What’s Wrong with the World

St. Thomas More was a pre-liberal Catholic statesman in an age when the Roman Catholic Church was the foremost advocate of torture in Europe.

Thankfully, the Church was thouroughly liberalized and modernized by the Second Vatican Council (if not earlier). Now it wouldn't dream of hurting a flea.

Thus, contemporary scholastics like Zippy Catholic can assure us that to dribble a little water down the nose of a dirty scumbag Muslim like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is of the very essence of deviltry.

Well, no doubt Zippy would take issue with my characterizations and even I'll admit they're a tad facetious.

But in all seriousness (and pace Zippy himself), just what is the difference between Zippy, who assures us most soberly that to assent to the torture of KSM is to "formally cooperate with the devil", and St. Thomas More, who strongly advocated the death penalty for heretics and believed it should be administered in such a way as to cause intense pain and thus to terrify the public-at-large?

Did St. Thomas More "formally cooperate with the devil"?

Would someone, then, kindly post the number of heretics (or even one) put to death "in such a way as to cause intense pain and thus to terrify the public-at-large" under the watchful eye of St. Thomas More. No doubt, as a judge, he would have offered a gleeful hand in the grizzly deed.

Personally, I think abortionists and child molesters should endure such an end, but of course, mercy must prevail and judgment must be left to the Almighty, since I, myself, would never want to suffer what I truly deserve. Fortunately for me, Christ agrees.

Visitor--

While Lord Chancellor of England, Thomas More had William Tyndale executed for translating the New Testament. This is the sort of thing that didn't make the hagiographic A Man for All Seasons. As a general rule, don't rely on Hollywood for history. Neither The Tudors nor A Man For All Seasons really gets the history right. Read a good biography More instead, perhaps Peter Ackroyd's.

Ackroyd's bio I thought was excellent.

If you read the intro. to A Man for All Seasons, you will see that Bolt was making a point. He used More to make that point, and he did it absolutely brilliantly, in a play that everyone should read as well as see for its many literary virtues and its many profundities. But it wasn't intended to be historically comprehensive in any way. Bolt was an unbeliever and an existentialist! He certainly wasn't writing hagiography, that's for sure.

It was quite an accomplishment for More to have Tyndale executed, considering Tyndale was executed in 1536 but More in 1535. More himself resigned as Chancellor in 1532.

For what it's worth, New Advent says four were executed for heresy under More's chancellorship.

At the time, religious liberty was a Utopian proposal. Literally:

[Utopus] ...made a law that every man might be of what religion he pleased, and might endeavor to draw others to it by force of argument, and by amicable and modest ways, but without bitterness against those of other opinions; but that he ought to use no other force but that of persuasion, and was neither to mix with it reproaches nor violence; and such as did otherwise were to be condemned to banishment or slavery.

This law was made by Utopus, not only for preserving the public peace, which he saw suffered much by daily contentions and irreconcilable heats, but because he thought the interest of religion itself required it. He judged it not fit to determine anything rashly, and seemed to doubt whether those different forms of religion might not all come from God, who might inspire men in a different manner, and be pleased with this variety; he therefore thought it indecent and foolish for any man to threaten and terrify another to make him believe what did not appear to him to be true. And supposing that only one religion was really true, and the rest false, he imagined that the native force of truth would at last break forth and shine bright, if supported only by the strength of argument, and attended to with a gentle and unprejudiced mind; while, on the other hand, if such debates were carried on with violence and tumults, as the most wicked are always the most obstinate, so the best and most holy religion might be choked with superstition, as corn is with briars and thorns.

-St. Thomas More's Utopia, Book II

Christendom's harsh punishment for heretics made sense if one believed them to be falsifying something infinitely precious.

However, I am quite happy that the debate over the secular punishment for heresy is academic now.

It's also worth remembering that Catholic sainthood rests on a demonstration of heroic virtue, rather than a totally morally unquestionable life.

Whereas before, the salvation of souls were held to an utmost degree that anything that would so endanger the well-being of souls of the general Christian assembly, the scores of flocks that then so comprised Christendom, the genuine message of that very Gospel concerning such Salvation, within a defining (though adolescent) Christian Europe that once valued highly both Tradition & Scripture to such extent that even States constituting that very Christendom made heresy a capital crime, and engaged measures it found necessary not only to stamp out such heresy that would endanger the very Salvation of Souls but even would administer what it deemed then necessary medicine to the heretic himself in order to save his soul as well; such a mindset is completely alien to a world where Mammon is God (think most especially: the Prosperity Gospel).

Of course, I suppose, much like the doctor sawing off the gangrened leg of a civil war soldier, these individuals serving what seemed then a noble cause may have primarily engaged in such measures simply for sadistic sport!

At least, that's the kind of narrative most folks would more likely entertain these days.

Within these modern times where anti-Catholic sentiment is the fashion (and, in some arenas, such as in the entertainment industry, has become as entertaining as well as lucrative a pastime), a modern version of praemunire is most likely just around the corner given how any Catholic who dare believe/practice a more genuine version of the Faith is often condemned by secular society (and even by their own coreligionists to the point of sedition) as deserving some penalty of silence in matters not limited to just affairs of the State in order to minimize or altogether render null their influence.

Steve (if I may):
I'm perfectly ready to believe that times and perceptions -- in general and particularly wrt More -- changed quite a bit over the decades in question, and also that this is reflected by the treatments given More in Seasons vs. Tudors. In fact, I'm inclined to just accept your judgment on that matter. But to me (someone who knows a bit about More, but hasn't really studied his life carefully, and who has seen none of either of these two portrayals other than the clips you've posted), this big difference isn't revealed by these two clips. Given just the basic knowledge of More's biography that I know, I realized he played a driving role in the deaths of some men, some of whom, at least by my wits, were very far indeed from deserving death. Given that they were going to stay true to the relevant facts, I didn't see this Tudors clip as being somehow stacked against Moore. It seems to portray him about as sympathetically as one can. (Though it would have been good to get the identity of one of More's victims right!) Of course, if A Man for all Seasons simply neglects this aspect of More's complex life (as one of the above commentators claims, perhaps for the reason that another one then gives, perhaps legitimately, for all I know (which isn't much here)), then there would seem to be very different "spins" being put on the story here by the two works. I'm just saying that that doesn't come out in the clips themselves -- at least for me. In fact, aside from having two different actors in the lead role, it would have been quite believable to me that these were two clips from the same (apparently quite high-quality) work.

No doubt, More answered for his crimes, if in fact, he committed them (as do all of us). I can be sure that his saintly and merciful acts far outnumbered his crimes, which is why, he is now referred to as Saint Thomas More.

Keith,

The man More was of the King's council, in charge of administering certain duties on behalf of the state; a state that at that time, under the direction of King Henry VIII himself, regarded heresy as a crime.

Of course, these facts are perhaps only conveniently glanced over.

In addition, although More held such high duties of the State in this regard, interesting to note that in all his years prior to the time of his resignation, only 3 actually suffered this sort of capital punishment.

If More is going to be portrayed as some blood-thirsty, "burn, baby, burn" sort of Secretary of the Homintern (to borrow the term from our beloved Maximos) that modern entertainment would have the general populace believe, they'll be left wanting.

CORRIGENDUM:

The man More was of the King's council, in charge of administering certain duties on behalf of the state; a state that at that time, under the direction of King Henry VIII himself, regarded heresy as a [capital] crime [thus, subject to capital punishment].

Pardon me, Hubbard, if I may add, that I have read biographies on Thomas More and have not (ever) relied on Hollywood to supply or recreate accurate truth. But nor do I rely on blog comments either.

Risa Tyi (surely an anagram?) asks:

"...what is the difference between Zippy, who assures us most soberly that to assent to the torture of KSM is to 'formally cooperate with the devil', and St. Thomas More, who strongly advocated the death penalty for heretics and believed it should be administered in such a way as to cause intense pain and thus to terrify the public-at-large?"

I find this question puzzling. One might rather ask what is the *connection* between Zippy Catholic & Sir Thomas More - canonized in 1935 & declared the Patron Saint of politicians & statesmen in 1980?

Hubbard: I think Kevin J. Jones kinda' gotcha' there.

Lydia: agreed on Bolt's play. It's powerful stuff. And Paul Scofield's performance in the title role is unforgettable.

Keith - you may indeed.

;^)

"Given just the basic knowledge of More's biography that I know, I realized he played a driving role in the deaths of some men, some of whom, at least by my wits, were very far indeed from deserving death."

Yes - I'm afraid that's true.

"Given that they were going to stay true to the relevant facts, I didn't see this Tudors clip as being somehow stacked against Moore. It seems to portray him about as sympathetically as one can."

Well, that's certainly a defensible position.

In fact, in all fairness, I must admit that the second season of "The Tudors" (which I am now working my way through) portrays More with what seems to me all due respect. It's also much more historically accurate than the first season - so much so that I wish I could recommend it to WWWW readers.

Unfortunately, the otherwise fascinating narrative is regularly interrupted by interludes of what can only be described as soft-core porn.

Anyway - I guess what really got to me, here, was our modern tendency to dwell on the faults of the great men of our past, at the expense of their virtues.