St Thomas More -

[ewohdrol]

There are lots. See below

Obviously there are way more from actual historical sources (let’s face it - catholic sources are pretty bias also) but these catholic links below acknowledge the reality of what happened.

I love anything Tudor and have read lots on the subject. I’ve never read anything to give doubt that he didn’t burn heretics. It was normal for the times where religious freedom was unheard of. This doesn’t make him less of a saint.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw1pkw68WVxTzSM-DkXZrRDb&cshid=1558959117569

http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/thomas-mores-saintly-silence

The legal and moral genius of St. Thomas More

A new book examines the life and mind of a man who is today much revered—and misunderstood.

www.catholicworldreport.com

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think you might like to read these links for facts.

The person to whom you are responding is not interested in “facts”; they are only interested in criticizing the Church. Best to just not take their bait.

Having said that, ewohedrol is correct that Thomas More operated as an arm/ functionary of the government and as such was part of the state.

It is understood by both sides (given that both sides revere him today) that he tried to do the best he could in a very difficult situation where his own life hung in the balance also.

Given the great difficulty in canonizing saints who are involved in any sort of political controversy, the fact that he was canonized anyway (not to mention commemorated by both Catholics and C of E) speaks well of his holiness and reasonability.

 

[Sbee0]

The idea that people were burned at the stake simply “for different beliefs” is not entirely historically accurate. The folks that were condemned (and again, the state not the Church carried out the sentence) were not just protestants, they were also advocating overthrow of society. It was a dangerous time for the Church and for the crown. This is why the crown had these laws back then and this was the penalty. Heretics back then were a lot more dangerous than simply someone who disagreed with the Church. A close analogy today wouldn’t be a Protestant, it would be someone with say Al Qaeda or ISIS ideology, going far beyond religion. Not that burning people at the stake ought to be acceptable in society but just something to keep in mind.

It’s also important to note that this practice continued on at a greater scale after More resigned from his position, so it’s doubtful More had much to do with the start and continuance of this practice. There’s also reason to believe he did not approve of the practice, as there is nothing in his Utopia writing which suggests he did.

 

[PickyPicky]

and again, the state not the Church carried out the sentence

Yes this is true, but I don’t understand why this is a point which has continually to be made. The Church thoroughly approved of burning heretics, the Church was part of the system that tried and burned heretics, the Church handed the heretics over to the State for burning. The fact that the fire was physically lit by a secular official is a small point.

Nor is it any criticism of, or attack on, the Church today, or any undermining of the faith, to acknowledge this, People 500 years ago behaved the way people behaved 500 years ago. Today, thankfully, mostly, in our parts of the world, people don’t.

 

[PickyPicky]

Given the great difficulty in canonizing saints who are involved in any sort of political controversy, the fact that he was canonized anyway (not to mention commemorated by both Catholics and C of E) speaks well of his holiness and reasonability.

Yes it does.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

and again, the state not the Church carried out the sentence

Yes this is true, but I don’t understand why this is a point which has continually to be made. The Church thoroughly approved of burning heretics, the Church was part of the system that tried and burned heretics, the Church handed the heretics over to the State for burning. The fact that the fire was physically lit by a secular official is a small point.

Nor is it any criticism of, or attack on, the Church today, or any undermining of the faith, to acknowledge this, People 500 years ago behaved the way people behaved 500 years ago. Today, thankfully, mostly, in our parts of the world, people don’t.

I agree with this, but I don’t know what the Church’s opinion on the sentence was. Also state and the Church were very tightly intertwined back then, which would never happen today. The Church condemned folks for heresy and handed them over to the state (and again the crown had laws on the books including this penalty) carried out the sentence.

 

[Divine3]

Man alive! Will see what you sent regarding links. Buy not yet…need some

 

[FiveLinden]

The person to whom you are responding is not interested in “facts”; they are only interested in criticizing the Church. Best to just not take their bait

Uncharacteristically unpleasant of you Bear. Not a good day?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The folks that were condemned (and again, the state not the Church carried out the sentence) were not just protestants, they were also advocating overthrow of society.

Can you cite examples of these attempts to overthrow society? Do you mean simply expressing differences with the Church that might cause others to reconsider their Catholicism?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Can you cite examples of these attempts to overthrow society? Do you mean simply expressing differences with the Church that might cause others to reconsider their Catholicism?

In those days, the Church was unfortunately politicized. The Lutherans in Germany contained a goodly number of the rising middle class who felt they shouldn’t be bossed around by a corrupt clergy. The situation in England involved the King’s marriage to a member of Spanish royalty, thus forging an alliance between England and Spain that would be upset if the marriage should end. Religious unrest usually carried with it a significant risk of upsetting the power balance then in place. I’m not saying it justified burning people to death or mass genocide of some dissenting group, but the fear of loss of political power was a major driver for that sort of thing.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

In those days, the Church was unfortunately politicized. The Lutherans in Germany contained a goodly number of the rising middle class who felt they shouldn’t be bossed around by a corrupt clergy. The situation in England involved the King’s marriage to a member of Spanish royalty, thus forging an alliance between England and Spain that would be upset if the marriage should end. Religious unrest usually carried with it a significant risk of upsetting the power balance then in place. I’m not saying it justified burning people to death or mass genocide of some dissenting group, but the fear of loss of political power was a major driver for that sort of thing.

I completely agree about how going after heretics was far more about politics than religion. I’m hoping @Sbee0 responds, as they painted with an overly broad brush as to the actions and motives of those in disagreement with the Church.

 

[Divine3]

Thanks–Just read them. Well, —