds of thousands of people found the Protestant position "more compelling.’

So. . .there are a billion Catholics; there are (of course) fewer Protestants, at least now. But at some point, maybe there will be as many or even more Protestants than there are Catholics.

Does that mean that (by numbers) Protestantism will be ‘proven’ because there are 'more of them?" No.

So Truth is not simply determined by numbers, and of course, not by whether it is presented ‘most compellingly and reasonably’. A stuttering man who never managed to get through the first grade, IF he is preaching the truth, should be believed over the silver-tongued man with dozens of years of post-doctoral education, if HE is NOT speaking the truth.

That’s the problem with making belief so morally ‘relative’, Ted. It all comes down to you wanting to make all the choices yourself (what has ‘compelled you’) and you’ll then label them as ‘truth for Ted’.

But I’m curious, Ted. You don’t accept the Catholic Church’s teachings (on a few subjects at least) 'for Ted; what about for Tantum though? Am I ‘permitted’ to find the Church’s teachings most ‘compelling and reasonable’ for ME? Or are YOUR beliefs still considered ‘better and more true’ than mine, and if so, why?

 

[TedDC]

Not in the least. I think you do not understand the difference between moral relativism and cultural context. I could be wrong, but since you offered a one-line insult and nothing more, it is hard to say.

“Cultural context” opens a mighty big can of worms. With a little creative thinking, Hitler and Stalin and a bunch of other really bad guys could be next in line for sainthood!

As applied to the present discussion, isn’t “cultural context” nothing more than moral relativism applied on a temporal dimension?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

“Cultural context” opens a mighty big can of worms. With a little creative thinking, Hitler and Stalin and a bunch of other really bad guys could be next in line for sainthood!

As applied to the present discussion, isn’t “cultural context” nothing more than moral relativism applied on a temporal dimension?

no, it isn’t. Why don’t you explain to us just why a culture which did not have our current 400 years’ worth of ‘religious tolerance’ would be expected to behave just exactly as though it had?

 

[Warrenton]

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.

I am curious, what do you suggest we do with people who would destroy the Church, realizing as I am sure you do, that to destroy the Church is to condemn to hell the people that will never receive her message as a result of the destroyer’s actions.

Perhaps it is difficult for you to see the saintliness of St. Thomas More because you do not see the evil in being outside the Church.

The Reformation was a war against the Church. The Church did not win that war; she fought it to a stalemate. As far as we know, all the people who have been caught in “no man’s land” for five hundred years will not be saved.

That’s the tragedy. He wastes his tears who weeps for the unrepentant heretic.

 

[TedDC]

I am curious, what do you suggest we do with people who would destroy the Church, realizing as I am sure you do, that to destroy the Church is to condemn to hell the people that will never receive her message as a result of the destroyer’s actions.

The Catholic Church does not teach that those who never receive her message are condemned to hell.

 

[GEddie]

I am curious, what do you suggest we do with people who would destroy the Church, realizing as I am sure you do, that to destroy the Church is to condemn to hell the people that will never receive her message as a result of the destroyer’s actions.

Those who accept such reasoning evidently do not believe our LORD, since HE said that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against HIS message. The institutional Church is HIS creation, but the message does not belong to those who serve the institution, but to HIM.

The faith survived in Japan for more than 200 years even when “the Church” in the sense of priests and Hierarchy had gone into full abeyance. It survived in the Middle East and in Spain during centuries of Muslim administration. And it survived in England as well, even though it completely lost its anchor to the civil government and went into 300 years of active persecution. There is no “destroying the Church.” It is a Spiritual Body, and those do not die.

On the other hand, a dead human being is dead forever. And those who defend killing him in the name of Faith do weaken the message, because our LORD taught nothing resembling that.

Perhaps it is difficult for you to see the saintliness of St. Thomas More because you do not see the evil in being outside the Church.

There is an evil in being dead, too; and a greater evil in inflicting death on someone else.

The Reformation was a war against the Church. The Church did not win that war; she fought it to a stalemate.

And who’s to know if that may have happened because it played the enemy’s game of death and terror?

As far as we know, all the people who have been caught in “no man’s land” for five hundred years will not be saved.

Say you. We don’t know that, and the Church does not teach that.

I imagine we will see many, if not most, of our Protestant fellow-sinners in Purgatory. And some, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Protestant martyr who died opposing Nazism) may well take us by the hand into Heaven.

That’s the tragedy. He wastes his tears who weeps for the unrepentant heretic.

Any human being who is killed in the name of our LORD deserves our weeping, for the killers even more than for him. Our LORD did not hang by HIS limbs and bleed to death so that we might “go and do likewise” to others in HIS name.

They did not see things the same way back when. But the practices hardly need our defense, either.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.