Why did Henry VIII Kill Sir Thomas More?

[LilyM]

He was acting in a way which benefited his religion.

To be sure he was. The warm fuzzies he gained (and they were all he gained - he got no extra pay for doing so, and indeed ended up losing everything up to and including his life) were doubtless a great consolation.

They are nothing compared to the fact that Henry personally benefited enormously by

a) getting his tame clergy to post facto declare his first marriage illegitimate and his second legitimate

b) getting wads of booty that previously went overseas to motherhouses or Rome, from the monasteries he dissolved and

c) getting wads of booty from the churchmen whose lands and offices he got a hold of, and other victims such as More himself, whose property all became forfeit to the King.

A vast difference in motivations, I’m sure you’ll agree

Umm - the people More burned were **saying **things, and writing things about religion. You really can’t see a significant difference?

There’s a bit more to it than you realise. The King’s sole basis for claiming any sort of authority at the time he came to the throne was the fact that he went through a coronation ceremony and swore an oath - in a Catholic cathedral, during a Catholic Mass, in front of a Catholic Archbishop.

Two very important things flow from this:

a) Among other things the King swore before God at his coronation to uphold the Catholic faith in England. He did NOT swear to separate from that faith and make himself head of the English Church! Until such time as he did separate, it was his bounden duty on pain of sin and damnation to search out and punish heretics. His Chancellor had to be instrumental in carrying out that duty.

b) What exactly were these people writing? Not harmless fluff - but deep and threatening stuff. Among other things they questioned the validity of the very clergy by and before whom the King had been crowned, the sacraments that they had employed in doing so, and the very Catholic faith he had sworn to uphold.

What do you suppose this meant in terms of Henry’s own claims to authority? At least before his break from Rome, his compelling all his subjects to personally swear to his headship of the Church, and in doing so to the legitimacy of his rule, by recognising his marriage to and heir by Anne Boleyn, and his appointment of a new Protestant Archbishop?

At best, the ceremonies that had accompanied his coronation were viewed as meaningless by the heretics, and at worst as diabolically sinful. Either way, the logical conclusion of the Protestant thinking was that Henry was not a legitimate monarch. And if not legitimate, then his rule as well as his life were under threat. Deeply unsettling stuff for someone from a dynasty (the Tudors) which was very newly established and which had, throughout the reign of Henry’s father, been destabilised by numerous rebellions and attempts to depose him, much of which Henry was old enough to have personally witnessed.

 

[BListon]

So you would say that Henry ‘had’ to execute More?

Henry was never forced to do ANYTHING. He was the highest power there was. The only reason More would have executed anyone was because he was forced to by Henry, who was an absolute soverign monarch.

 

[Hokomai]

Is this scholarly site one of your sources of information?:

www.reformation.org/sir-thomas-more.html

www.reformation.org/thomas-more-bio.html

If you go to the Main Menu, there are links to lots of juicy “facts” about Roman Catholicism/the Vatican.

No. I am relying on the accretion of facts gained through moderately wide reading of books over what is becoming a long life.

 

[EddyDRR]

Henry was never forced to do ANYTHING. He was the highest power there was. The only reason More would have executed anyone was because he was forced to by Henry, who was an absolute soverign monarch.

No one is forced to do anything they do not truly will to do for their own goal.

Please find a better excuse than the Nuremberg Defense.

 

[Dirt]

Outside of reading historical accounts of the actions of Saint Thomas More and Henry VIII, we are in no position to argue as to the validity of right and wrong other than that stated by Holy Mother Church.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5regnans.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

Pope Paul III decreed the second and final excommunication of King Henry VIII of England in December 1538.

From newadvent.org/cathen/14689c.htm
“As chancellor it was his duty to enforce the laws against heretics and, by doing so, he provoked the attacks of Protestant writers both in his own time and since. The subject need not be discussed here, but More’s attitude is patent. He agreed with the principle of the anti-heresy laws and had no hesitation in enforcing them. As he himself wrote in his “Apologia” (cap. 49) it was the vices of heretics that he hated, not their persons; and he never proceeded to extremities until he had made every effort to get those brought before him to recant. How successful he was in this is clear from the fact that only four persons suffered the supreme penalty for heresy during his whole term of office.”

Thomas More was formally beatified by Pope Leo XIII, in the Decree of 29 December, 1886. Note: St. Thomas More was canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1935.

 

[Dirt]

Is this scholarly site one of your sources of information?:

www.reformation.org/sir-thomas-more.html

www.reformation.org/thomas-more-bio.html

If you go to the Main Menu, there are links to lots of juicy “facts” about Roman Catholicism/the Vatican.

I find the linked sites to be anti Catholic and Heretical.

 

[BListon]

No one is forced to do anything they do not truly will to do for their own goal.

Please find a better excuse than the Nuremberg Defense.

Ok…, rhetorical question, but would you do something you didn’t agree with if YOUR OWN life was at stake… answer yourself honestly.

 

[Hokomai]

Ok…, rhetorical question, but would you do something you didn’t agree with if YOUR OWN life was at stake… answer yourself honestly.

The thing is that More was a brave man, with the courage of his convictions. He went to his death rather than breach them. This shows us that he was not ‘forced’ to burn heretics. Had this been against his convictions, he would not have done so. He thought it was a good thing. I happen to think it bad.

 

[GKC]

The thing is that More was a brave man, with the courage of his convictions. He went to his death rather than breach them. This shows us that he was not ‘forced’ to burn heretics. Had this been against his convictions, he would not have done so. He thought it was a good thing. I happen to think it bad.

He, at least, thought it sometimes a necessary thing.

GKC

 

[mom2em]

Hey, a bit off topic hers but did any one see the Tudors? !

There are less graphical movies on the subject.

A Man for All Seasons and Anne of a Thousand Days come to mind.

I watched the Tudors over the summer on netflix while doing work. Skipping the parts that were just … there for the you know ‘shock’ of it getting on tv or whatever their reason is. I’ve been debating to get the entire series. I too love … that part of history. I am not at all sure why. It started in university with having to do something on Jane Grey. I also have to admit to reading Philippa Gregory’s books. Even if not at all accurate. I’m a sucker for that time period.

I wonder if Man for All Seasons is still on Netflix? I know it was the summer but never got around to it. Thanks for the suggest of Anne of a 1000 days.

 

[manualman]

The thing is that More was a brave man, with the courage of his convictions. He went to his death rather than breach them. This shows us that he was not ‘forced’ to burn heretics. Had this been against his convictions, he would not have done so. He thought it was a good thing. I happen to think it bad.

History is so nice and tidy in one’s armchair in an air conditioned room, protected by a capable modern police force, isn’t it? Quite so. How about another latte?

But in case you actually would like to examine the issue closer, how about you recognize the difficulty of comprehending and confronting one’s cultural abominations? Are you as hard on US federal judges circa 1858 whose job forced them to turn runaway slaves back to their ‘owners?’ Do you deplore the bomber pilots who obeyed orders to drop incendiary bombs in Dresden in the 1940’s? Are you ready to slam the door on the lifelong prison for US soldiers convicted of commiting abusive and/or murderous acts after being tramautized by God knows what in their combat patrols? Are you satisfied that you yourself aren’t complicit in the exploitive global economic system of today that uses virtual slave labor to provide you with cheap luxuries?

Right and wrong are absolute, but culpability certainly is not. Hope you learn the difference before it comes for you someday.

 

[Hokomai]

History is so nice and tidy in one’s armchair in an air conditioned room, protected by a capable modern police force, isn’t it? Quite so. How about another latte?

But in case you actually would like to examine the issue closer, how about you recognize the difficulty of comprehending and confronting one’s cultural abominations? Are you as hard on US federal judges circa 1858 whose job forced them to turn runaway slaves back to their ‘owners?’ Do you deplore the bomber pilots who obeyed orders to drop incendiary bombs in Dresden in the 1940’s? Are you ready to slam the door on the lifelong prison for US soldiers convicted of commiting abusive and/or murderous acts after being tramautized by God knows what in their combat patrols? Are you satisfied that you yourself aren’t complicit in the exploitive global economic system of today that uses virtual slave labor to provide you with cheap luxuries?

Right and wrong are absolute, but culpability certainly is not. Hope you learn the difference before it comes for you someday.

I have not said anything about More’s culpability. I have addressed only what he did, and clearly said that I consider he acted believing he was doing good. The reason I keep raising this is two-fold. 1) (Some, not well-informed) Catholics often deny More was responsible for burnings, while condemning, sometimes in extravagant terms, his protestant contemporaries who did similarly objectively evil things, and 2) He is a saint who is widely upheld as a role model not only as a martyr, but for his life and political actions. I think we can learn a lot about the nature of belief and the way people handle contradictions by discussing this. My interest is not the same as yours because I am not a believer. I am not looking for ‘sin’ but hoping to understand more about what people believe. You have helped me in this, and I am grateful to you.

 

[LilyM]

I have not said anything about More’s culpability. I have addressed only what he did, and clearly said that I consider he acted believing he was doing good. The reason I keep raising this is two-fold. 1) (Some, not well-informed) Catholics often deny More was responsible for burnings, while condemning, sometimes in extravagant terms, his protestant contemporaries who did similarly objectively evil things, and 2) He is a saint who is widely upheld as a role model not only as a martyr, but for his life and political actions. I think we can learn a lot about the nature of belief and the way people handle contradictions by discussing this. My interest is not the same as yours because I am not a believer. I am not looking for ‘sin’ but hoping to understand more about what people believe. You have helped me in this, and I am grateful to you.

Many people are upheld as role models - St Augustine, Blessed John Paul II, Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Muhammad Ali, Abraham Lincoln, John F Kennedy (by some). This is not, and never has been, meant as an endorsement of every single thing the saints did any more than it is meant as a ringing endorsement of everything that, say, Muhammad Ali did (I’m sure at least some disapprove of his refusal to serve in the army and his throwing away of his Olympic Gold Medal.)

More was human, being human, although a saintly human, he sinned and made mistakes. Even saints sin seven times a day, as scripture says. Catholics know all this very well, and know to discern the good from the bad in the lives of their saintly role models as with all their other role models in life. St Thomas Aquinas didn’t hold with the idea of the Immaculate Conception - however, this only became dogma many hundreds of years after his time and so was not in fact required belief for him. We discern and disinguish his wrong idea (which St Thomas presumably would not have held had he lived in the present day, being the faithful son of the Church that he was) from the many good and admirable things he said and did, as scholar as well as Saint.

More indeed did much that was admirable as a politician. His deft handling, with unbelievable good grace and good humour, and refraining from causing offence for as long as possible, of the incredibly difficult situation he was put in vis-a-vis the King’s remarriage and takeover of the C of E, is really a marvel of tact and diplomacy. That is not to say that his hurling vile insults in print at Luther, or his burning of heretics, are admirable or admired.

As you have amply demonstrated, such things are very difficult to understand outside their historical context. This is not to say they are necessarily utterly evil or diabolical either. We as Catholics see the feet of clay in our saintly statues and do not pretend that they were perfect in any way.

 

[manualman]

H, you keep an even head under fire, I admire that much.

 

[Hokomai]

H, you keep an even head under fire, I admire that much.

Why thank you. It is age I think.

 

[Dirt]

I have not said anything about More’s culpability. I have addressed only what he did, and clearly said that I consider he acted believing he was doing good. The reason I keep raising this is two-fold. 1) (Some, not well-informed) Catholics often deny More was responsible for burnings, while condemning, sometimes in extravagant terms, his protestant contemporaries who did similarly objectively evil things, and 2) He is a saint who is widely upheld as a role model not only as a martyr, but for his life and political actions. I think we can learn a lot about the nature of belief and the way people handle contradictions by discussing this. My interest is not the same as yours because I am not a believer. I am not looking for ‘sin’ but hoping to understand more about what people believe. You have helped me in this, and I am grateful to you.

As an “I am not a believer” you must weigh our opinions as based on our belief in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of The One True God. If we believe this, we must accept and believe all of The Church’s teachings, and we must believe that We have the True teachings and the True Tradition as handed down from Christ through the Apostles to our current leaders, the Bishops and The Pope. Over 2000 years of documentation proves this to be true. and the entire Old Testament points to Jesus Christ and upholds the Faith we now profess. I will admit that our current era has many more doubters than in the past, but for the Faithful Catholic, the entire history of the Church is held in total. Would burning heretics at the stake be apropos today? Probably not. But given the times in which he lived and the duty to Obedience that existed at that time, yes. Unfortunately obedience is a lost value in some Faithful, and clerics, today. But the lack of obedience on the part of members of the Church does not diminish the requirement of obedience of all. Arch Bishop Sheen once was quoted as saying “the truth is the truth, even if no one believes it. And a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.”

Pax

 

[Hokomai]

As an “I am not a believer” you must weigh our opinions as based on our belief in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of The One True God. If we believe this, we must accept and believe all of The Church’s teachings, and we must believe that We have the True teachings and the True Tradition as handed down from Christ through the Apostles to our current leaders, the Bishops and The Pope. Over 2000 years of documentation proves this to be true. and the entire Old Testament points to Jesus Christ and upholds the Faith we now profess. I will admit that our current era has many more doubters than in the past, but for the Faithful Catholic, the entire history of the Church is held in total. Would burning heretics at the stake be apropos today? Probably not. But given the times in which he lived and the duty to Obedience that existed at that time, yes. Unfortunately obedience is a lost value in some Faithful, and clerics, today. But the lack of obedience on the part of members of the Church does not diminish the requirement of obedience of all. Arch Bishop Sheen once was quoted as saying “the truth is the truth, even if no one believes it. And a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.”

Pax

Having overcome my shock at these statements, I ask a question: how is this not ‘situation ethics’, which is rejected by the Church. Surely burning people for theircannot be a Godly act then, and probably not now? Or are you saying that if the Church again had the power, you would indeed consider burning people again?

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

There are less graphical movies on the subject.

A Man for All Seasons and Anne of a Thousand Days come to mind.

:flowers::heaven:
Yes! I Absolutely agree with you, ProVobis. And I love how my local stations always seem to air those two films back to back! I completely agree that these are superior to The (all too steamy) Tudors series. Would that everyone be assigned to view these films in high school. A Man for All Seasons is an especially profound work and would be a helpful introduction to any serious study of religion. :bowdown::harp:

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Hey, a bit off topic hers but did any one see the Tudors? It aired on Starz or showtime first but I watched it on netflix, and its on Amazon Prime. It was an excellent series about Henry VIII. I do hope it goes on to do Mary and Elizabeth. It was so good.

I feel I must say if you do decide to watch it, it can be graphic. Some nudity along with showing people “in the act” as well as the heads coming off. If you are sensitive to this you may want to skip it, and you way want to watch without kids around. My kids are teens, and we are honest and not shy about that reality, but it wasn’t something I would want to watch with them around!

:heaven:
I like your sense of fun, monicabay (!) although I agree with ProVobis that two excellent and less graphic versions of history can be found in the movies he named:* A Man for All Seasons* and Anne of the Thousand Days. Have you seen these? They’re remarkable films.:harp::heaven::harp:
Blessings on your day.
Kathryn Ann

 

[Dirt]

Having overcome my shock at these statements, I ask a question: how is this not ‘situation ethics’, which is rejected by the Church. Surely burning people for theircannot be a Godly act then, and probably not now? Or are you saying that if the Church again had the power, you would indeed consider burning people again?

Have you ever read the Old Testament? do the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah ring any bells? Or the cleansing of Canaan? Or the Flood? only in the post Vatican Council 2 world have we forgotten what an anathema is. What Righteous anger is. What it means to separate oneself from the filth of this world. We have been fed a diet of “do not judge” and “love everyone” to the point that now we cannot distinguish wrong from right, Holy from evil. Think i am wrong? look at the contraception/abortion flap currently playing out. This Bishop says no, the next one says yes. One Priest holds to Tradition and another states NO, we do not believe that anymore. While supposed Catholics line up behind this demon in the White House and congratulate him for the fine job he is doing. Righteous indignation, and Righteous Anger are sadly missing in to many Catholics and we are seeing the results.

I am saying that if Holy Mother Church had the power, perhaps Heretics would be a thing of the past. But as we now see, all will play out to the Glory of God unto the final day. Then the four last things: Death, Judgement, Heaven, Hell.

Pax