St Thomas Moore

[Augustine3]

Isn’t divine truth the same in all eras?

We had the same truth back in St Thomas’ day as we do today. Regardless if it was state law to execute heretics we were given divine truth to judge what was morally right.

If St Thomas objected, it means he did not agree with the execution. It looks to me he should have refused to participate just as soldiers are obligated to refuse orders if they go against their conscience. Here’s a quote from the CCC:

2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”:

God bless,

 

[NotWorthy]

Oh I thought he meant it was after St paul was converted and baptised

God bless,

One could question St. Paul’s splitting with St. Barnabas. I mean, the Holy Spirit put them together to mission, and they broke up their partnership over a squabble regarding St. Mark (John Mark).

Incidentally, I see the incident of St.'s Paul and Barnabas as comforting when I see squabbling in our local Churches.

 

[Augustine3]

One could question St. Paul’s splitting with St. Barnabas. I mean, the Holy Spirit put them together to mission, and they broke up their partnership over a squabble regarding St. Mark (John Mark).

Incidentally, I see the incident of St.'s Paul and Barnabas as comforting when I see squabbling in our local Churches.

Having a disagreement and killing heretics are two totally different things. Did St Paul kill St Barnabas because he disagreed with him?

People were killed because they didn’t agree with the Catholic faith in which St Thomas was a part of those that did the killing. If the Magisterium says he’s a saint then I believe he is a saint. I’m just trying to figure out the justification behind this. Perhaps it’s something St Thomas later repented of that was not seen by eye witnesses…

God bless,

 

[Petergee]

People were killed because they didn’t agree with the Catholic faith

Absolutely not. St Thomas More was possibly the first person in history to be executed for what is now called “thought crime”. Not for anything he said or did but for what the government presumed that he thought.

The only heretics who were executed in Catholic countries under fair court systems (such as the one St Thomas presided over) were those who obstinately persisted in disseminating heresy to others (by words, publications and actions) despite being let off with a warning on previous convictions. Catholic states considered themselves fully justified in this when they saw the terrible consequences, even in human temoporal terms, of heresy taking hold over large parts of Europe (e.g. one-third of the population of Germany killed in a terrible war; hundreds of thousands of falsely accused “heretics” and “witches” killed after unfair, or no, trial, etc.) Ipeople in Catholic-ruled countries have always vbeen perfectly free to hold heretical opinions, provided they didn’t try to convince anyone else of it, or stopped doing so after repeated warnings.

At that time there were many capital crimes. The vast majority of criminals executed were for crimes other than heresy.

More, as mentioned was totally supportive of the Bible being published in English. There were innumerable very good English manuscript Bibles then in existence (all now wholly or partially destroyed by subsequent protestant persecutors). All More did was to carry out the orders of King Henry VIII to prevent the publication of the version published by Tyndale (who was hopelessly incapable of such a task as well as being an extreme radical protestant) which was absolutely full of deliberate and accidental errors, and which actually contained more text of tendentious anti-Catholic “commentary” than actual (purported) Biblical text.

Although the recent popes have campaigned for minimal use of the death penalty as being not necessary under the cicumstances of the modern state, they have not and will not declare that the death penalty carried out by duly established public authority is wrong in principle or that sattes have no right to impose it.

It can ceratinly be argued that the State’s imposition of the death penalty for recalcitrant purveyors of heresy was justifiable under the circumstances of the time, and would be justifiable if similar circumstances were to arise again in future.

There is no contradiction between St Thomas’ sainthood and his willing participation in the legal processes which led to capital punishment of people convicted of grave crimes.

Note that the otherwise excellent play/film “A Man for All Seasons” wrongly depicts More as a martyr for “conscience”. In fact he was a martyr for the Catholic faith.

 

[Augustine3]

The only heretics who were executed in Catholic countries under fair court systems (such as the one St Thomas presided over) were those who obstinately persisted in disseminating heresy to others (by words, publications and actions) despite being let off with a warning on previous convictions. Catholic states considered themselves fully justified in this when they saw the terrible consequences, even in human temoporal terms, of heresy taking hold over large parts of Europe (e.g. one-third of the population of Germany killed in a terrible war; hundreds of thousands of falsely accused “heretics” and “witches” killed after unfair, or no, trial, etc.) Ipeople in Catholic-ruled countries have always vbeen perfectly free to hold heretical opinions, provided they didn’t try to convince anyone else of it, or stopped doing so after repeated warnings.

What ever happen to free will? It’s sounds like a totalitarian system whereby if anyone spreads non or anti Catholic teachings they are to be punished. Why don’t we use the same system now? You can’t say “it was according to the times” because like I said eternal truth does not change with time. Can you show me precedence in the New Testament or Church Father writings indicating this type of decree was used?

 

[NotWorthy]

What ever happen to free will? It’s sounds like a totalitarian system whereby if anyone spreads non or anti Catholic teachings they are to be punished. Why don’t we use the same system now? You can’t say “it was according to the times” because like I said eternal truth does not change with time. Can you show me precedence in the New Testament or Church Father writings indicating this type of decree was used?

Its simple, and it was proven in Germany. When people revolted against the one Church (no matter Who that Church was), then they decided, “If I don’t have to answer to the Church, maybe I don’t have to answer to the nobility either.”

What happened when Martin Luther started the Protestant Revolution in Germany, what happened? The people rose up against the gentry… it was called The People’s Revolt. The end result? 130,000 or so peasants were killed by the nobility and their armies.

This is why the secular authorities executed heretics who refused to repent, to keep the peace.

 

[Augustine3]

Its simple, and it was proven in Germany. When people revolted against the one Church (no matter Who that Church was), then they decided, “If I don’t have to answer to the Church, maybe I don’t have to answer to the nobility either.”

What happened when Martin Luther started the Protestant Revolution in Germany, what happened? The people rose up against the gentry… it was called The People’s Revolt. The end result? 130,000 or so peasants were killed by the nobility and their armies.

This is why the secular authorities executed heretics who refused to repent, to keep the peace.

I didn’t know the Protestants killed Catholics and to that extent, in fact I’m quite shocked!

In light of this all doubts in my mind have been cleared. Thanks very much!

God bless,

 

[Petergee]

What ever happen to free will?

All men always have free will regardless of anything any government does.

It’s sounds like a totalitarian system whereby if anyone spreads non or anti Catholic teachings they are to be punished.

Incorrect. By definition a totalitarian system is where the government has **total **control over its citizens, even their thoughts (insofar as the government can guess them, or thinks that it can.)

Every country places restrictions on what its citizens can say, write and do under certain circumstances. Citizens’ rights to free speech and dissemination of their writings are not absolute. This does not make such countries “totalitarian”. As I said the first real totalitarian state was England AFTER Thomas More resigned.

hy don’t we use the same system now? You can’t say “it was according to the times”

I can and I will. The main reasons such a system was suitable and very effective then, and would not be now, are:

1. The States that made such laws were overwhelmingly composed of Catholic citizens (most had non-Christian minorities for whom special arrangements were made to accommodate them, to the general satisfaction of those non-Christian communities.)
2. States had seen the terrible bloodshed and civil disorder brought about by earlier heresies like the Cathars and the Hussites. (and the chaos and bloodshed brought about by the protestant heresies would outdo them all) and saw it as their duty to prevent this to protect their citizens’ life, health, rights, and property.
3. Systems of communication were minimal compared to today. One printed book or even pamphlet could do incalculable damage. Even into the 20th century there was a general belief among the less educated that if something is “in print”, it must be true! Correcting such errors after they had taken hold was far more difficult or impossible.
4. There was no concept of the “pluralist society” which we have today, which was considered impossible. Note that the heretics were even more adamant that everyone must believe in THEIR belief than the Catholics were.
5. The Church teaches today that civil governments should allow freedom of religion within limits so as others’ rights are not infringed. Sghe essentially did the same then, but the prudential limits necessary were seen to be much more strict. The Church does not teach that error has the same rights as truth.

because like I said eternal truth does not change with time.

No, but which are the most useful laws is a judgement which does change with changing circumstances. The Church does not change the truths she teaches, but she does change her laws for governming the Church, and it is no surprise that States change their laws for governing the state from time to time depending on circumstance. It does not mean (necessarily) that the new laws are good and the old ones are bad.

Can you show me precedence in the New Testament or Church Father writings indicating this type of decree was used?

Can you show me any basis for your apparent belief that any civil law must be a bad law unless the New Testament or the Church Fathers mention it?

 

[socialcath101]

St. Thomas Moore is one of my favorite saints

 

[Petergee]

What ever happen to free will? It’s sounds like a totalitarian system whereby if anyone spreads non or anti Catholic teachings they are to be punished. Why don’t we use the same system now? You can’t say “it was according to the times” because like I said eternal truth does not change with time. Can you show me precedence in the New Testament or Church Father writings indicating this type of decree was used?

Sure, In Acts St Luke depicts the Jews stoning St Stephen to death because he insisted on proclaiming (wrongly, they thought) that Jesus is God. St Luke doesn’t suggest that it is wrong in principle for the authorities to execute a man for wrongly claiming than a mere man is God (and so contradicting the true religion). The problem he portrays is merely that the Jews made a mistake and didn’t realise that St Stephen was telling the truth.