Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Harmonia (A) on March 20, 2008 at 22:18:39

In Reply to: RE: Thomas More an "ultra-conservative?" Yes ! posted by Bambi B on March 20, 2008 at 11:18:56

Would a Thomas Moore born into a different time, culture, nation, education and set of circumstances be *surely likely* to hold such beliefs as you ascribe?

The modern Thomas More could not be the same man as his 16th century counterpart, much less the fabulist of "Utopia". He'd be...well - modern.

Nor BTW should one equate Catholic othodoxy in Henry's VIII's England with American Protestant Fundamentalist political activism in the 21st century.

(And while we're at it, let's just get this outa the way: Catholics aren't accurately described by modern usage of the term "fundamentalist" any more than are Lutherans or Episcopalians. The term applies even less for 15-16th century Catholic religionists. We now return to our regularly scheduled rant.)

Who knows what a "modern More" would think? He might be "conservative" but that hardly means he'd be a political Right Wing Ultra Conservative.

In truth the devout and ascetic More was a highly sophisticated man of his time: cagey lawyer, able statesman and brilliant intellectual. He was the biographer of Richard III and the one mainly responsible for our views of this monarch. (I confess to being a bit ticked at the sainted More over his handling of this one - his history was the source for Shakespeare's play. And yes, I know he was writing for the Tudors.)

Although there was no such concept at the time or for years yet to come, I fancy - based on his last words ("The king's good servant but God's first") - and his defense against his own "treason" that a modern More may have been quite a fan of the constitutional ban between church and state. The famously Catholic and famously conservative William F Buckley certainly was. US Catholics as a rule are.

Thomas More was the close friend and admirer of the radical Catholic theologian Erasmus. Let us not forget that a substantial amount of Catholic intellectual thought of the last fifty years was very much to the left. Given the scandals, cover-ups and conservatism of recent popes and bishops, it's easy to forget that there is still a lot of leftish debate still around. But modern Catholics, especially American Catholics, tend to be independent thinkers, however they wrestle their consciences in private. A modern More might have been buddies with Daniel Berrigan for all we know. Given his attraction to the monastic life and approval of communal living - he might've been a hippy. He could've even been John Kerry's mentor in the senate.

It doesn't seem a stretch to believe that a modern More would be anti-abortion, but as for anti-sex (he married twice!!), anti-gay, etc that's all an extreme speculative reach. And given his brilliant turn of mind, an American More would be a staunch defender of the constitution and thus - not having ever lived under a monarchy - would have no truck with the notion of divine right of kings. Be wary of extrapolating too much about even the renaissance More from a reading of Utopia.

(The other (facetious?) assertions regarding More and slavery, war etc are simply too outre to merit discussion here.)

The historical More may have been deeply religious, ascetic and non-materialistic, yet he played a long and active role in his city's and country's public life. He lived well enough though not lavishly, enjoyed his family and many friends. He was a vigorous participant in his nation's "representative" government under both Henrys, rising to the highest post in the land - Chancellor.

The central authority of the Church from St. Peter through the RC popes was a concept generally accepted by orthodox Catholics in Europe at the time, in theory if not in practice. The constant power/political wrangling between monarchs, power brokers and popes had caused much grief and struggle in that world. (The infallibility of the pope actually came much later.) A formerly most "catholic" king declaring himself the spiritual authority over the pope of the Roman Church within his kingdom was a bombshell of extraordinary proportion. The Church was in urgent need of reform without doubt, but as we all know, Henry's usurpation was not about spiritual matters but about getting an heir and getting his own way whilst grabbing the wealth of the English abbeys. No Martin Luther he.

More believed the choice was between losing his head and damning his soul - he was unique in being willing to die for a matter of concience. (Not I - I'd have sworn all the oaths, agreed to the succession, whatever to keep my feeble head.)

I'm probably more an admirer of Paul Scofield as More than the historical man himself. But had a modern More been so dedicated, honest, selfless, and true to his conscience in American political life as the sainted More was in his then he would be still a man for all seasons.