Thomas More as executioner during Chancellory

[Ceil-1]

I am in debate with a person who accuses Thomas More as being responsible for the execution of Tyndale, and “hundreds of others” during his chancellory.

I am quite familiar with the personal life of More, but, not the political life.

Does anyone out there have knowledge of this?

 

[hellopeople]

I am in debate with a person who accuses Thomas More as being responsible for the execution of Tyndale, and “hundreds of others” during his chancellory.

I am quite familiar with the personal life of More, but, not the political life.

Does anyone out there have knowledge of this?

I believe this point was brought up in the debate on the BBC about if the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. I haven’t checked my facts, nor would I know where to look, but I believe Hitchens made this accusation as well. There is a good chance that this person you are debating is getting this from Hitchens actually.

 

[Biggie]

St. Thomas More is accused both of associations with burnings and with abuse of protestant heretics. As to the latter, St. Thomas denied within his own lifetime that he had allowed heretics to be beaten with the exception two, one before his entire household for teaching heresy concerning the Eucharist. I am aware of only one burning under his Chancellory, that of Thomas Hitton who was assisting in the international spread of heresy. In that event, More, although he had not personally passed the sentence, attested that his soul went straight from earthly fires to the fires of hell.

One cannot understate the role politics and the continued Protestant rebellion have played in the evaluation of St. Thomas’ life. In the Showtime series the Tudors, for example, I watched a scene where St. Thomas was depicted actually personally setting torch to a heretic on a stake. Simply absurd. Also, one must be careful to avoid the error of Presentism - judging past history by present mores. Remember that St. Thomas was the Chancellor of a Catholic nation at a time when heresy was both of religious concern but was also a crime against the state.

One need only consider the religious life of the man to look beyond the slanderers and see him as he was.

 

[hellopeople]

St. Thomas More is accused both of associations with burnings and with abuse of protestant heretics. As to the latter, St. Thomas denied within his own lifetime that he had allowed heretics to be beaten with the exception two, one before his entire household for teaching heresy concerning the Eucharist. I am aware of only one burning under his Chancellory, that of Thomas Hitton who was assisting in the international spread of heresy. In that event, More, although he had not personally passed the sentence, attested that his soul went straight from earthly fires to the fires of hell.

One cannot understate the role politics and the continued Protestant rebellion have played in the evaluation of St. Thomas’ life. In the Showtime series the Tudors, for example, I watched a scene where St. Thomas was depicted actually personally setting torch to a heretic on a stake. Simply absurd. Also, one must be careful to avoid the error of Presentism - judging past history by present mores. Remember that St. Thomas was the Chancellor of a Catholic nation at a time when heresy was both of religious concern but was also a crime against the state.

One need only consider the religious life of the man to look beyond the slanderers and see him as he was.

See him as he was? A thug that condoned beatings of people and even killings of people that disagreed with him? I can’t believe that he is a saint after hearing about this.

 

[Mintaka]

“Executioner” is not the right word here. “Judge who sentenced people to execution” does not equal “executioner”. Executioners were the guys in charge of actually carrying out a criminal sentence – tying the noose, chopping the head off, etc.

Otherwise, a judge who jailed people would be a jailer… and a judge who imprisoned people would be a prisoner!

 

[Drawmack]

“Executioner” is not the right word here. “Judge who sentenced people to execution” does not equal “executioner”. Executioners were the guys in charge of actually carrying out a criminal sentence – tying the noose, chopping the head off, etc.

Otherwise, a judge who jailed people would be a jailer… and a judge who imprisoned people would be a prisoner!

The last judge in your example would be an imprisoner, not a prisoner.

 

[Ceil-1]

Was there any connection with Tyndale?

 

[AAUK]

I have just been tracing my English Catholic ancestry from the North West of England, particularly the Fylde area of Lancashire that never lost the Catholic Faith through the so-called Reformation. I have discovered eight Postlewhite Jesuits and fourteen Newsham priests, some Jesuits and some secular priests born throughout the eighteenth century on my mothers side. My father’s ancestors too kept the faith with a Worden ancestor one of the first Catholic teachers after the “Reformation”.

I heard Christopher Hitchens accuse Thomas More but know not the truth of what he accuses but I do know of the bloody persecutions, executions, deprivations of freedoms undergone by those families who remained faithful to God’s Church. History records it all but satan blinds eyes to see and perceive truth. He is in his final attack against God’s Church which will triumph over him. Do not worry about such distortions of history because prophecy has it that persecution will get worse and this is evidence of it. Just join the spiritual battle through prayer, especially the Rosary and fasting.

 

[Biggie]

See him as he was? A thug that condoned beatings of people and even killings of people that disagreed with him? I can’t believe that he is a saint after hearing about this.

Makes me wonder what, if anything, you know of him? Reread my post as to “presentism”. I was reading Deuteronomy today, where Moses commanded the Israelites to “doom” the cities that were given to them by God, killing every man, woman and child.I can’t believe he met with Jesus in the Transfiguration on the Mount!

Yes, see him as he was - a man who attended Mass daily, who rose before dawn to pray and flagellate himself, who wore a hair shirt under his regal garb as a reminder to be humble, a man of high intellect, fluent in Latin and Greek, a friend of Erasmus and vocal enemy of Luther, a defender of the Catholic faith who gave his life in a most Christlike fashion. Perhaps another Catholic saint, Bishop John Fisher, also a martyr, should also receive the same slander. He sentenced Hitton.

As to Bishop Fisher, here was his sentence at the hands of the Reformation: He was dragged through the streets behind a cart, taken to the place of execution, hanged by the neck but not until dead, his male member amputated and placed in his mouth, his heart cut out and held before his face still beating, his body quartered, beheaded and his head placed on a pike and displayed on London Bridge until decayed.

 

[hellopeople]

Makes me wonder what, if anything, you know of him? Reread my post as to “presentism”. I was reading Deuteronomy today, where Moses commanded the Israelites to “doom” the cities that were given to them by God, killing every man, woman and child.I can’t believe he met with Jesus in the Transfiguration on the Mount!

Yes, see him as he was - a man who attended Mass daily, who rose before dawn to pray and flagellate himself, who wore a hair shirt under his regal garb as a reminder to be humble, a man of high intellect, fluent in Latin and Greek, a friend of Erasmus and vocal enemy of Luther, a defender of the Catholic faith who gave his life in a most Christlike fashion. Perhaps another Catholic saint, Bishop John Fisher, also a martyr, should also receive the same slander. He sentenced Hitton.

As to Bishop Fisher, here was his sentence at the hands of the Reformation: He was dragged through the streets behind a cart, taken to the place of execution, hanged by the neck but not until dead, his male member amputated and placed in his mouth, his heart cut out and held before his face still beating, his body quartered, beheaded and his head placed on a pike and displayed on London Bridge until decayed.

John Fisher SHOULD receive the same slander. As for the people that killed him, they were in the wrong too.

All of those things you mentioned that Thomas More did does not make up for the beatings and deaths he supported. I don’t understand how he could be a faithful Catholic while killing people that didn’t agree with his point of view. Did Jesus kill people that opposed him? Jesus was like the good samaritan, helping his enemies; More was like the savages that stole and beat the samaritan.

 

[Biggie]

John Fisher SHOULD receive the same slander. As for the people that killed him, they were in the wrong too.

All of those things you mentioned that Thomas More did does not make up for the beatings and deaths he supported. I don’t understand how he could be a faithful Catholic while killing people that didn’t agree with his point of view. Did Jesus kill people that opposed him? Jesus was like the good samaritan, helping his enemies; More was like the savages that stole and beat the samaritan.

You are presenting an unsupported characterization of the activities of St. Thomas More and of his thinking that just sounds, I am sorry, sophomoric.

i.e. “beatings and deaths he supported” - it’s time to ask you what you are talking about.
i.e. “agree with his point of view” - again, what in the world are you talking about? He was the chief legal officer of England.

Is it your impression or opinion that violence is never justified, or that saints never engage in it in any form? And where did you form that impression?

And at least as to St. John Fisher, you agree it’s slander.

 

[hellopeople]

You are presenting an unsupported characterization of the activities of St. Thomas More and of his thinking that just sounds, I am sorry, sophomoric.

i.e. “beatings and deaths he supported” - it’s time to ask you what you are talking about.
i.e. “agree with his point of view” - again, what in the world are you talking about? He was the chief legal officer of England.

Is it your impression or opinion that violence is never justified, or that saints never engage in it in any form? And where did you form that impression?

And at least as to St. John Fisher, you agree it’s slander.

Beating people or putting people to death because the are “heretics” (which basically just means they have different views than the person calling them a heretic) is NEVER justified. I could watch someone spit on a crucifix and I wouldn’t do a thing about it. I would maybe talk to them, tell them that it was wrong and misguided to do so, and try to understand their reasoning, but I wouldn’t hit the person let alone beat them or kill them. In my opinion what he did was no better than the people that burned “witches” in Salem Mass in the 1600’s.

 

[Ceil-1]

It was a different world, then. I remember even just a few decades ago, my father describes what happened to him by my grandfather just for laughing in church. He laughs about it now, but, it was no laughing matter at the time, I can tell you. My grandfather was a character, but, where religion was concerned, you towed the line.

The rebels were hell-bent on ruining the Church, and this was no small matter. We cannot possibly judge what happened on either side based on the “value system” of today, because there is none.

In the end, everyone ended up being sinners, just like us.

 

[Biggie]

Beating people or putting people to death because the are “heretics” (which basically just means they have different views than the person calling them a heretic) is NEVER justified. I could watch someone spit on a crucifix and I wouldn’t do a thing about it. I would maybe talk to them, tell them that it was wrong and misguided to do so, and try to understand their reasoning, but I wouldn’t hit the person let alone beat them or kill them. In my opinion what he did was no better than the people that burned “witches” in Salem Mass in the 1600’s.

As the Chancellor of England, St. Thomas More was charged with the duties of enforcing the laws of England. These were not opinions, or his views, but the laws of the land, and were similar to laws in place around the Christian world. Heresy was treason, a heretic a traitor, because the faith and the state were intertwined. To protest the faith was to protest the King himself who was seen as being the king by divine right and the chief defender of the faith.

St. Thomas More himself, while he agreed with the punishment of heretics, declared that he did so in order to save the man from damnation. He despised heresy because he loved the heretic, and understood that by willful heresy a man damns himself. He explained his own motives, and as he wrote, with the exception of allowing two men to be flogged in his presence did not engage in beating. Those floggings were criminal punishments for crimes committed, wherein the defendant knew his behavior was a crime and engaged in it, just as any criminal does today. The likelihood is that during St. Thomas’ Chancellory, very few burnings were carried out, and certainly none that he himself sentenced. But he agreed with the sentence because it was a matter of state security and because burning allowed the accused the opportunity to recant.

In the world at the time, the Pope himself, Pope Leo X, was a military leader who fought battles. Rome was sacked and the women therein raped. Luther’s rebellion threatened kingdoms, while in England, Henry VIII who put St. Thomas and St. John Fisher to death was in the business of divorcing and killing his wives and first supporting and then attacking the Catholic faith.

St. Thomas More was certainly the greatest legal mind in England in the period, renowned for his intelligence and acumen. A part of the reason he lost his life is that he was able to help negotiate and bring peace to the Christian world at a time when Henry VIII needed the world to be in conflict with Rome. He was internationally known. And it was his belief, because of the upheaval he witnessed, that the world was entering the Apocalypse. Such were the times.

With all due respect, what you would or would not do is irrelevant to the judgement of God or history on the admirable life of St. Thomas More.

 

[Biggie]

I am in debate with a person who accuses Thomas More as being responsible for the execution of Tyndale, and “hundreds of others” during his chancellory.

I am quite familiar with the personal life of More, but, not the political life.

Does anyone out there have knowledge of this?

And as to “hundreds of others” I’d ask for details. They don’t exist. Even Bloody Mary, another misunderstood Catholic, allowed perhaps 150 or fewer burnings in England during her reign, an astounding number as compared with the several at most during the period St. Thomas More was Chancellor.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

As the Chancellor of England, St. Thomas More was charged with the duties of enforcing the laws of England. These were not opinions, or his views, but the laws of the land, and were similar to laws in place around the Christian world. Heresy was treason, a heretic a traitor, because the faith and the state were intertwined. To protest the faith was to protest the King himself who was seen as being the king by divine right and the chief defender of the faith.

St. Thomas More himself, while he agreed with the punishment of heretics, declared that he did so in order to save the man from damnation. He despised heresy because he loved the heretic, and understood that by willful heresy a man damns himself. He explained his own motives, and as he wrote, with the exception of allowing two men to be flogged in his presence did not engage in beating. Those floggings were criminal punishments for crimes committed, wherein the defendant knew his behavior was a crime and engaged in it, just as any criminal does today. The likelihood is that during St. Thomas’ Chancellory, very few burnings were carried out, and certainly none that he himself sentenced. But he agreed with the sentence because it was a matter of state security and because burning allowed the accused the opportunity to recant.

In the world at the time, the Pope himself, Pope Leo X, was a military leader who fought battles. Rome was sacked and the women therein raped. Luther’s rebellion threatened kingdoms, while in England, Henry VIII who put St. Thomas and St. John Fisher to death was in the business of divorcing and killing his wives and first supporting and then attacking the Catholic faith.

St. Thomas More was certainly the greatest legal mind in England in the period, renowned for his intelligence and acumen. A part of the reason he lost his life is that he was able to help negotiate and bring peace to the Christian world at a time when Henry VIII needed the world to be in conflict with Rome. He was internationally known. And it was his belief, because of the upheaval he witnessed, that the world was entering the Apocalypse. Such were the times.

With all due respect, what you would or would not do is irrelevant to the judgement of God or history on the admirable life of St. Thomas More.

:clapping::clapping:

And there speaks a person who is able to give an impartial and historical perspective.

It is sad to me (one of my majors back in the 80s was history, specifically the High Middle Ages as it happens) to see how many people today appear to be utterly incapable of separating their own world view and experience from past historical events.

Thus the constant harping that “Thomas Jefferson owned slaves” (and, of course, thereby he was an ‘evil man’ and all the good that he did is tainted permanently because “he owned slaves.”)

Sigh.

Welcome to nightmare ‘logic’ world. Where people can make all sorts of claims that something is ‘true’ simply based on the fact that they ‘say’ it.

So the statement that a man owned a slave no longer becomes simply "a man owned a slave’. . .that statement now carries an IRONCLAD ASSUMPTION that “any man who owned a slave was evil, and any evil man automatically remains evil despite any good he may do at any given point.”

The statement that, as Thomas More in his position as a state official oversaw the LEGAL occasions where a few (very few) people insisted on defying the state (an action at that time and in that country tantamount to treason, a capital offense which means death), now to these people becomes,

Because I now believe that any person should have the right to say as he pleases, and believe whatever he wants, I will insist that any person at any time in history who is in any way (as king, as official, even as ‘bystander’) to be considered as ‘judging’ another person, and refuses to let them say or do as they please, and goes so far as to find them LEGALLY and GOVERNMENTALLY to face the CONSEQUENCE of death. . .is an ‘evil person’ and no matter what else he may have done, I am going to insist that he is ‘responsible’ for those deaths and was a terrible man.

The state of American education is a woeful shambles and the ignorance of the average person when it comes to ANY history is appalling. And THAT is not just my opinion but the opinion of a member of my family (and that person’s colleagues) who just so happen to be college professors. Thought you might be interested to know.

 

[Biggie]

And one more thing, since I feel compelled to defend St. Thomas More, as if a defense is necessary.

Let’s say you are a nationally and internationally known intellectual who has ascended to the highest heights of the realm on your own considerable ability. You are wealthy and well off. But you are a devout, truly believing, literally humble Catholic, obedient to the Magisterium in all matters. Let’s say your King, your only superior, has embarked on a course that would require you to personally surrender your Catholic faith and follow his own practices instead, and would lead your whole country to a complete break with the Catholic faith. Your King is trying to justify his own immoral conduct, and precisely because you are so famous, he cannot do so without your saying you agree with him.

You chart a course whereby you will not say one way or the other, since you both have a duty to God and to the King, but resolve only that you will not say you agree. Every other person of rank and importance, all your friends, have agreed with the King. They all beg you to follow their course. They tell you it doesn’t matter.

You know that when you do not say you agree, your property will be stripped from you. You will be thrown into prison and your family made to suffer. You know you will be put to a brutal death - hung, drawn and quartered. In fact, while you are in prison, the King makes it a point to put other brutal executions of priests on display for you so that you are reminded what is going to happen to you.

You will sit in prison for a very long time, deprived of reading material, sanitary conditions, even light. The one bible you have will be taken from you, so that you cannot even pray. You will lie awake at night, and demons will tempt you to just say the one word, the apostasy, that allows you to go free. You will beg for peace from the demons and lie in a bed of sweat night after night picturing what will happen. But your worst fear is that you will betray your faith and be damned. What would you do?

Your beloved daughter, in her despair, will go to the King and say that you have lost your mind and beg for your forgiveness. They will allow your wife to come to your cell so she can tell you how terrible life has become and beg you to just say the one word that frees you. In the end, they will send an acquaintance to talk to you who is willing to perjure himself and say that you told him you disagreed with the King. Then they will try and brutally execute your bishop. Would you say the word? Just sign your name?

And then you will be tried, and the lie told and you will be sentenced to death. And at last in that trial you will find peace because you can finally say that the King’s sin is the sin of Herod. Only in that last hour will you learn that you are merely to be beheaded. And in the end, you will publicly forgive the King and forgive the executioner and thank him for sending you to heaven.

That is all that Thomas More did. I think I would have folded a hundred times like a house of cards. He’s my hero and at least this should be said about him on a thread where he is being called a thug.

 

[hellopeople]

It was a different world, then. I remember even just a few decades ago, my father describes what happened to him by my grandfather just for laughing in church. He laughs about it now, but, it was no laughing matter at the time, I can tell you. My grandfather was a character, but, where religion was concerned, you towed the line.

The rebels were hell-bent on ruining the Church, and this was no small matter. We cannot possibly judge what happened on either side based on the “value system” of today, because there is none.

In the end, everyone ended up being sinners, just like us.

I can’t accept this moral relativity argument. In my mind, society was definitely different back then, but that does not change Jesus’ message NOR does it change basic moral principles.

Just answer this: Does killing “heretics” follow Jesus’ message? If so, should we still kill heretics today?

 

[Biggie]

I can’t accept this moral relativity argument. In my mind, society was definitely different back then, but that does not change Jesus’ message NOR does it change basic moral principles.

Just answer this: Does killing “heretics” follow Jesus’ message? If so, should we still kill heretics today?

Just answer this: Is heresy a capital crime today? And this: Is capital punishment inherently morally wrong?

Now remember, Jesus himself was put to capital punishment for the crime of blasphemy. Did he condemn the criminalization of blasphemy? When Didymus confessed on the cross that his crimes of rebellion meritted death, did Our Lord protest and say they did not?

 

[hellopeople]

:clapping::clapping:

And there speaks a person who is able to give an impartial and historical perspective.

It is sad to me (one of my majors back in the 80s was history, specifically the High Middle Ages as it happens) to see how many people today appear to be utterly incapable of separating their own world view and experience from past historical events.

Thus the constant harping that “Thomas Jefferson owned slaves” (and, of course, thereby he was an ‘evil man’ and all the good that he did is tainted permanently because “he owned slaves.”)

Sigh.

Welcome to nightmare ‘logic’ world. Where people can make all sorts of claims that something is ‘true’ simply based on the fact that they ‘say’ it.

So the statement that a man owned a slave no longer becomes simply "a man owned a slave’. . .that statement now carries an IRONCLAD ASSUMPTION that “any man who owned a slave was evil, and any evil man automatically remains evil despite any good he may do at any given point.”

The statement that, as Thomas More in his position as a state official oversaw the LEGAL occasions where a few (very few) people insisted on defying the state (an action at that time and in that country tantamount to treason, a capital offense which means death), now to these people becomes,

Because I now believe that any person should have the right to say as he pleases, and believe whatever he wants, I will insist that any person at any time in history who is in any way (as king, as official, even as ‘bystander’) to be considered as ‘judging’ another person, and refuses to let them say or do as they please, and goes so far as to find them LEGALLY and GOVERNMENTALLY to face the CONSEQUENCE of death. . .is an ‘evil person’ and no matter what else he may have done, I am going to insist that he is ‘responsible’ for those deaths and was a terrible man.

The state of American education is a woeful shambles and the ignorance of the average person when it comes to ANY history is appalling. And THAT is not just my opinion but the opinion of a member of my family (and that person’s colleagues) who just so happen to be college professors. Thought you might be interested to know.

In hundreds of years will the holocaust just be chalked up to “historical perspective?” Will people say “well, we don’t understand what it was like to live in Germany at that time, so we can’t condemn Hitler for what he did.” Actually I think some people say this now. If religion was not involved, I could say “well, you know, human rights didn’t exist back then as they do now, so it was ignorance that caused Thomas More to put these people to death.” BUT, he was undoubtedly familiar with the Bible and it is quite obvious that Jesus did not support killing those that opposed Him or His faith. Such a righteous Christian should have seen this and spoke out against these types of things…but he did not.

Has the message of Jesus changed since the time of Thomas More? Do you think that supporting these killings would be in line with Jesus’ message? If so, should we go out and kill heretics now? If you don’t think that we should kill heretics now, and that that would be against Jesus’ message, then the same was true during Thomas More’s time and he should not have condoned it.

Get out of here with this “historical perspective” excuse.