My only "problem" with St. Thomas More

[Salvatore123]

At the outset, I count St. Thomas More as my patron saint, I have Hans Holbein’s portrait of More hanging above my credenza, and I would put him not very far behind Aquinas in terms of theology, but far above in rhetoric (because of his legal training and analytical mind).

Given that premise, my only “disappointment” with St. Thomas More’s decision to “join Court”.

While it is true that when the King makes a “suggestion”, that is usually understood to be a “command”. Yet from the beginning, after More chose to not lead a Carthusian monk’s life, More actively “courted” a friendship with the young Henry as a boy, he maintained contacts with Henry until Henry ascended the throne, and he did not beg off of being appointed to the King’s Council (the stepping stone for him being named Chancellor of England - second in power only to the King himself).

I realize that no man has a window into any man’s soul. But let’s face facts. Henry was a degenerate womanizer. Not only was he a womanizer from young, but he was KNOWN to be a womanizer and did not hide it very well (if he really intended to hide it at all). Many people do not realize that for Henry to have legally married Anne Boleyn (under then-prevailing Church law), he would not only have needed a dispensation from the Pope to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon declared null, but he would have need a second dispensation to marry Anne because Henry had a well-publicized affair with Anne’s sister - another impediment to marrying Anne Boleyn.

Considering that EVERYONE knew Henry’s lifestyle, his clear demonstration that he could not have made a good act of contrition (considering he was womanizing on a weekly if not almost daily basis by contemporary accounts, and made absolutely no effort to indicate he was going to "avoid the near occasion of sin - good grief! the man sought out sin!!!) during confession, and yet he received communion DAILY.

How does service to such a man as Henry VIII by More, differ from a bishop’s or cardinal’s “service” to an American politican who calls himself or herself “Catholic”, and yet supports partial birth abortion, by not only permitting that person to receive Holy Communion, but actually giving Holy Communion to that person (this is well documented by Cardinal Law for the Kennedys before he was rightfully called to Rome to spend his “retirement”).

I would love to here comments/observations.

And I end with the statement: I truly revere and pray to More. I know we are all human, but let’s face it - More was a cut above the norm.

 

[St_Francis]

I think it’s very difficult to judge the actions of a saint because they are more likely to better understand God’s will for them. Perhaps St Thomas More was following God’s will in this regard, and would not have done what he did had he followed his own desires.

 

[Sonny1954]

I also admire St. Thomas More. I do not hold his 16th century actions to the standard of 21st century issues (like partial-birth abortion, which was irrelevant in More’s lifetime.) Thomas committed no sin in obeying the King’s command to courtly service. More tried very discreetly to dissuade Henry from his course of annulment/divorce and remarriage. Even Cardinal Wolsey tried to dissuade him. The Pope at the time even suggested that Henry consider accepting a special dispensation to have two wives simultaneously. But in the end, it was Henry’s doing, not More’s. When Thomas’ conscience would no longer allow him to be publically associated with the King’s new policies, he resigned; and was later beheaded for it.

By the way, in medieval Europe, the Church very frequently turned a blind eye to the sexual habits of Christian Monarchs. Charlemagne, for example, who considered himself practically the Pope’s right hand man, had over 20 children out of wedlock with a dozen mistresses, and he publically acknowledged them all before God and the Church. Because he so strongly supported Vatican policies in other areas, the Pope evidenced no difficulty with this.

Actually, the request that Henry VIII made of Pope Clement (I believe) was not that uncommon among the crowned heads of Europe, and Henry fully expected his annulment to be granted. That is was not granted had to do with the Spanish Emperor’s siezing the Vatican and holding the Pope as a virtual prisoner, and not from any moral issue.

More had virtually nothing to do with any of this. There is no reason not to venerate him.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

My take on it is similar to how Scripture describes marriage to an “infidel” partner. Through the godly example of the faithful spouse, the heathen spouse can be brought to faith. So to with Thomas. By placing himself within the king’s court, he may have been attempting to exert the “influence of example” for Henry. Unfortunately, aside from being a degenerate womanizer, Henry was also an egotistical megalomaniac who was very easily duped by flattery. This is how Thomas Boleyn was able to use his daughters Mary and Anne to manipulate him, and how Thomas Cromwell was able to supplant More and antagonize Henry into eventually executing More for treason, an act which Henry came to regret for the rest of his life. More was Henry’s best friend at one point and most trusted advisor, because More did not display the arrogant ambition that many of the other’s in the court did (such as the aforementioned Cromwell, Boleyn, and Charles Brandon - 1st Duke of Suffolk).

Thomas More displayed the evangelical style of St. Francis of Assisi “Preach the Gospel constantly, when necessary, use words.” More’s life is an example of the humble life of submission we are called to. It is said that when Charles, Holy Roman Emperor and nephew of Catherine of Aragon learned of Thomas More’s execution, he lamented saying, “I would willfully loose an entire city for a councellor such as he.”

Thomas More may very well have realized that due to Henry’s aggressive and self-aggrandizing personality, the direct approach would have gotten him thrown out of court (and completely unable to influence the king at all) or beheaded (which happened anyway). More was instrumental in influencing the king in his attack on the Lutheran heresy and for staving off for the life of Henry’s reign the subversive influence of German Reformationism. Yes, Henry in his ego sought to be head of the church as others (Thomas Cromwell and Boleyn) egged him on to be, a notion that More strongly protested. But, after the bishops of England relented and submitted to Henry, More’s influence can be felt in the Articles of Faith drafted by Henry, particularly with regard to the subject of the real presence in the Eucharist. So, More played his part. He did what he could following the call of God. I believe these are the reasons why he was cannonized.

 

[ab75]

By the way, in medieval Europe, the Church very frequently turned a blind eye to the sexual habits of Christian Monarchs. Charlemagne, for example, who considered himself practically the Pope’s right hand man, had over 20 children out of wedlock with a dozen mistresses, and he publically acknowledged them all before God and the Church. Because he so strongly supported Vatican policies in other areas, the Pope evidenced no difficulty with this.

Actually, the request that Henry VIII made of Pope Clement (I believe) was not that uncommon among the crowned heads of Europe, and Henry fully expected his annulment to be granted. That is was not granted had to do with the Spanish Emperor’s siezing the Vatican and holding the Pope as a virtual prisoner, and not from any moral issue.

I would suspect a clear view of the sexual lifestyles of many clergy and high ranking Church officials and secular authorities in the Church, and the way the Church dealt with them between the 4th and 18th centuries would certainly open many eyes to most modern Catholics. It’s hard for us to fully comprehend how political the Church was, and the ways many Popes, cardinals, Bishops, Priests came to be. It’s also hard for us to comprehend a society where the priests and religous were the MOST prestigous and sought after positions, attracting the most influential.

In fact, this is one of the reasons we have seperation of Church and State. Our founders saw just how easy it was for the state to corrupt the Church. Now, our church leaders are free from secular authorities to shephard the flock as they see fit.

 

[ab75]

My take on it is similar to how Scripture describes marriage to an “infidel” partner. Through the godly example of the faithful spouse, the heathen spouse can be brought to faith. So to with Thomas. By placing himself within the king’s court, he may have been attempting to exert the “influence of example” for Henry. Unfortunately, aside from being a degenerate womanizer, Henry was also an egotistical megalomaniac who was very easily duped by flattery. This is how Thomas Boleyn was able to use his daughters Mary and Anne to manipulate him, and how Thomas Cromwell was able to supplant More and antagonize Henry into eventually executing More for treason, an act which Henry came to regret for the rest of his life. More was Henry’s best friend at one point and most trusted advisor, because More did not display the arrogant ambition that many of the other’s in the court did (such as the aforementioned Cromwell, Boleyn, and Charles Brandon - 1st Duke of Suffolk).

Thomas More displayed the evangelical style of St. Francis of Assisi “Preach the Gospel constantly, when necessary, use words.” More’s life is an example of the humble life of submission we are called to. It is said that when Charles, Holy Roman Emperor and nephew of Catherine of Aragon learned of Thomas More’s execution, he lamented saying, “I would willfully loose an entire city for a councellor such as he.”

Thomas More may very well have realized that due to Henry’s aggressive and self-aggrandizing personality, the direct approach would have gotten him thrown out of court (and completely unable to influence the king at all) or beheaded (which happened anyway). More was instrumental in influencing the king in his attack on the Lutheran heresy and for staving off for the life of Henry’s reign the subversive influence of German Reformationism. Yes, Henry in his ego sought to be head of the church as others (Thomas Cromwell and Boleyn) egged him on to be, a notion that More strongly protested. But, after the bishops of England relented and submitted to Henry, More’s influence can be felt in the Articles of Faith drafted by Henry, particularly with regard to the subject of the real presence in the Eucharist. So, More played his part. He did what he could following the call of God. I believe these are the reasons why he was cannonized.

This is exactly why More is one of the best role models or Saints for anyone who is “succesful” in the modern world. He strived to live his life with dignity and love of others. Had he not been called on to give his life, he would probably not be known to us as a Saint, but he still would have been one. It is likely, most of us wont be called to give our life standing up for the Truth, but we must be willing to do so if called.

 

[JRKH]

Christ dined with drunkards an publicans for which he was roundly condemned by some. It would seem that you are holding St Thomas More up for this same ridicule.

Why should STM be somehow guilty by association in the King’s sin?
Could STM prevent the sins by his absence?
Could STM do more or less for England by being a Good Catholic in court or a good Catholic outside of court?

St Thomas More, Lived a Good Catholic and did all that he could to influence the King for good. He died for this.

Nuff said

Peace
James

 

[tafan]

How does service to such a man as Henry VIII by More, differ from a bishop’s or cardinal’s “service” to an American politican who calls himself or herself “Catholic”, and yet supports partial birth abortion, by not only permitting that person to receive Holy Communion, but actually giving Holy Communion to that person (this is well documented by Cardinal Law for the Kennedys before he was rightfully called to Rome to spend his “retirement”).

I would love to here comments/observations.

Apples and oranges. Henry was not just a politicial leader as we have today, he was viewed as God’s temporal representative over his subjects. Thats the way kings were thought of. Until Henry severed his bond with Catholicism, More would have thought of him this way, dispite his faults. More would have thought it his duty to serve the king. He well understood Henry’s sinfulness, but did not expect him to be a saint, he was serving the king.

 

[Salvatore123]

People,

Either I did not speakly clearly enough or you are reading far too much into what I said was my “ONLY” problem with More.

I DO venerate the man - I said he is my patron saint. I can think of few others better to venerate (St. Joseph, the Blessed Mother).

I AM, however, a student of More - from early childhood to the day of his death. More had a “wicked” sense of humor. As he was climbing the scaffold, he mentioned to someone to try to let him “shift for himself” when he climbed back down. He is alleged to have told the executioner to try and not cut his beard, as “it had done nothing wrong”.

My SOLE focus was EXACTLY what someone said: “association”.

I realize that Christ socialized with sinners - good grief! That was his mission. Christ wasn’t needed by those who never sinned.

I just found it ODD that someone as ascetic about his life as More, even as a teenager, would have let himself become BEST FRIENDS with such a notorious personality. I realize More TRIED to steer England clear from Luther and the Protestant Revolt.

But my focus is on the LONG years before Henry capitulated to Protestantism. Let’s not be naive - does anyone on this forum REALLY believe that More had, or could have had, an effect on Henry’s womanizing?

It just strikes me as odd that one who so treasured the views others had of him, would have chosen to be friends with an incorrigible like Henry long before he became King.

I realize the Middle Ages and today are two entirely different periods of time in history, with different mores and customs and tolerances. But I am still reminded of how More intentionally shunned people whom he saw as possibly having a bad influence on his family (his own son in law, Roper, until Roper finally came back to Catholicism), Cromwell (whom More thought was compromised from the beginning), and finally Richard Rich (whom More realized early on that the man could never be trusted to a position subject to temptation in any way, especially by way of material things).

Please understand - I DO venerate the man. I DO think it is one of the Church’s greatest saints.

I just found it odd that More, who supposedly constantly longed for the “quiet life”, intentionally chose a route that brought him to the highest levels of European government and Church.

P.S. Although I like the movie A Man for All Seasons, anyone with a good, working biographical knowledge of More will realize that the reason for More’s death and the actual trial were almost entirely fabricated by Robert Bolt.

More was NOT tried by a jury - he was tried by three judges, at least two of whom he knew well.

More did NOT remain silent, as the movie asserts. After resigning his position as Chancellor, More wrote some of the most apologetic tracts of Catholicism against Luther (and even beginning to include English protestants AFTER Henry had broken with Rome), a point of fact that is just plain distorted by the movie.

More as SO well known and liked that no one raised an eyebrow when More remarried only several weeks after the death of his first wife, Jane Colt. I am sure that More cared very much for Alice, his second wife, and probably grew to love her, but the primary reason was More’s job and the need for a woman (go ahead and say it - I am sexist) to help raise his young children who were without a mother. And because of More’s impeccable reputation, no one questioned More’s motives for remarrying so quickly.

 

[JRKH]

I guess the question you are trying to ask, or the sense that you are trying to convey is just too specific for us…

One thing that I noted, well maybe two things, in your post above were your reference to being “naive” and the reference to Christ’s mission to sinnersEachof which I will address below.
Quote:
But my focus is on the LONG years before Henry capitulated to Protestantism. Let’s not be naive - does anyone on this forum REALLY believe that More had, or could have had, an effect on Henry’s womanizing?
We cannot know what was in STM’s or the Kings heart. We cannot know (except by hindsight) that STM was naive in his attempts to influence the king. We cannot know how much the kings possible mental instablilty played a role etc.
If you ask the question differently, as in the “present tense”, you might get a different answer. For example, could a good and faithful catholic who makes friends with a rich politician’s son have a possible possitive effect on that son?

Quote:
“I realize that Christ socialized with sinners - good grief! That was his mission. Christ wasn’t needed by those who never sinned.”

It is also the mission of every Christian to help to save sinners.

Peace
James

 

[tafan]

Salvatore, I still think the answer to your question can be found in one simple fact, Henry was the king. You have to look at the way kings were viewed at that time. They were the head of state, whose power was given to them directly by God. Just because God’s choice was sinful, you would still feel it was your duty to support him and serve him. That is, until he made the final break with God. This seems to be exactly what More did.

 

[Pregustator]

I think there are a couple of things we can take away from all of this:

1. Saints are not perfect. The fact that a saint did or said something should not ever be given more weight than it deserves. Too many people behave otherwise.

On this very board at the moment a man is arguing that someone’s suggestion that playing sports is sinful is not an un-Catholic notion, because St. Peter Damian said so. So what if Peter Damian said so? His words don’t define what is and what isn’t Catholic for the rest of us. That was his (dumb) opinion. So he was a saint. That doesn’t make him right about everything he ever thought or said. The fact that one is holy doesn’t make one infallible.

Remember, too, that the reason a man goes directly to heaven may have more to do with his death than his life: in More’s case, martyrdom. I think it’s important that we admire what we see in a saint’s life that is good, remembering that saints are just like you and me. Some lived wicked lives before they converted. Some went back and forth. And they all made mistakes. Peter denied Our Lord three times, for goodness sake. But Thomas More never denied Our Lord.

1. Aspiring to public office is not a sin or a fault, but a virtue. The King, remember, embodies the state and the nation. To serve the Sovereign is not merely to serve the incumbent, but the nation as a whole.

And so to argue that More should not have served as Lord High Chancellor of England because the incumbent monarch was personally corrupt is to misconstrue public service, entirely.

By that logic, no moral man or woman may ever hold a national public office when the Head of State is immoral: the state must be goverened exclusively by men and women who are also corrupt. That, of course, makes no sense at all.

 

[Salvatore123]

Pregustator,

Thank you for your comments. You, along with a remark someone else made, made me distill my quest for what I know is an unanswerable answer to this: Why did More, who so loved the contemplative life of the Carthusian monks, who so loved to read and write, and who really, deep down, detested court life, choose to be friends with such a contemptible individual, just always struck me as odd.

I realize there is no “right” or “wrong” answer to my original issue - I just wanted to hear the perspective of others.

And for that, I am grateful

 

[Mario_Fernando]

Dear Salvatore,

Your keen observations show a more than common perception of history from the Catholic point of view. First of all, the Church canonized St. Thomas More for his martyrdom, not for his entire life. You know that there were great sinners, who, by the mercy of God received the crown of martyrdom, and are canonized.

However, this does not apply, in my opinion, to St. Thomas More. His fervent practice of virtue and interior life, gives every reason to believe that in everything He was doing the will of God. At times God is glorified by the honest and simple rejection of error and consequent martyrdom. At other times God is glorified by the astute wisdom, that tries to repair that pungent lamentation of Our Lord, that the sons of the world are wiser than the sons of Light.

In the case of St. Thomas More, God wished to be glorified by both. It is to be remembered that the king was, at least publicly, a fervent Catholic, to the point of being named, Defender of the Faith, by the Pope for his work on the Sacraments, against the errors of Luther. That he did not practice this faith, that he so eloquently defended is lamentable, but his authority did not come from his moral life, but from God. Just like a Pope who does not practice virtue. The Catholics still have to recognize his authority. The Catholic kings of the past received their authority from God, as they were consecrated in a religious ceremony with the consent of the Pope.

This apart, we have to consider above all, that if St. Thomas took a position of distance from the king, what might seem an act of intransigent rectitude, could in fact have easily been one of stupidity. For three reasons:

1. By such an act St. Thomas More would probably close the gates to the possible salvation of the king. It is evident that to convert the king was always part of his desires.
2. He would lose say in the matter and the schism that later took place would be inevitable by him, without any authority. He surely also wanted to use his authority to prevent this. It is a well known fact that St. Thomas had almost as much influence in the reign as the king. And the fact that he, in his authority took this position, would surely have helped many Catholics to confirm themselves in their firm rejection of the schism.
3. St. Thomas desired to preserve the reign from Schism and not to propel it into perdition. Taking distance from the king, he would sign his death sentence earlier and all his hopes for the conversion of England would die with him.

All this considered, what had to happen inevitably happened. He did die a martyr, firmly defending the faith. And his death and the eventual fall of England into Schism and heresy, cannot be considered a defeat on his part. God never loses. God desired to be glorified in this way and the holocaust of St. Thomas More will surely produce fruits.

His position of silence before his jury was one of distinct wisdom. There are saints who went to their death in the tranquility of their souls, without offering a single resistance. St. Phocas for example, who made friends with the guards sent by his persecutor to kill him. These guards wanted to tell their king, that they did not find him. He said that a lie was a greater evil than his death and that he would prefer to die in their hands, while they obeyed their king. This glorifies God. St. Athanasius on the contrary, when he was being persecuted by the Arians, fled, disguised himself, tricked his persecutors etc. One day he disguised himself and fled in a boat. After a while he returned in the opposite direction, and crossed his persecutors. When his persecutors saw him, asked if he had seen Athanasius. He said that he had seen him pass by, which was not a lie, since he did pass that way, but returned…

St. Thomas More is an example of the astuteness of a serpent that Our Lord speaks of. In his humility, he judged himself unworthy of the crown of martyrdom, that God had granted to the Bishop of Rochester, St. John Fisher. So he used the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to prevent in every way, his eventual death. In his case God was glorified in both astuteness and meekness.

I hope these ideas help in some way. Please feel free to write me again. I remain yours,

In Jesus and Mary
Mario Fernando

 

[Pregustator]

Why did More, who so loved the contemplative life of the Carthusian monks, who so loved to read and write, and who really, deep down, detested court life, choose to be friends with such a contemptible individual, just always struck me as odd.

I don’t know the answer to that specific question any more (no pun intended) than you, I’m afraid; I’ve never studied More’s life. But we do know, certainly, that saints aren’t to be confused with angels. Canonized saints are just–pardon me for saying it–pieces of krap like you and me who manage to achieve beatitude in spite of themselves, not because of themselves.

They are humans with human attachments, human desires, human aspirations, and human affections. No matter how inclined any of our heads and spirits may be toward a religious life or asceticism, there’s still our sentiments and our concupiscence drawing us to elements of the world and toward particular affections. And if a religious life isn’t one’s true vocation, in any case, as was the case with Thomas More, then one isn’t really bound to be faithful to the constraints of a certain asceticism, no matter how much one appreciates it.

Still, a is saint capable of making bad choices, of using poor judgment, and of making friends with the wrong people. Just because one ultimately gets an “St.” plopped in front of his name doesn’t mean that he always, at every monent of his life, merited it. But it does mean that in the end, at least, he did.

That’s what we all aspire to, I think: that despite ourselves and the bad choices we make for ourselves, in the end, we’ll make the right ultimate decision and merit not only salvation but a high degree of beatitude.

Should I ever manage to get myself martyred for Christ, however, nobody reading my biography 500 years later is going to be very impressed with my life leading up to that moment! The same can’t be said of Thomas More, however. From what I have read about him, his biography seems pretty impressive.