Thomas More as executioner during Chancellory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ceil-1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Jesus’ death was necessary for the salvation of the world. So the situation you are describing is a bit different. If heresy was a capital crime back then, Thomas More should have spoken out about it IMO. There is nothing in the gospels that suggest that Jesus would be in support of killing “heretics” and there is certainly A LOT of passages that suggest he would be against it.
 
Jesus’ death was necessary for the salvation of the world. So the situation you are describing is a bit different. If heresy was a capital crime back then, Thomas More should have spoken out about it IMO. There is nothing in the gospels that suggest that Jesus would be in support of killing “heretics” and there is certainly A LOT of passages that suggest he would be against it.
Your argument here is non responsive. In point of fact, Jesus did not decry capital punishment for blasphemy, a well established punishment from the beginning. Neither did he turn to Didymus and profess he should not have been put to death for rebellion.

Heresy is not a capital crime today in large part because it is no longer tantamount to treason. Treason, however, is still a capital crime.

In Thomas More’s world, heresy was the equivalent of treason. In Our Lord’s world, blasphemy was likewise a threat against the state.

St. Thomas More, had he been so inclined, would have been parting with thousands of years of morality and with all known and understood jurisprudence to have offered that the King had no right to punish heresy with death. That the state did not have that right would not have occurred to him. Even in his own martyrdom, St. Thomas acknowledged that the King had a right to put him to death, as Our Lord tacitly acknowledged the state had a right to order his execution, had he been justly accused.

And where precisely in the gospels did Jesus condemn capital punishment or capital punishment for heresy?
 
It is possible to have it both ways in this, and I think that is the only real Christian response.

I think that having heresy as a capital crime is wrong, and I also happen to think capital punishment is wrong, in all but very unusual circumstances. I hold those as Christian positions.

I also recognize that people in the past did not see it that way, and there were differences in their worldview that account for that.

And really, if you think about how they understood heresy, it makes a certain sense. It was someone who was endangering not just the body of thousands of citizens, but was endangering their souls and leading them to Hell. Surely if anything would be a case where capital punishment is logical, that might be it.

As a Christian, intent and understanding are an important part of sin. It is possible in a Christian understanding to do the wrong thing for the right reason.

I think the reason this is so difficult is that we feel that people ought to know intuitively, through the Law of conscience if you will, that such acts are bad. This is after all the kind of argument we use against war crimes. How could someone judge a person worthy of being burned for having different opinions, we wonder, without his soul crying out against it as ours would?

But a little humility is in order with this line of thinking. We are as much influenced by the time and place that we live as those who live in other ages, and it is always very difficult to see this and understand our own assumptions. In the case of things like war crimes, we are talking about people not that far from us in time and space - we are in something of a position to judge whether they “knew or ought reasonably to have known”. With people more distant from us, it is much more difficult - we must really immerse ourselves in their way of thinking to get a good place to make a judgement. (Doing so also has the effect of somewhat revealing to us something about our own assumptions.)
 
Things must be understood within the historical context etc…the world view and political view of the time saw heresy as a very grave thing (which it still is in the spiritual order though politics will not see such) …and was seen by the State as a grave disorder effecting …in fact attacking the fabric of society and …a kind of spiritual murder. And this would have been a common State view…

(of course we would not do such today! …but remember in those times things could be quite rough …

at one point people could get in very bad trouble with a King for touching a kings shrubbery! )

Now to compare Thomas More and the world culture at the time…with Nazi’s murdering Jews…something* the whole world at the time…and ordinary folks condemned*… …is way out in left field…
 
Can I ask a very serious question that I would appreciate a serious answer too? It is simply something I don’t understand and would like clarification on.

To those of you who defend St. More by pointing to the wrongs of others, might I simply inquire when this became a valid apologetic? Since when does what anyone except for St. More did have anything to do with a defense of St. More?
 
Can I ask a very serious question that I would appreciate a serious answer too? It is simply something I don’t understand and would like clarification on.

To those of you who defend St. More by pointing to the wrongs of others, might I simply inquire when this became a valid apologetic? Since when does what anyone except for St. More did have anything to do with a defense of St. More?
I would be happy to address your question if I could understand it. What are you getting at?
 
I would be happy to address your question if I could understand it. What are you getting at?
A bunch of people on this thread have attempted to defend St. More by talking about what the Protestants did. I do not understand what that has to do with anything St. More may, or may not, have done. So, I would simply like to know what the actions of someone who is not St. More have to do with the defense of St. More?
 
A bunch of people on this thread have attempted to defend St. More by talking about what the Protestants did. I do not understand what that has to do with anything St. More may, or may not, have done. So, I would simply like to know what the actions of someone who is not St. More have to do with the defense of St. More?
Maybe point out where this occurred? After reading the thread I see, where that people have said that an historical perspective has to be used in understanding a certain period of time. Which seems a reasonable position.
 
Maybe point out where this occurred? After reading the thread I see, where that people have said that an historical perspective has to be used in understanding a certain period of time. Which seems a reasonable position.
Near the beginning there were several people who pointed out that various Protestant reformers also engaged in nasty behaviors. My impression was not that they were saying that the culture was different, but simply excusing More because others were as bad or worse on the other side.

But if that is what they meant, and it may be that they didn’t, Drawmack is right, it isn’t a sensible argument - all it shows is that people on all sides did bad things.

People become sensitive I think and over-react to such questions. I regularly see Catholics on about bad things Martin Luther or Calvin did, and Protestant’s on about bad things some Catholics did, as if that invalidates their particular viewpoint. So people then point out that the other side also has the same kind of bad behavior. In that sense the argument is reasonable.

But my impression in this discussion was that it was just about More’s character and whether it was saintly, not that it somehow invalidated Catholicism if it wasn’t.
 
A bunch of people on this thread have attempted to defend St. More by talking about what the Protestants did. I do not understand what that has to do with anything St. More may, or may not, have done. So, I would simply like to know what the actions of someone who is not St. More have to do with the defense of St. More?
The life of St. Thomas More, neither his deeds nor his beatification, can be understood out of the context of the Protestant Reformation, both Lutheran and English.
 
It is my understanding that St. Thomas More was canonized because he was martyred for the Faith. Martyrdom means automatic sainthood.

Though, he did live a remarkably holy life outside of that, which is worthy of note. Had he not been martyred, I doubt he would have been canonized.
 
It is my understanding that St. Thomas More was canonized because he was martyred for the Faith. Martyrdom means automatic sainthood.

Though, he did live a remarkably holy life outside of that, which is worthy of note. Had he not been martyred, I doubt he would have been canonized.
I don’t know that martyrdom is automatic sainthood. I would expect there have been many martyrs not canonized, but I understand your point. He lead a most holy life, remarkable in every way. Would that have produced his canonization? Who can say, but surely his final stand alone merits his reward.
 
According to the Church, if you are martyred d/t your fidenlity to the Faith, you are a martyr, though, there are many who may be unknown, if the Church hears about you, you are. A good example of this would be the Japanese and Korean martyrs. There were so many, it is hard to honor them individually, but, nevertheless, they are bona fide Saints.
 
According to the Church, if you are martyred d/t your fidenlity to the Faith, you are a martyr, though, there are many who may be unknown, if the Church hears about you, you are. A good example of this would be the Japanese and Korean martyrs. There were so many, it is hard to honor them individually, but, nevertheless, they are bona fide Saints.
As you will, I’m not disputing. My response was just to indicate that the martyrdom of St. Thomas More was the culmination of his life’s work. In a sense, all he thought and did lead him to it. A person does not give his life as St. Thomas More did except out of his personal holiness. So I wanted to dispel the notion that his life in some way mitigates against his martyrdom.
 
The life of St. Thomas More, neither his deeds nor his beatification, can be understood out of the context of the Protestant Reformation, both Lutheran and English.
And, there are wonderful posts on this thread that say that. However, there are also posts which simply talk about what the Protestants did. That simply isn’t a defense of St. More. It would be like someone accused of murder saying, “I didn’t kill as many people as Dahlmer.” It just doesn’t make sense to me. However, those that explain the times and the mind set, those that point out that heresy was equivocal to treason are all reasonable.
 
And, there are wonderful posts on this thread that say that. However, there are also posts which simply talk about what the Protestants did. That simply isn’t a defense of St. More. It would be like someone accused of murder saying, “I didn’t kill as many people as Dahlmer.” It just doesn’t make sense to me. However, those that explain the times and the mind set, those that point out that heresy was equivocal to treason are all reasonable.
I simply didn’t draw that message from the thread. I perhaps made the most explicit example by citing the manner of death of St. John Fisher, but the purpose was not as you are understanding. The entire point is that burning at the stake, undeniably a brutal execution to modern ears, was of a kind with any manner of executions at the time, i.e. hung, drawn and quartered as I described. The point was not justification by virtue of the behavior of reformists, but context for what was wildly being depicted as unprecedented brutality.
 
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?
You might ask the Catholic Truth Society in the UK, they probably could give you a more complete answer.
 
'It is true that highwaymen, grave-robbers, and sorcerers have their sides torn to pieces; it is also true that the martyrs undergo this same suffering. What is done is the same, but the purpose and reason why it is done is different. And so it is that there is a great difference between the criminals and martyrs.

In these cases we not only consider the torture but we first look for the intention and the reasons why the torture is inflicted. And this is why we love the martyrs - not because they are tortured but because they are tortured for the sake of Christ. But we turn our backs on the robbers - not because they are being punished but because they are being punished for their wickedness.

So, too, in the matter of fasting, you must pass a judgment. If you see people fasting for the sake of God, approve what they do; if you see that they do this against God’s will, turn your back on them and hate them more than you do those who drink, revel, and carouse. And in the case of this fasting we must inquire not only into the reason for fasting but we must consider also the place and the time.’

St. John Chrysostom, Father, Archbishop, Doctor of the Church (c. 347–407 A.D.)

And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished. And if thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off. It is better for thee to enter lame into life everlasting, than having two feet, to be cast into the hell of unquenchable fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished.

And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out. It is better for thee with one eye to enter into the kingdom of God, than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished.

Mark 9:42-47

If any one abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.

John 15:6

'With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church

. . . in blazing fire, inflicting punishment on those who do not acknowledge God these will pay the penalty of eternal ruin, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power, . . .

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9

The body is of infinitely less value than the soul. If the death penalty for heresy saves souls from Hell, it is properly carried out by civil society.

The majority of souls go to Hell. And how many more now that there is no Christian religion in government?

Catholicism is a revealed truth, it being the Faith is a fact of history and a spiritual and material reality. Other Protestant and secular history is false history, lies, in the service of Satan. Those who purvey it teach Hell’s history. That these lies be resisted strongly by some societies in their civil authorities is quite proper. The vague secularism that teaches religions are all things you choose based on what you feel, and has its own version of history, is all of course, fiction.

It is not a case of equivalency. There is no equivalency between criminal punishment for someone doing the work of the devil, and someone doing the work of Christ.

A heretic being put to death is not the same thing as a faithful Christian being put to death. One person is in the service of Satan, the other in the service of Christ.

A murderer only kills a person’s body, but teaching another person heresy kills the person’s soul forever.

In these times, there is no more Christendom, so it is of course no longer something that should be done. If Christendom still existed and could be prevented from falling by just war, or the death penalty, these would again be just to be used.

‘It is a certain, well established fact that no other crime so seriously offends God and provokes His greatest wrath as the vice of heresy. Nothing contributes more to the down fall of provinces and kingdoms than this frightful pest.’

St. Charles Borromeo

‘Heresy is from the Greek word meaning “choice”. . . But we are not permitted to believe whatever we choose, nor to choose whatever someone else has believed. We have the Apostles of God as authorities, who did not. . . choose what they would believe but faithfully transmitted the teachings of Christ. So, even if an angel from heaven should preach otherwise, he shall be called anathema.’

St. Isidore of Seville
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top