St. Thomas More Burning Heretics

[socalscout]

I was listening to Relevant Radio and a Protestant came on and started to spew about how St.Thomas More burned Protestants at the stake. The on air personalities were blind sided by this because the topic had nothing to do with Protestants or St. Thomas More. They could only say that they have never heard this and how could he be canonized by the Church if it were so. When asked where he heard this the guy could not answer and expected them to take his word as truth.

Does anyone know a little more about that history to refute this? I want to e-mail them at Relevant Radio.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
they might be getting it from wikipedia (which we all know isn't a great source to begin with):
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More[/url]
[quote]Sir Thomas More (7 February 1478 – 6 July 1535) was an English lawyer, author, and statesman who in his lifetime gained a reputation as a leading humanist scholar, and [b]occupied many public offices, including Lord Chancellor (1529–1532), in which he had a number of people burned at the stake for heresy.[/b] More coined the word "utopia", a name he gave to an ideal, imaginary island nation whose political system he described in the eponymous book published in 1516. He was beheaded in 1535 when he refused to sign the Act of Supremacy that declared Henry VIII Supreme Head of the Church in England.[/quote]

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
and the source they give as back up to this statement:
[quote]s Lord Chancellor, More had six Lutherans burned at the stake and imprisoned as many as forty others[/quote]
is:
Article published by European Institute of Protestant Studies, 27 May 2002 - which is tada: [url="http://www.ianpaisley.org/"]http://www.ianpaisley.org/[/url], who is a notorious anti-Catholic.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
i don't know how to challenge something in wikipedia, but someone should do so on this point. why is a notorious anti-Catholic getting to write about a Catholic saint in such a negative way?

[socalscout]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1730560' date='Dec 17 2008, 01:52 PM']+J.M.J.+
i don't know how to challenge something in wikipedia, but someone should do so on this point. why is a notorious anti-Catholic getting to write about a Catholic saint in such a negative way?[/quote]

I agree with you 100%.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
from [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14689c.htm"]newadvent.org[/url]:
[quote]The Lutheran controversy had now spread throughout Europe and, with some reluctance, More was drawn into it. His controversial writings are mentioned below in the list of his works, and it is sufficient here to say that, while far more refined than most polemical writers of the period, there is still a certain amount that tastes unpleasant to the modern reader.
...
[u]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.[/u] 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. [u]How successful he was in this is clear from the fact that only four persons suffered the supreme penalty for heresy ([b]i.e. capital punishment - my note LR[/b]) during his whole term of office.[/u][/quote]

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
from [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/THOMASMO.HTM"]ewtn[/url]:
[quote]Although Henry's relations with the Pope had by this time become strained, More's time and thought were largely taken up with the general movement against Church authority in England. He composed answers to Protestant attacks and dealt with problems of heresy.

...

In his <Apology> and again in <The Debellation of Salem and Bizance> (both in 1533) he defended the principle of punishment of heresy by secular power on the ground that it threatened the peace and safety of the commonwealth. [u]As Chancellor it was his duty to administer the civil laws of England[/u], which prescribed the death penalty for obstinate heretics. Nevertheless, during his term of office only four, it seems, were burned, and these were relapsed persons, [u]whom he had no power to reprieve[/u].

Actually, it was heresy and not the heretics that More tried to get rid of.

One of Tyndale's vehement charges against the Catholics was what he called their failure to give the complete Bible to the people in a language they understood. His own translations were being smuggled into England from the Continent and avidly read.

More favored the dissemination of selected books of Scripture in the vernacular; the reading of other books, he thought, should be at the discretion of every man's bishop, who would probably "suffer some to read the Acts of the Apostles whom he would not suffer to meddle with the Apocalypse." More added that some of the best minds among the Catholic clergy were also of this opinion.[/quote]

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
it seems to me that as part of his job as Lord Chancellor, he was to 'enforce' the civil laws of England, which, in part, said that if an obstinate heretic did not recant, the penalty was capital punishment. the point of having punishments for heretics (hear me out, i'm thinking as i type) was not to burn as many people 'at the stake' as possible - it was to reconcile them to the Church before applying such an extreme punishment.

i'm sure that someone far more learned than i (perhaps Don John as his area of expertise is history) will flesh this out more.

[socalscout]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1730572' date='Dec 17 2008, 02:04 PM']+J.M.J.+
from [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/THOMASMO.HTM"]ewtn[/url]:[/quote]

From New Advent
[quote]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[/quote]

Not what I wanted or expected to read. Of course it is not the inflated number the Protestants would have us believe but it looks like he did something to that point. But like you I can't believe this is the whole story given he was canonized.

Looks like you beat me to it on the post. sorry.

Edited December 17, 2008 by socalscout

[Ziggamafu]

I own St. Thomas More's Dialogue Concerning Heresies. He indeed defends the burning of heretics - and quite well, honestly - although I highly doubt he himself set anyone on fire. I do not take a stance on the issue, but it seems to me that it is highly probably that in our day there are far better ways to contain heresy.

The idea behind burning is this:

The government should, ideally speaking, model its laws on Church teaching (the goodness of separation between Church & State rests in the State's responsibility to carry out temporal sentencing; the Church never directly executed anyone, for example).

Committing mortal sin is worse than physically dieing and causing others to commit mortal sin is worse than physical murder.

Capital punishment is just when it is the best means to protect society against an individual.

Therefore, capital punishment may likewise be just in the case of a heretic, who encourages mortal sin in others.

"Burning" is the most appropriate form of capital punishment for heretics because:
a) It is a greater punishment for a greater crime
b) It symbolizes the Hellfire prepared for those who persist to death in mortal sin (keeping in mind that even unto the last moment, the accused was given the opportunity to recant, repent, and avoid the fire)
c) It inspires fear of sin and its consequences, while illustrating its severity.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
[quote name='socalscout' post='1730575' date='Dec 17 2008, 01:10 PM']But like you I can't believe this is the whole story given he was canonized.[/quote]
agreed.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1730577' date='Dec 17 2008, 01:12 PM']I own St. Thomas More's Dialogue Concerning Heresies. He indeed defends the burning of heretics - and quite well, honestly - although I highly doubt he himself set anyone on fire. I do not take a stance on the issue, but it seems to me that it is highly probably that in our day there are far better ways to contain heresy.

The idea behind burning is this:

The government should, ideally speaking, model its laws on Church teaching (the goodness of separation between Church & State rests in the State's responsibility to carry out temporal sentencing; the Church never directly executed anyone, for example).

[b]Committing mortal sin is worse than physically dieing and causing others to commit mortal sin is worse than physical murder.[/b][/quote]you bring up a good point. many times in our society today we try to fit our standards, practices, etc. to history - trying to impose our ways on history, which we cannot do. today, it seems that the 'modus operandi' is excommunication after repeated dialogue with obstinate heretics (i would point to the letter written by Bishop Olmstead about Msgr. Fushek, as an example).

i would also bring up the point that i bolded: we should fear hell and separation from God more than loss of our physical lives.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
the only place i get the 'burned 6 Protestants, imprisoned 40 others' line (besides ian paisley) is from St. Thomas More Society in California. no other resource (online) has that. in fact, it's the same wording.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
hey socal, i pm'd Don John to ask him for his thoughts on this. he might have more resources since he teaches history at a Catholic school than any of us do. maybe wait for him before you email relevant?

[Ziggamafu]

I can't remember if St. More mentioned a number of people burned in his writings or not...I'll have to look it up. I do know that his section on the defense of burning was pretty extensive; he lived during the rapidly accepted transition of thought on the subject. He seemed to feel quite strongly on the subject and the effect that the loss of the penalty would have on the growing heretical movements of his time. He may have considered the Church of our time to be mindlessly liberal, I think.

[socalscout]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1730582' date='Dec 17 2008, 02:17 PM']+J.M.J.+

agreed.

you bring up a good point. many times in our society today we try to fit our standards, practices, etc. to history - trying to impose our ways on history, which we cannot do. today, it seems that the 'modus operandi' is excommunication after repeated dialogue with obstinate heretics (i would point to the letter written by Bishop Olmstead about Msgr. Fushek, as an example).

i would also bring up the point that i bolded: we should fear hell and separation from God more than loss of our physical lives.[/quote]

I see the arguement very clearly but it brings about parallels to John 8:3-11 and how HE handled it.

Thanks for looking that up.

Edited December 17, 2008 by socalscout