Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 5:02pm

A Man For All Seasons

More is a man of an angel’s wit and singular learning. I know not his fellow. For where is the man of that gentleness, lowliness and affability? And, as time requireth, a man of marvelous mirth and pastimes, and sometime of as sad gravity. A man for all seasons.

Robert Whittington, 1520

 

Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? No, I will not sign.

Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

 

 

Something for the weekend.  The majestic opening music for A Man of All Seasons (1966).

 

 

 

My favorite sequence from one of my favorite movies.  Paul Scofield and Orson Welles were two of the most talented actors of their time, and it is a pure joy to see them duel.

Realpolitik meets conscience.  It is a superb scene and our sympathies are enlisted, as they should be, on the side of Saint Thomas More as opposed to that ultimate player of power politics, Cardinal Wolsey.  As was said about another Cardinal, Richelieu, by Pope Urban VIII upon the death of Richelieu, the same might also have been said about most of the life of Wolsey:    “If God exists, Cardinal Richelieu will have to answer for many things. If not…, then yes, he will have done well in life” (Si Dieu existe, le cardinal de Richelieu devra répondre de beaucoup de choses. Sinon […] ma foi, il aura bien réussi dans la vie).

Compared to such an ecclesiastical politician, Saint Thomas More represents the startling clarity of a brilliant mind allied with a warm Catholic faith.   One might wish however, that along with the innocence of doves, defenders of the Church in England during the time of Saint Thomas More  had also possessed a bit more of the cunning of serpents.

“The resistance of More and Fisher to the royal supremacy in Church government was a heroic stand.  They realised the defects of the existing Catholic system, but they hated and feared the aggressive nationalism which was destroying the unity of Christendom.  They saw that the break with Rome carried with it the risk of a despotism freed from every fetter.  More stood forth as the defender of all that was finest in the medieval outlook.  He represents to history its universality, its belief in spiritual values, and its instinctive sense of otherworldliness.  Henry VIII with cruel axe decapitated not only a wise and gifted counselor, but a system which, though it had failed to live up to its ideals in practice, had for long furnished mankind with its brightest dreams.”

Sir Winston Churchill

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
23 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CAM
CAM
Saturday, February 9, AD 2019 7:33am

A superb film. One wonders if More had survived if Henry would not now be known as one of the worst rulers in English history. The irony of a male heir at any cost is that Henry was succeeded by two queens. Also by divorcing Katherine of Aragon he lost a brilliant and loyal counselor.

William Murphy
William Murphy
Saturday, February 9, AD 2019 7:41am

Driving along the A40, about twenty miles west of Oxford, I spotted a pub called “The Inn for all seasons”. I’ll definitely drink to that…but as, the pub’s website explains, it was thus named by Jeremy Taylor who had worked on “A Man for all seasons”. And the building, if not it’s name, dates back to the century of St Thomas More.

“In the early 1960’s the estate sold The Barrington New Inn to Jeremy Taylor who was a horse master and had worked on many films including Lawrence of Arabia, a Winters Tale and The Man for all Seasons, as homage to his career in the film industry he changed the name of the inn to The Inn for All Season and owned it for many years.”

https://www.innforallseasons.com/

Brian
Brian
Saturday, February 9, AD 2019 9:40am

This was the beginning of the end, wasn’t it? England would never be the same again, and everything that has happened since owes itself to this moment of failure. It is in the final stages of its own destruction.

Tito Edwards
Admin
Saturday, February 9, AD 2019 12:54pm

My favorite film of all time.

The movie, in my opinion, exemplified the height of Christendom, a culture oozing with Catholicism.

One day we shall return. I fear it will take a great (or several) catastrophe(s) to shake us from our cultural malaise.

Mike O'Leary
Saturday, February 9, AD 2019 4:09pm

It is a cruel poetic justice that Thomas More, a man whose lack of tolerance for heretics (from his perspective) led to the executions of six men, ended up dying for being a heretic (from the king’s perspective).

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Saturday, February 9, AD 2019 5:35pm

Somebody’s been reading/watching Wolf Hall.

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Saturday, February 9, AD 2019 5:36pm

Anyway, More was executed for treason, not heresy.

Mike O'Leary
Saturday, February 9, AD 2019 7:20pm

The claims by More’s son, Roper, are certainly at odds with More’s recorded words and deeds. There is no remorse by More for what he’d done. It was only due to the changing winds of religion (specifically from Catholicism to the whims of Henry VIII) did More get a taste of what it was like to be on the outs of those in power, like Richard Bayfield or John Tewksbury. There’s no need to bring up the number of deaths that Henry VIII caused, since it’s clear that he was a tyrant. That doesn’t dismiss the horrible things that “Saint” Thomas More did. I hate to say it, but I find believers are the first to denounce moral relativism, and also the very first to use it when defending a fellow believer. If Thomas More felt the persecution of so-called heretics was morally wrong, instead of just following orders he could have stepped down and said what he felt was right in the face of all those who disagreed.

Mike O'Leary
Saturday, February 9, AD 2019 8:07pm

I didn’t hand wave Roper’s testimony. I specifically stated that Roper’s claims did not match More’s deeds and words. When he described Richard Bayfield as “like a dog returning to its vomit” that doesn’t sound like someone who would regret later working towards his execution. When More noted that there had been no burnings for eight years, he felt that they should step up the process by saying, “the condemnation of heretics, the clergy might lawfully do much more sharply than they do'”. He was looking to increase the persecutions, not decrease them. That’s not even considering the tree at More’s estate which allegedly was used for “interrogations” (which I understand a few people question the accuracy of those accounts).

And yes, just as Catholics had persecuted Protestants the reverse would late also be true. That in no way makes it right. You can’t turn on something like EWTN for more than an hour without hearing a denunciation of moral relativism — and yet your site is not the only one defending someone like Thomas More.

It’s interesting to note that when More sought after perceived heretics like Tynedale with such gusto it never seemed to upset More to considered resigning as chancellor. Only when he was later asked to agree to call Henry the sovereign head of the church did he reach a moral breaking point to then offer his resignation. The facts are clear that Thomas More had no qualms whatsoever in the persecution, torture, and execution of those outside his specific faith.

Mike O'Leary
Saturday, February 9, AD 2019 9:48pm

I thought you’d be more mad that I made fun of deep dish pizza 😀

The United States only took actions against fascist and communist countries after they had established a pattern of taking over other countries. More saw some people who either had a different Christianity than the one at the time or in some cases simply wanted their Christianity in the vernacular. There was no sign of a government takeover then. If you’re saying that the later troubles by Protestant governments justified persecuting people like the six men Thomas More had a hand in killing, you’re assuming that any disruption in the status quo can be met with lethal force. You forget that tyranny usually begets tyranny and persecution usually begets persecution. This again is not a defense of their actions, but clearly if people (like the ones passing English language Bibles) are willing to die for their beliefs they often will have no limits to maintain them once they are able to practice them freely. The way you describe More’s actions isn’t the US fighting to kick the fascists out of France. It’s the actions of Muslim countries then and now killing people to prevent upsetting the Islamic apple cart. Somewhere in China there is a Thomas More proudly keeping a count of how many Christians he’s jailed or killed.

If you believe there is strong evidence that Thomas More wanted another way, what is that evidence that doesn’t run 180 degrees counter from his own words and his own actions?

The talk of “presentism” is just a way to use moral relativism without using the words moral relativism. Does the Bible not say to not murder? Did that not hold in More’s time? If you want to praise him for standing up to King Henry in defense of beliefs, I’ll join you in that praise. The weight of such steadfastness crumbles under the weight of causing the death of six people who wished to cause no harm. I simply will not ignore the actions of a murderer.

Phillip
Phillip
Sunday, February 10, AD 2019 4:55am

” I specifically stated that Roper’s claims did not match More’s deeds and words. When he described Richard Bayfield as ‘like a dog returning to its vomit'”

“For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.

For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: ‘A dog returns to his own vomit,’ and, ‘a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.'”
(2 Peter 2:20-22)

Mike,

More used a phrase from Scripture. Originally from Proverbs and cited by Peter. As Scripture, it is part of Divine Revelation – infallible Truth revealed by God.

Why would God use such a phrase (and More reference it?). Because it is a comment on those who once knowing the truth, return to the folly of lies. In fact, the use of such a strong expression is meant to denote the even stronger folly of abandoning Christ after once being embraced by Him (in Baptism, the Eucharist, Confirmation etc.)

Now, in More’s time, Luther’s heresy and the schism it caused were grave threats not only to souls and the unity of the Church, but also to the peace of the state. More’s actions were legitimate means of his time to preserve/restore this peace. But more importantly for More, they were a legitimate means to protect souls.

Mary De Voe
Sunday, February 10, AD 2019 6:19am

The male seed takes several days to mature. Henry VIII’s insatiable lust did not avail his seed the time to mature so a healthy male heir was not possible.

Ranger01
Ranger01
Sunday, February 10, AD 2019 7:30am

Church of England, yay-rah!

Bob Emery
Bob Emery
Sunday, February 10, AD 2019 1:03pm

More, the persecuting lord chancellor, becoming the martyr, is a good example of one who takes the sword, dying by the sword.

CAM
CAM
Monday, February 11, AD 2019 11:53pm

Arthur, Henry’s older brother, was sickly and died young. There is conjecture that because of his many mistresses that Henry had VD and Elizabeth may have contracted it? While pregnant Catherine as regent led Henry’s troops while he was in France to quell a disturbance and miscarried as a result.

Mary De Voe
Tuesday, February 12, AD 2019 3:58am

“Ironically the Church of England now recognizes More and Fisher as saints!” because the truth is not treason, nor is a man’s opinion.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top