Sir Thomas More is well known for his principled objection to Henry VIII’s assumption of royal control of the English Church (Ecclesia Anglica). More was executed by Henry’s courts for treason based on this objection. Roman Catholics and even most Anglicans consider him to be a martyr, and he is a saint in the Catholic church.
When Sir Thomas was chancellor of England, he vigorously pursued Protestants, and under his governance, six protestants were burned at the stake. I know times were different and I am not placing particular blame on Sir Thomas for the taking of the lives of people who took a principled stand (in similar character to the stand that Sir Thomas was later to take) for their religious beliefs.
My question is, given that much of what the Protestants argued for (the Bible in English for example) is now accepted and embraced in the Catholic church, shouldn’t these Protestants also be honored as martyrs by all Christians?
That’s an excellent question and deserves a rational response.
First, martyrs and saints are not the same. Not all martyrs are saints and not all saints are martyrs.
Second, the Church recognizes as saint a person who has lived a heroic life of Christian virtue in full communion with the Catholic Church. She has no authority over those who are not in communion with Catholicism. Therefore, she cannot proclaim a non-Catholic a saint.
Third, a person who gives his life for his convictions is certainly a martyr. There are many kinds of martyrs. There are martyrs among many people, Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. If we stop and think about the many people that the Nazis and the Communists killed for their faith, Catholics and other, these folks are martyrs. They committed not crime other than being, whatever.
As to the fate of these folks, we commend them to the merciful God who rewards any honest man or woman who tries to do what he or she believes is pleasing to God. God certainly does not overlook the content of the heart and conscience.
I want to comment on St. Thomas More’s execution of the six heretics. There are three important points and you made one of them.
- Thomas was a man of his time. In those days, heresy was a capital offense. This remained the same when the monarchy took control of the English church. It was a mindset of the time, not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. If you were a heretic, you were a criminal. There are many explanations for this thinking and they all contradict each other. I don’t find them to be very edifying. That’s why I stick with ascetical and mystical theology. It’s practical.
- There was blur between true reformers and rebels. Some reformers became rebels. They threw out the baby and the water. This destabilized an already precarious monarchy. As Lord Chancellor, one of Thomas’ temporal duties was to serve the kingdom. Regardless of why heretics were condemned as criminals, let’s accept for a moment that this was the law of the land. In Thomas’ mind, it was his moral duty to protect the monarchy. He was the Chancellor. Failure to do so would be weakness in his Christian duty.
- Finally, More was not canonized for killing heretics. He was canonized for laying down his life for the faith. Many people do not know that More was a Franciscan. In the Rule to the Brothers and Sisters of Penance, the order to which he belonged, Francis quoted the scripture, “A man can do no greater thing than to lay down his life for his friends.” More was a very wise man. He was well aware of the corruption and sin in the Church. He had no use for Cardinal Wolsey. He hoped and prayed that the sins inside the Church would be overcome. He was also aware of the obsession that Henry had with a male heir.
However, More loved the Church and the King. He saw the good and the necessity of both. Unfortunately for Henry, he pushed More against the wall. He demanded that More take sides. The Rule of St. Francis says that the brothers and sisters shall obey the ecclesial authority, without question, even when they believe authority to be mistaken or when they believe that they have a better idea (I’m paraphrasing from the original Latin). The ecclesial authority could only be disobeyed when it commanded sin. More certainly did so when Cardinal Wolsey was Chancellor. But when Wolsey commanded something that was imprudent, but not sinful, More obeyed. He applied the same principle to Henry. When Henry asks him to take the Oath, he’s asking him to sin. More does as the scripture says. He lays down his life for his King and for his Church. He understood that he would do the king a greater service from heaven, than he would by betraying the faith. He actually said this to his daughter.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
