I did a biography on him, and it is said that he executed/tortured many protestants while Lord Chancellor of England. According to his accounts he didn’t, and that there were but a few cases in which he used any form of corporal punishment (e.g. one boy whom he had beaten for teaching profane things about the Most Bl. Sacrament).A friend of mine has told me that St. Thomas More is undeserving of sainthood because he personally saw to it that many heretics were burned at the stake.
There must be extenuating circumstances. Could you please enlighten me as to what they are.
Thank you.
Thank you for your research. Would you be so kind as to give me the link to the biography to which you refer.
Why would there be “extenuating circumstances”? St. Thomas More, and Catholics of that era generally, didn’t think that this was a bad thing. They didn’t need extenuating circumstances. They would have needed extenuating circumstances not to go after people they thought were heretics.A friend of mine has told me that St. Thomas More is undeserving of sainthood because he personally saw to it that many heretics were burned at the stake.
There must be extenuating circumstances. Could you please enlighten me as to what they are.
Point taken. Thank you.
A friend of mine has told me that St. Thomas More is undeserving of sainthood because he personally saw to it that many heretics were burned at the stake.
This is what is wrong with people judging historical figures by present day standards. It wasn’t like present day America where we can politely differ on religion.Only one, and Calvin didn’t burn him. He denounced him to the government and advised that he be beheaded. The government decided to stick with tradition.
In certain times and places (including Post-Reformation Europe) heresy was tantamount to treason since the country often took on the religious preference of the reigning sovereign, and religion as a whole formed the underpinning of society itself. Destablize the religious situation, and you destabilize society. Thus, to be a heretic was to be disloyal to the king and a traitor. This was true of both Protestant and Catholic societies. John Calvin in Geneva burnt many a “heretic” in his day.
I do. Governments are not people. The only crime deserving of death is a crime against persons, not a crime against useful social fictions. But that’s not really the issue.
Yes, it is my understanding that he did all he could do to encourage them to recant. Also, that only four were executed during his tenure as Lord Chancellor, which could indicate that he was mostly successful.Why would there be “extenuating circumstances”? St. Thomas More, and Catholics of that era generally, didn’t think that this was a bad thing. They didn’t need extenuating circumstances. They would have needed extenuating circumstances not to go after people they thought were heretics.
That being said, the statement is exaggerated. I’m not sure exactly what role More played in specific trials and executions, but as Lord Chancellor he certainly promoted and supported the suppression of heresy.
A notable Catholic patristics scholar once denounced More in my presence (in front of a lot of secular and liberal professors and grad students) as having an “inquisitorial personality.” I stammered out an extremely lame response, because I found this charge off-putting. As a student of the sixteenth century, I take it for granted (perhaps too easily) that the people I study had views about the persecution of heresy that I find repugnant, but that this didn’t mean that they were bad people.If they actually enjoyed persecuting people or did so out of personal malice, that would be a point against them.
Edwin
(As the Sermon on the Mount shows.)We’re overlooking an important stop in this man’s journey to Christ. Obviously a man in the 16th centure can be a Saint.
Wouldn’t his transgression have been the sin of murder, as in the Fifth Commandment? If so, wouldn’t that have been a mortal sin, which would have landed him in hell, not Purgatory?
Only if he was unrepentant for that mortal sin. He may have confessed it, he may have been repentent. We know he’s not in Hell, so he must have done one of these.
I think you’re on to something here. A truly well formed conscience will have made him feel badly about directing the murder. Even if he felt it was truly necessary, and that the person’s poison of heresy must be stopped at all costs, through execution even, he most probably felt guilty for it. I know that if I were in his shoes, and I felt there was no other choice, I would confess this, and feel repentent, even as I knew it was happening.