Theology and Behavior in Controversy: St. Thomas More
Nov 1, 2018 9:36:59 GMT -5
Voxxkowalski, Pacelli, and 2 more like this
Post by mithrandylan on Nov 1, 2018 9:36:59 GMT -5
I thought readers here might appreciate some interesting opinions from St. Thomas More.
As all probably know, Sir Thomas was King Henry VIII's chancellor and trusted friend before and during the Protestant Reformation. Henry was initially a stalwart Catholic and married to the saintly Catherine of Aragon. Over time Henry's ambitions and lust consumed him, and he went to the greatest lengths-- schism-- in order to legitimize his fornication. St. Thomas More was one of the few English statesmen and clergy who did not collaborate in Henry's construction of a schismatic Church.
One of More's collaborators in investigating marital religious matters on behalf of the King was Dr. Nicholas Wilson, personal confessor to Henry. Like More, Wilson took what we might simply call "the Catholic view" of Henry's behavior, and also like More, Wilson sought to obey his liege in all lawful matters.
As such, Wilson was imprisoned in the tower for refusing to sign the oath of Royal Supremacy. The two (More and Wilson) were in the tower at the same time.
Where Wilson and More eventually parted ways was that Wilson began to become considerably vexed over the oath, and eventually showed inclination to signing it. Upon learning this, More wrote Wilson the following: (the following quote is the entirety of More's first letter to Wilson. Both More and Wilson were imprisoned at the time of this letter)
Our Lord be your comfort and whereas I perceive by sundry means that you have promised to swear the oath, I beseech our Lord give you thereof good luck. I never gave any man counsel to the contrary in my days nor never used any ways to put any scruple in other folk's conscience concerning the matter. And whereas I perceive that you would gladly know what I intend to do, you wot [know] well what I told you when we were both abroad, that I would therein neither know your mind nor no man's else nor you nor no man's else should therein know mine, for I would be no part taker [partisan] with no man nor of truth never I will, but leaving every other man to their own conscience, myself will with good grace follow mine. For against mine own to swear were peril of my damnation and what mine own shall be to-morrow myself cannot be sure and whether I shall have finally the grace to do according to mine own conscience or not hangeth in God's goodness and not in mine, to whom I beseech you heartily remember me in your devout prayers and I shall and daily do remember you in mine, such as they be, and as long as my poor short life shall last, anything that I have, your part shall be therein (Letter to Dr. Nicholas Wilson from Sir Thomas More, 1534, Tower of London from The Last Letters of Thomas More).
More then wrote a follow up letter, much more lengthy, where he repeated and expounded on his first letter: (Replicated only in part. As before, both More and Wilson were occupants of the Tower when this letter was written)
Finally as touching the oath, the causes for which I refused it, no man wotteth [knows] what they be for they be secret in mine own conscience, some other peradventure, than those that other men would ween, and such as I never disclosed unto any man yet nor never intend to do while I live. Finally as I said unto you, before the oath offered unto us when we met in London at adventure [by chance] I would be no part taker in the matter but for mine own self follow mine own conscience, for which myself must make answer unto God, and shall leave every other man to his own, so say to you still and I dare say further than no more never intended you neither. Many things every man learned wotteth well there are, in which every man is at liberty without peril of damnation to think which way him list [he pleases] till the one part be determined for necessary to be believed by a general council, and I am not he that take upon me to define or determine of what kind or nature every thing is that the oath containeth, nor am so bold or presumptuous to blame or dispraise the conscience of other men, their truth nor their learning neither, nor I meddle with no man but of myself, nor of no man's conscience else will I meddle but of mine own. And in mine own conscience, I cry God mercy, I find of mine own life, matters enough to think on (St. Thomas More, [2nd] letter to Dr. Nicholas Wilson, 1534, from The Last Letters of Thomas More.)
************
One of the challenging factors of today's crisis is the lack of precedence. However, it has often been opined that while there is not a complete precedence for today's crisis, there are some historical analogs, even if they differ considerably in scope. The Great Western Schism and the Anglican Schism are often brought up. Understanding how Catholic saints behaved during these times can be instructive both in matters of behavior, and also I think, theology.
More's first letter to Wilson is instructive in behavior. It is not necessary that martyrs and defenders of the faith insist upon unsettled matters, however clear they may seem. Some saints do, some do not. The difference is prudential. St. Thomas did not.
More's second letter repeats the lessons of the first, and also adds some theological reasoning: he is reticent not only because his conscience will not permit him to trouble others', but because he knows that the oath has not yet been considered nor evaluated by the Church. This introduces us to the difference between conscience and law, between moral certainty and a certainty of faith, the latter of which can only be produced through God's revelation and the Church's proposition.
My point in sharing this information is not that controversies should be stifled or left alone; on the contrary, they cannot be. But when we consider our behavior and our relationship toward others-- especially other Catholics, with whom we share a bond of faith and charity-- there is also a duty to not cause scandal or needlessly introduce doubt over fragile matters. Certainly not for those of us who are laity. We simply cannot compel, no matter how much we may be able to make a perfectly reasonable case. The oath of royal supremacy, in my opinion, is considerably less ambiguous than any Novus Ordo document in terms of its deviation from right religion. It can be read here (it is short: www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/actsupremacy.htm ). If More's exchange with Wilson over the oath is a legitimate approach, then so too is a similar gentleness a legitimate approach toward today's controversies.
And when we consider the matter theologically (e.g., questions like "can one be a member of the Church while 'recognizing' the conciliar claimants" or "can one be a member of the Church while not attending the Latin Mass," or by "'accepting' Vatican II", etc.) the lesson becomes even more punctuated. A Catholic martyr who refused to posit a common act with schism, at the same time, does not even recommend that others follow his act. He instead recommends them to God in their decision, since prior to the Church's intervention a man's only guide is his conscience.
Which, in closing, emphasizes the tremendous burden on Catholics to properly inform their consciences. A secular would misunderstand the point and think that St. Thomas's virtue was that he would not violate his conscience, full stop. No, what makes St. Thomas's devotion to his conscience virtuous is that his conscience was sufficiently and religiously formed. It is not good to follow a bad conscience. And today, we will have to make more conscientious judgments than ever before. This means we must ensure that our conscience is a reliable guide, an assurance that we can only have by relying on certain (i.e., not doubtful) truths.