Fr. Robert Barron comments on St. Thomas More and the Bishop of Rome

[DiarmuidS007]

I too have seen more than once the great movie that is "A Man For All Seasons", my late father introduced me to the movie many years ago, a truly powerful story of a true martyr, I did not know that Pope Benedict had visited the hall where Thomas was condemned, so glad to learn of this,.

[yungeodubbleg]

whooh chaminade yeah!!

[gfzgfx]

At that time heresy was not only a religious crime, but a secular rime that was punished by the government. The church did not execute heretics. They handed them over to the national governments, with the information they had gathered, to be charged and tried. Thomas More was performing his duty as an executor of the law. Furthermore, heresy was considered to be a crime against the king, as he was considered to be divinely ordained. It had the same punishment as treason.

[zsezse215]

If Thomas More had turned his back on the Pope instead of Henry VIII could he have met the same fate? philipnute com

[Pi10sco]

Having said that, I'm glad that we live in a time where it's safer to be a heretic (at least corporeally safer), and look forward to the time when all capital punishment and taking of human life is regarded as an ancient barbarity, akin to slavery and slaughtering prisoners in the arena...

[Pi10sco]

I think a lot of people who condemn More for proceeding with the burning of heretics are: (1) anachronistically blaming our 16th C. ancestors for ignoring our 21st C. outlooks on capital punishment and freedom of conscience. Every Christian sect would, when it gained power, forcefully suppress other Christians. And (2) forgetting an officer of the law must execute the law AS IT IS WRITTEN, regardless of scruples. If we allowed every judge or cop to demur, forget about the rule of law.

[mintrack5]

Perhaps there was good reason to keep the bible in Latin when we can now see what dodgy English translations have done to faith today. Perhaps the right to access the word of God is different from the right to tamper with it. I think any man of principle is a role model to politicians, I think the beauty of History is in it's ambiguity. I think arguing about faith is quite obviously illogical too :p

[tjb70]

Perhaps Mr. Barron should get his history from texts (including Vatican archives), not films, which prove that Thomas More is responsible for burning 5 "heretics" at the stake. Mr. Barron may also like to Google "cognitive dissonance."

[wordonfirevideo]

@tjb70 So glad you get a kick out of calling me "Mr." Did I deny that Thomas More was an ambiguous figure?

[waspswatter]

@tjb70 Let's explore some thoughts. It's 2011 and "our" government executes criminals. Heresy WAS a crime, (and in the spiritual order, worse than murder). You don't have to agree with that, but clearly St. More was a man of character who did what he thought was right, regardless of personal outcome.

[TheRjb2010]

There is another note for people to see. There is a website asking how politicians and present day leaders can learn from Thomas More.

It IS really something to see and something to learn from, and to see how far along we, as a society, have come from the days of Thomas More himself.

If you have a chance, take a look at it.

God bless you all.

[bayreuth79]

I am not convinced that Thomas More is the most appropriate saint to be put forward as the patron saint of politicians. Why? Well, because in his capacity as a politician we know he used his authority to have people like Tyndale burned at the stake. Of course, it is somewhat anachronistic to make this kind of argument, but still I feel uncomfortable with a heretic burner as our patron saint for politics! But of course, mere laymen can't criticize the omnipotent magisterium! Heaven forfend!

[blatttman]

Henry VIII divorce from Catherine of Aragon was rightly opposed by Sir Thomas Moore, yet this illegitimate child of Henry and Anne Boleyn was Elisabeth I, one of the greatest monarchs in Englands history, God sure does work in mysterious ways!

[JDNWF66]

I'm curious Father.. Is it true that St. Thomas More burned heretics at the stake? There was a movie on HBO of recent memory that depicted him doing as much. Is this true historically or not?

[MrPoopTurtle]

While he did sentence people to burn at the stake for heresy for owning a bible, the man did have the stomach to stand up to his king for his Catholic faith. That part was the saintly part.

To say that he should be uncanonized (is that even possible?) is ridiculous. For if we did that, we should take off the picture of Washington, a slave owner, and Jackson, who forced natives on a death march west, off our money. We honor despicable people all the time when they deserve honors.

[uranian99]

@MrPoopTurtle Roasting people alive after torture can't be glossed over. It was particular vicious and inhuman way of imposing death that bears the stamp of the sadomasochistic religious fanatic. Please don't mention Washington in the same breath as More. George Washington did not burn people at the stake but wisely advocated freedom of and FROM religion. As far as the "saintly" part, more did not denounce the Oath of Supremacy until all hope for his life was lost. Until then, he was silent.

[KnightOwl2006]

That was indeed a great movie.

[dketche2]

"Aggression toward religion...is not only a violation of a basic human right, it's also repugnant to the very foundations and principles of a democracy." ---> Thomas More was personally, and by means of his office, a vigorous, zealous, and violent suppressor of the religious freedoms of Protestant Christians. I agree with you completely, Fr. Barron, and with Pope Benedict, and this is why Thomas More is no icon of morality or the law.

[dketche2]

Thomas More is *not* a saint. This Catholic, and law student does not look to this suppressor of free conscience and religious choice, for any kind of guidance with regard to the law, politics, or statesmanship. Your favorite movie is mythology, not history, Father Barron.

[dketche2]

"Six "heretics" burned at the stake during More's Chancellorship: Hitton, Bilney, Bayfield, Tewkesbery, Dusgate, and Bainham. Burning at the stake had long been a standard punishment for heresy... Ackroyd notes that More explicitly "approved of Burning" After the case of John Tewkesbury, found guilty by More of harboring banned books and sentenced to burning for refusing to recant, More declared: he "burned as there was neuer wretche I wene better worthy." - Wikipedia on Thomas More.

[dketche2]

"His early actions against the Reformation included aiding Wolsey in preventing Lutheran books from being imported into England, spying on and investigating suspected Protestants, especially Publishers and arresting any one holding in his possession, transporting, or selling the books of the Protestant reformation. More vigorously suppressed the travelling country ministers who used Tyndale's English translation of the New Testament." -- Wikipedia on Thomas More.

[peipappy1]

@dketche2

Dear dketche2

If you are going to base your arguement on evidence, you need to pick a better source than "Wikipedia" That resourse is contaminated with all kinds of misrepresentations and even outright lies. When a friend of mine Googled his name he found out Wikipedia named him as a founder of a local bank which is not even close to the truth. He even made a request to have the info removed but it is still there. So you might try a primary source before making such claims.

[dketche2]

@peipappy1

-Ackroyd, Peter.The Life of Thomas More. New York, Anchor Books. 1999. pg 298

-Ackroyd, Peter.The Life of Thomas More. New York, Anchor Books. 1999. pg 299 - 306

-Guy, John A. Tudor England Oxford, 1988. pg 26

-Ackroyd P. The Life of Thomas More. Vintage Books. London 1998 p298

-The Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More. Vol 8 The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer (Schuster LA, Marius RC, Lusardi JP, Schoeck RJ eds 1973 p 20.

[peipappy1]

@dketche2 Ackroyd is a fictional writer with an interest in history and an axe to grind with the Catholic Church because of its teaching on homosexuality. Hardly a legitimate unbiased biographer and certainly cannot be considered a primary source.

[dketche2]

@peipappy1

-Michael Farris, From Tyndale to Madison, 2007.

-Moynahan, Brian, God's Bestseller: William Tyndale, Thomas More, and the Writing of the English Bible - A Story of Martyrdom and Betrayal, St Martin's Press; 1st edition (August 23, 2003)

-Gerard B. Wegemer, "Portrait of Courage", p. 136.

[dketche2]

@peipappy1

I re-state: Thomas More was a SUPPRESSOR of the the free expression of religion. He did not believe in the freedom of religion. He labeled Protestant Christians as HERETICS, and oversaw their imprisonment, torture, and executions. Thomas More SUPPRESSED the printing and distribution of Bibles in English.

Thomas More is. not. a. saint.

[uranian99]

@peipappy1 Regardless of the fact the Wikipedia does have errors in it, the sources dketche2 cited are historical facts and are simply cited by Wikipedia and are not taken out of context. More was against the Protestant Reformation and gave England a foretaste of what things would be like under the reign of (Bloody) Mary Tudor. More burned both Protestants and their books and had no remorse. Your argument that dketche2 is quoting a bad source is unsound. More was the enemy of free conscience.

[peipappy1]

@uranian99 I suppose next you are going to propose that the enlightened hands of Henry and Elizabeth are blood free. Give me a break

[uranian99]

@peipappy1 You suppose wrongly and illogically. What has Henry VIII or Elizabeth I to do with this? My argument is that a candidate for sainthood should have lived a saintly life; not backed a particular point of doctrine which he felt he had to burn people to death to enforce. As for blood, Henry VIII was as bloody as they come. Elizabeth is another matter: she had to condemn Mary Stuart as she was a threat to herself and her people. And she felt badly about it later. Your break has been given.

[equitemcroce]

The trial scene in a Man for All seasons is epic! I get a shiver down my spine every time I watch it.Of course, the best part is when Moore shouts out loud: "NEVERTHELESS! It is not for the supremacy that you have sought my blood but because I would not bend to the marriage!". Awesome diction and acting. The modern TV series, "The Tudors" did an overall decent job in depicting Moore but I found the Trial scene lacking when one has scene the old one which had such a spectacular theatrical flare.

[TheFutureengineer20]

Nice work Father Barron. Keep the videos coming.

[mozartisdead]

Wow.

[mozartisdead]

Pharisees = trolls?

[uncatila]

its good that Both Thomas Moore and Paul were under 30 because as we all know the Church has an age limit for those considering offering up a life of service.

[GalwayRose1]

God Bless Fr. Barron always loved St. Thomas More. See you on EWTN. Ave Maria

[GalwayRose1]

God Bless Fr. Baron always loved St. Thomas More. See you on EWTN. Ave Maria

[coldforgedcowboy]

Here is a general note for everyone. "Citizenskeptic" is the local Word on Fire Troll. For those of you don't know what a Troll is; a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response. So for the sake of the forum please don't feed the troll. Thanks!

[CitizenSkeptic]

@coldforgedcowboy

Could you provide an example of my troll-like behavior? Thanks.

[coldforgedcowboy]

@CitizenSkeptic ...... Oh you want example of your troll behavior. Here one of your inflamitory remarks:

"A Man For All Seasons is a work of fiction. The real Thomas More was a vile and brutal man, as you point out. But, the Padre is partial to fiction, not the truth."

[CitizenSkeptic]

@coldforgedcowboy

I can't decide what's worse, your reasoning or your spelling. There is nothing remotely inflammatory about my comment.

[peipappy1]

@coldforgedcowboy Please don't feed the troll. He baited you again

[coldforgedcowboy]

@peipappy1 ...... Laughs, I know I fed him and he thanked me with an ad hominem attack!

[coldforgedcowboy]

Great Clip Father Barron, A Man for all Seasons is one of the greatest movies ever made. It's hard to believe went from that to "Jack Ass 3D". Oh that reminds me!

[otoolehouse]

brilliant and fascinating as always! i never even knew there was such a deep Catholic element to the story of king henry the 8th

[empacae]

Yes please Fr Barron. I and a few of my friends here in Canada would love to come to a lecture of yours... \if that's possible, if not The Michael Coren Show would be a great second... I'm sure he would put you on for a full hour, but you'd be great on the Faith Matters panel.

And I hope Bishop Munroe in Kamloops and the other priest make a speedy recovery.

[ericrules95]

My point exactly father. People don't realize that most laws and morales are based off of the Christian and Jewish beliefs and morales. Without religion, the morale and ethics among world leaders and people will collapse. Also, that's why communism should never be allowed. It takes away God given rights from the people and religious morales will collapse among the gov't. Father, I'd like you to make more videos about religion and morales and also about communism vs God. Thank you & God Bless

[powereddrive]

@ericrules95

You are uncritically repeating Reactionary talking points, The Scandinavian countries seem to be doing pretty well and they are almost entirely bereft a religiously committed population. Catalonia seemed to do pretty well when the Anarchists were in control until the Church-backed Franco regime won power and started a brutal internal campaign against its population. There are more examples I can give but why don't you learn some history before making such wide sweeping claims.

[forzaitalia124]

Father Robert, thank you for your great videos and spreading the word. They are very insightful, intelligent and challenges not just Christians but all to seek the truth and live holy loves. May the Lord continue to bless your ministry and that of all the priests around the world.

[AntoniaDeCanada]

I will be sure to watch this movie on June22. Could I please ask you to pray for our dear Bishop David Monroe who was violently attacked last night by a man suffering from religious delusions. God Bless all vocations who make God known and loved by all despite the perils.

[Entropy3ko]

St. Thomas More was indeed a remarkable figure... even many non-Catholics (even socialists!) have admired his thoughts and writings.

[phil1294]

Father,

I love the videos. I can't get enough of them. I am constantly checking youtube every couple of days to see if there are any new ones. We have a talk show up here (in Ontario,Canada) called the Michael Coren show. He is a devout Catholic and is coming out with a book in March, 2011 entitled 'Why Catholics are Right'. You should be a guest on his show the next time you make a trip up here. Can't wait to watch the Catholicism Project!

[CitizenSkeptic]

Thomas More and Ratzinger are your moral authorities?

Thomas more oversaw the burning to death of six so called heretics, and probably personally engaged in torture as well.

Ratzinger's crimes are well documented.

Padre, if you really care about what is good, take off your blinders. These men are to be condemned not admired.

You have taken evil and called it good.

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@CitizenSkeptic Your opinion on Moore isn't looking too good if you think Ratzinger committed any crimes.

[CitizenSkeptic]

@BalladoftheWindfish

It is not my opinion that More burned people to death. It is an historical fact. It is not my opinion that Ratzinger systematically obstructed justice. It is an historical fact.

I realize as a religious person you don't permit facts to impact on what you believe.

[Entropy3ko]

@CitizenSkeptic

Sorry but you should chek your facts better.

You call yourself a skeptic? You are no skeptic sir, you are just a troll who will swallow any poppycock as long as it is anti-catholic.

Quite sad, actually

[CitizenSkeptic]

@Entropy3ko

I am in no sense anti-Catholic. I'm anti non-sense.

Please point out any factual errors or errors in reasoning that I have made. Thanks.

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@CitizenSkeptic The irony... it is satisfying.

[Entropy3ko]

@CitizenSkeptic

"Ratzinger's crimes are well documented."

You are living in a delusion.

[CitizenSkeptic]

Just google Ratzinger and "obstruction of justice".

[CitizenSkeptic]

@Entropy3ko

Or watch the documentary "Sex Crimes And The Vatican".

[Entropy3ko]

@CitizenSkeptic

I did, actually, the BBC twisted a lot of facts in that so-called 'documentary'

[CitizenSkeptic]

@Entropy3ko

Care to elaborate on any factual errors I have made? What evidence do you have that I am delusional?

That Ratzinger was involved in covering up sex abuse is non-controversial. That Thomas More burned people to death is just a mundane historical fact.

You are the one that admires these guys. Why?

[Entropy3ko]

@CitizenSkeptic Italian sociologist Massimo Introvigne and others discussed the many faultsof the BBC documentary at lenght.

If you have a bit of good will you'll find the info.

One example it is a complete misinterpretation of the "Crimen sollicitationis" document. They tried very hard to build a 'conspiracy theory' based on pure misinformatiom.

[Entropy3ko]

@CitizenSkeptic

The same they did for the document "De delictis gravioribus"...

Basically BBC twisted the meaning such documents asserting they meant that the authorities of the church could not report 'grave crimes' (of any kind) to the authorities. But those documents do not state anything like that, as it only regards canon law and not secular law.

Tom Doyle, who appears in the documentary also spoke about the twisting of the truth ny the BBC in a letter to John L. Allen.

[Rondaria]

I once rented a copy of A Man for All Seasons and was surprised to find it was a different film, starring Charlton Heston as Moore, with pretty much the same script. Though Heston could be somewhat of a ham at times, he was excellent in this film and it stands up pretty well against the Scofield version.

[KnightOwl2006]

Brilliant analysis.

Thank you.

[xiragata]

It takes courage for someone to stand his or her own beliefs, and loose life, when it comes to Catholicism./Christianity. And today, the Catholic Church is under attack from all sides; it is said but I have seen videos and articles on the Internet that to me are completelly repugnant the way they show, attack, and smear the Catholic Church. It is hard for me to understand such vennon. Democracy is a sword of two blades; it makes some bleed to make room for others. It is never JUST in reality.

[domsavio]

Thomas More was s TRUE rebel. He was a true rebel because he truly knew what he was rebeling against, and what he was rebeling for. I think that all Catechists should watch this movie in light of your coments and insight. Thank you.

[powereddrive]

For another viewpoint on Thomas More, see James Wood's article on the Catholic Saint. Learn how poorly many of More's arguments against Luther were made, how he tortured Protestants inside his own home, and had even a few burned, SAINTS DON"T CONDEMN PEOPLE TO DEATH FOR READING THE BIBLE IN A DIFFERENT WAY, or at least they shouldn't.

[domsavio]

@powereddrive you are going to have to reference your source more specifically. What is the name of the article?

[powereddrive]

@domsavio

I forgot the exact name of the article but it can be found in a collection of essays put into book called "The Broken Estate," it would have originally been written for the New Yorker so you can search some key words on their website, thanks for asking though :).

[DJMahon]

@powereddrive Sorry, but Wood doesn't impress.

[powereddrive]

@DJMahon

Well maybe I am more impressionable than you, but uncritical adoration of a merciless bureaucrat simply because he died in a dignified manner for the sake of YOUR Church is an exercise I find to be intellectually vacuous.

[DJMahon]

@powereddrive Ad hominems don't impress either. Attacking me won't make you or Wood right.

[powereddrive]

@DJMahon

How can I attack your positions if you will not state them, if you are unimpressed by Wood, fine for you, but since I obviously am why bother to tell me, I think the implication is that I have lower standards for Intellectual work, which then would make you guilty of launching an indirect ad hominem against me. Plus, what did I say in the previous comment that was untrue? Was he not a merciless bureaucrat, isn't it true that you like More because he shares your beliefs?

[ascott251]

@powereddrive It was reprehensible that Thomas Moore put protestants on the rack for reading the bible in english. However, you must look at it through the political nuances of the time. It was just as much a struggle for political power as a theological dispute. For a sense of perspective, weigh Moore's views of Luther against Luther's views of groups he disliked. Luther was one of the most virulent anti-Semites of his time. History is rarely as simple as you seem to want it to be.

[powereddrive]

@ascott251

Not only was Luther an Anti-Semite he condoned the burning of synagogues, but I am not a Protestant so attacking the beliefs of the so-called reformer is not going to work on me. You are trying to deflect negative attention away from a Catholic martyr by pointing to the failings of someone who holds different beliefs. You say my understanding of history is simple, maybe, but a true Catholic would concern himself with the failings of his Church, not the failings of other churches.

[ascott251]

@powereddrive Indeed, and I am no longer Catholic so I have no obligation to defend the church of rome. My point was that this was the way political dissidents were commonly dealt with in that century. Certainly we have better ways of moderating our disputes now, just as Moore's century was more civilized than those prior. As Stephen Pinker says: " Perhaps the appropriate focus lies not in how depraved historical person X is, but in how high our standards have risen."

[powereddrive]

@ascott251

Then we have no argument, because I never argued that Thomas More was evil or anything, but that he should not be honored as a saint. I am not comparing him to the leadership of, let's say, the Nazi Party or Shit Stain (I am sorry I meant Sinn Fein).

[metalnecromancer]

@ascott251 You didn't actually deal with what I said, but I'll comment on what you've said. "...enter into a mutual agreement with others that we will not murder each other and we will punish transgressors." Suppose a consensus of global leaders have written such an agreement into a United Nations document called X. I can discredit X of having any ontological basis for right and wrong & moral values with the dilemma, "Is doing p wrong because X says so, or does X say so because p is wrong?"

[powereddrive]

Respond to this video... And if he was a Saint, then his actions would not need to be excused through an appeal to history and context, for the actions of a Saint must be for all time because they are an example for all times, like the great works of Shakespeare are not ultimately reducible simply to their time and place but were for all times and places. So it is for books, so it ought to be for human beings.

[DJMahon]

@powereddrive Why, if he is a Saint, should his actions *not* be considered through context and history? Who are you to judge?

[powereddrive]

@DJMahon

Because all Saints, we are assured, are in Heaven, a place that is home to those who do good, not those are complicit in the death of mostly innocent people, murder is murder, sin is sin, the Laws of G-d do not bend to context and history. And it was not to save others that he did this, it was to preserve the authority of a body that was vying for power with the British Crown. Plenty of people back then did not advocate barbecuing human beings because they translated the bible

[DJMahon]

@powereddrive All of which might have some validity, *IF* Thomas More had committed murder--which he didn't. The heretics *were* criminals, attempting to re-write the Bible to suit their own polemics. The penalty for that crime--as determined and ordered by the State--was burning. More was not King, and had no say in what punishment should be prescribed for their crimes.

[powereddrive]

@DJMahon

The Church excommunicated these people knowing full well once they had done so that the state would be free to execute them. Thomas More was in the pay of the state, and the state burned them, and it was within More's power to stop this madness, but instead he condoned it. That is why More was COMPLICIT in their unjust deaths, not directly responsible, that is to say he ought to be held accountable even if he did not light the match.

[DJMahon]

@powereddrive "Thomas More was in the pay of the state, and the state burned them, and it was within More's power to stop this madness, but instead he condoned it. " More *was* trying to stop the madness--the heretics were the *cause* of that madness.

[otoolehouse]

@powereddrive you make an interesting point, but I still feel that you undermine the very concept of martyrdom when you assert that Thomas Moor and the like were somewhat indirectly "responsible" for the deaths. What you might see as contributing to your's and someone elses' deaths, a Christian sees as giving one's life quite literally for the sake of God and the dignity of His Church.

[powereddrive]

@otoolehouse

I do not doubt that Thomas More gave his life nobly in the defense of the Church of Rome, and as a Bible Christian with ties to both sides of the fence and has seen what is like for Catholic children to walk the streets of Ulster at night what Thomas More went through is not something altogether hard for me to imagine

[powereddrive]

Respond to this video...

But outside of that your comment confuses me, I said that More was responsible for the horrific deaths of Protestants not himself, I do not understand how I am undermining the concept of martydom by saying that More was a political thug.

[powereddrive]

@DJMahon

"as determined and ordered by the state" so now the State is the legislator of morality? Tell me, if a devout Catholic in the pay of the State carried out late-term abortions are his actions justified because the state made it legal?

[DJMahon]

@powereddrive Capital Punishment and Abortion are two entirely different things: Capital Punishment is reserved for the guilty, while Abortion is deliberate taking of *innocent* life. The heretics were not innocent.

[powereddrive]

@DJMahon

Again then why not burn MLK or WHJ? You never answered that and until you do I refuse to take your seriously your defense of More, which you make by saying that people who question the power of the state or the Church, or who read the Bible after their own way ought to be burned.

[DJMahon]

@powereddrive Because MLK & WHJ didn't re-write the Bible--they just used the Bible as a basis of their own writings. 

And Tyndale wasn't simply trying to "read the Bible after their own way"--he and his conspirators were seeking to undermine English society by re-writing the Bible according to their polemics.

[powereddrive]

@DJMahon

"undermine English society" hmmmm well you see that depends upon what you mean by English Society, I am from Ulster so my feelings on English society are mixed, I do not think that Tyndale's actions constitute an attach against England itself, but then again I am not an Englishman so I do not know how the English feel about it, but I do not believe rewriting the Bible into English for an English audience constitutes an attack on English society, quite the opposite in fact.

[DJMahon]

@powereddrive You are aware that there were English translations of the Bible *before* Tyndale and Wycliff, aren't you?

[powereddrive]

@DJMahon

Yes, but are you aware that what made Tyndale so dangerous was that he went directly from the Greek and Latin, without the mediator of Vulgate Latin? And that it was the first to be distributed on a large scale with a lay readership in mind? A biblically literate population was seen as a challenge to Roman hegemony. 

[benabaxter]

@powereddrive Biblical literacy should help the population find a consensus on the One Truth, but we do not have and have never had widespread biblical literacy. We have had, instead, literates with a Bible.

[powereddrive]

Respond to this video...

"The heretics were criminals, attempting to rewrite the Bible to suite their own polemics" perhaps we should have burned Martin Luther King Jr. then for using the Bible as a polemical instrument against the Jim Crow South, or perhaps we should have burned Henry Wendell Johnson for popularizing negro spirituals that were often polemical reworkings of their Biblical precedents.

[DJMahon]

@powereddrive Emotional bleating doesn't impress either.

[powereddrive]

@DJMahon

perhaps you would prefer emotional singing haha.

Burning human beings is a depraved act period I care not for the reasons.

[CitizenSkeptic]

@powereddrive

A Man For All Seasons is a work of fiction. The real Thomas More was a vile and brutal man, as you point out. But, the Padre is partial to fiction, not the truth.

[jkranites]

The Pope was never infallible until Vatican 1 in 1870. Sorry First Thousand years of Christianity never had a primacy of the Pope. His position was only of honor not of power

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@jkranites That was when the doctrine was defined, but it was always in practice. We wouldn't say, for instance, that the divinity of Christ was not known until it was defined at a Church council hundreds of years after the life of Christ. Same deal, here. The honor AND primacy of St. Peter and the Bishops of Rome is very clearly demonstrated in the NT, and in history.

[DJMahon]

@jkranites Several of the Church Fathers disagree with you--Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyprian of Carthage, and Firmilian all acknowledged the authority of the Pope, and they all lived between the 1st and 4th Centuries.

[jkranites]

@DJMahon yea your right that is true, but I can pull Popes out during that time as well who condemed that way of thinking. Not to mention the Ecumenical Councils denoucing it before the schism of 1054, as a matter of fact a Bishop of Rome was excommunicated by the other Bishops and his own delegation form Rome for that way of thinking at one Council. Dont believe me, look for yourelf.

[DJMahon]

@jkranites Which Popes condemned taking context and history into perspective when judging the actions of a Saint?

[KaiseRex42]

Yes I think that is your best video todate!! :)) Cool!!!

Yes anything to do with More is great. Dont forget Chuck Heston also did a version. More is one of our greatest heroes!

We also had a great time with the papal visit and after he came the fury of atheism and secularism that had warned against it and all manner of woes was shown to be dumbfounded by the grace his visit brought. The spirit of the Christian world as well as Catholic has been greatly reinvigorated! It is wonderful to see.

[jimmo42]

Fascinating video. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[ascott251]

Father, I love your channel. However, I could not disagree more on the immunity of moral principles from democratic debate. Systems of morality are not static constructs against which we must weigh our actions, rather they are living, breathing methods of decision making which we have arrived at through democratic pluralism. Each new generation and society modifies the current understanding of moral practice and we gradually arrive at points of consensus which result in higher quality of life.

[dsydebot]

@ascott251 I think Father's point is that these moral principles must conform to reality. If, as time goes on, we discover that we judged inaccurately about a certain ethical reality, we must of course change our opinions to match reality as it actually is. But once philosophy has objectively proven a certain action to be either moral or immoral, it is wrong (and fruitless) to act as though it is still up for debate.

[ascott251]

@dsydebot And how do we determine which moral notions are worthy of immunity from questioning? I reject your premise that we can prove a moral statement to be objectively right or wrong because that undermines the efficacy of the system. All ethical systems must constantly be re-evaluated based on their ability to facilitate well being and quality of life for the greatest number of people while maintaining the autonomy of the individual, although some principles may be more stronger than others.

[ascott251]

@ascott251 The last sentence should read "...although some principles may be more strongly supported empirically than others." How embarassing!

[metalnecromancer]

@ascott251 "I reject your premise that we can prove a moral statement to be objectively right or wrong " Then to objectively state that slaughtering gays " 'cause they're gays' is wrong is illogical, because it "undermines the efficacy of the [ethical] system." Then you have reduced rational thought on good & bad and right & wrong to noumena. No one can ever say the genocide of Jews is objectively immoral because our thoughts and therefore language can't reach beyond noumena to Truth.

[ascott251]

@metalnecromancer In the most general case you are right. Rationality alone is indifferent to morality. However, we are not completely rational creatures. We seek pleasure and meaning, and we avoid unnecessary pain. As we are social creatures, we also have an innate sense of fairness. If you take that as a starting point, then societies are going to gravitate towards those moral systems that maximize quality of life for the most people based on what our nature determines quality of life to be.

[ascott251]

@metalnecromancer For example: Murder. It is build into our nature that we do not want to be murdered. What moral ideas might I promote to minimize the chance I am murdered? Naturally the best way is to enter into a mutual agreement with others that we will not murder each other and we will punish transgressors. So you can see one example of how, starting with the natural desires of the individual, rational debate over time can produce our systems of morality over time.

[dsydebot]

@ascott251 But that has nothing to do with the question "ought I murder?". It merely gives one reason why we might be disinclined to do so.

[Urracaaaa]

How about a movie about Saint John Fisher, Bishop or Saint Edmund Campion S.J.? These English saints did not hide behind the law to save themselves but fought a spiritual tooth and nail fight against the English pig king and his bastard daughter Elizabeth Rex.

[ChurchmanKirk]

@Urracaaaa Sts. John Fisher and Edmund Campion did not have families to protect. The human drama of St. Thomas' ordeal whilst trying to protect his family, paired with his great speeches and words of wisdom, all well-preserved due to the biography written by his son-in-law, is why St. Thomas More is the subject of movies and videos.

[BalladoftheWindfish]

Fr. Barron: do a YT search philosopher Roger Scruton. He has interesting things to say regard the place of religion in society, often invoking the role of the Catholic Church in shaping western civilization.

[xtrashed]

Great video!!!!