Another part of a video series from Wordonfire.org. Bishop Barron will be commenting on subjects from modern day culture. For more visit www.wordonfire....
Callum Jaynes Bullshit. Thomas more got a merciful well earned death compared to his screaming victims burnt to the GROUND. Fuck him and any shitiot calling him saint
It was normal practice to allow a king to get a marriage annulled when he couldn't get a son, but the pope interfered and wouldn't allow it. The Catholic Church was already corrupt and it was starting to fail, the papacy was blind to its failings.
Great video! A man for all season is a masterpiece. And S. Thomas More, like S. John Fisher, is a model of virtue we deeply need in our troubled times. I specially like the point Bishop Barron makes about the philosofical and religious values that are the fundaments on which democracy stands. Two thumbs up for this video. Thank you, againd, Bishop Robert Barron.
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.
Just a tad overheated, don't you think? Defending the absolute nature of fundamental human rights is tantamount to bringing back "the scaffold and the stake"?!
@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.
And, with all due respect; allow me to point out the key difference: St Thomas More understood fully the epistle of St James regarding faith and works and also the role of the Bishop or Rome (the Pope) as the living interpreter or referee if you will of sacred scripture. Martin Luther misunderstood both these concepts which unfortunately lead to the- unnecessary, split from the Church.
Hank MoHank A churvh justifying constant horribke harrassment, murder, and all kinds of torture HAD to be defied and seperated from. Fuck the catholic church. Feels good saying so
Vince, from what I understand, the emoji you use as praying hands is really a "high five". Whoever designs them needs to redesign them to reflect the true intent and purpose of it. Until then, I'd reconsider using it as you do, though it would appear to be as you intended it. I do take to heart the quote from St. Catherine of Siena. Thank you so much for it. Peace to you.
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
@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.
It’s my favorite film of all time. There are principles that are under attack now in the USA and Canada. I have watched this movie probably 100 times so far.
@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.
I know More has been accused of this, but he denied it and it has been combed over pretty carefully in the last eight years. There is no evidence that More was directly involved in the torture or execution of heretics, or that he had more than administrative involvement in such cases. This moral compromise was the price of his becoming an officer of the secular English state I think. He did express approval of two of the six heretic burnings which occurred while he was Chancellor. While I don't share the faith of Pinker in progress, I will nevertheless agree that his comments were entirely mainstream in his time. They were inconsistent with things he wrote which mark him as an exceptional person.
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.
The idea of Sep of Church & state - only meant Americans don't choose an official state religion (like England did back then). That's all. It never meant all references to God and the concepts Jesus taught need to be removed from our US government and all public discourse - to interpret it that way is just obvious manipulation by the agnostics / atheists / new agers who want to replace conservative Christian values our founding fathers embraced - with their own modern (flawed), ideas.
the question of 'who gets to assume power of policy' is not what i responded to above. if you wish to change the topic, or create strawmen as a diversion, thats your affair. in a democracy, religious people certainly have the right to vote, using their beliefs as a guide, as much as an atheist uses theirs. democracy does produce executives and legislators who are 'tyrants.' it just requires more votes to get them there. to think otherwise is patently naive.
@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.
@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.
@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."
he was seeking an annulment, not a divorce. he couldn't ask the pope for something that was impossible. I know you know it, but many listeners (including me) got confused when we learned this in high school
That's correct. In the movie, as in the transcript I believe More pointed to the fact that Henry already had had a dispensation from the Pope to marry his brothers widow, Catherine. Is was impossible therefore to once again ask the pope to consider a nullity of that same marriage.
So how would King Henry VIII fare in the age of Amoris Laetitia and the Scicluna-Grech interpretation? There would be a lot of handwaving, gee-whiz talk about a paradigm shift, the refusal to answer awkward questions, and then King Henry would get his fix, dissolution or annulment, whatever it takes. The so-called Orthodox Church would do no better.
Jesus taught " be wise as serpent and gentle as a dove" apparently the Roman church thrives on martyrdom and saints. Even jesus pre warned his disciples to flee from the coming destruction of Jerusalem in ad 70. The movie is am sure will not be historically accurate.lastly remember remember the 5th of November,guy Fawkes the Catholic who wanted to blow up the king and the whole House of parliament. A saint or a fanatic!!!!
The pope, even when he is bad (as was the case with Francis and so many others before Vatican II), is part of the Apostolic Tradition, which is not the case with the English Protestant kings, who proclaimed themselves head of a church created to satisfy their desires. This is why St Thomas More remained faithful to the Church of Rome. Because it was born of direct divine revelation and is part of an Apostolic Tradition inscribed by Christ himself. Ave Christus Rex!
I wonder whether More's persecution of "heretics" like William Tyndale-a very holy man, also martyred, and early translator of the Bible into English wasn't more of a problem for the Catholics that canonized him. I, too, respect More greatly for some things. But when I read things like "Responsio ad Lutherum" it is hard to believe the vitriol against Christians who were struggling with the same issues about authenticity and authority that he struggled with.
Awesome video, Ty Bishop Barron. Towards the end of the video, you nailed it. This is why there can be no separation of Church and state. Without a higher law above that of men, the state devolves into chaos. St. Thomas More pray for us!
Considering Bishop Barron how you have watched this movie so often, one very important part you have got wrong, IS , Thomas Moore was not asked at his trial did he have anything to say, he himself called upon the judges and asked, When I practised law, one was asked before judgement , has the Defendant anything to say, and this is very important because this is how it happened not just in the movie but in reality, and then Thomas Moore"s great speech.
I'm sure More, both a transactional lawyer and a litigator, would appreciate Benedict making what amounts to a tender offer on the Anglican communion . . . .
A truly great movie about a truly great man. Very interesting remarks you've made. I fear that governments have abandoned the truth to obtain power itself, no longer servants either of the people, neither of principles. How I wish we had a Thomas Moore these days. I'm not a catholic BTW.
I think Saint Thomas More was an exceptional person and his belief in Christianity took him to the ultimate place on the journey of his life. Few people have to make the decision he had to. More must have went through much heart wrenching the days he spent in the Tower of London; it must have been a small taste of what Jesus went through at Gethsemane. Knowing that he had to leave behind a large family who already had been stripped of their property and holdings; he was leaving them destitute. I'm sure it was his strong faith that allowed him to make the final decision. My initial comment was that I cannot understand how do people who are Protestants of any denomination reconcile their belief in a religion that was founded in Germany by an angry monk who took it upon himself to change things he didn't like and in England by a king who was so angry because he couldn't have his own way so he just broke with the Catholic Church and started his own religion. Basically that is the reality of The Church of England--founded by a letch or Englishmen say "bugger" because he had to have his OWN way or else---so he chopped heads off, put people to the rack, destroyed lives caused misery and heartache. There is an ironic point that comes out of this whole debacle is that as much as Henry wanted to have a male heir did get his way & had a son but he died at age 15 years, but the female child he had with Anne Boleyn, the one he ignored his whole life, turned out to be a queen whose reign was "one of the most glorious in all English history."
Regina Gaughan "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" the Catholic Church for all of its sins, persecutions, and mayhem may cast stones at the Church of England? By what authority? Moral, I don't think so. If lineage is your only argument, than it is a weak one indeed.
Humbly said, your whole concept of protestanism is a very inaccurate characture May I suggest Dr Gavin Ortlund for you to gain a better grasp on what the purpose of the reformation was. He is very irenic and covers church history very clearly. Not all early church fathers agreed. Many held views that would have been considered reformist in the 16th century. So well worth a listen. Be Blessed.
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.
A Kindred Spirit to Bishop Barron: Saint and Cardinal John Fisher; home diocese Rochester, England; stood with St Thomas Moore against the Church of England/Anglicanism...dts/usa
When I was at FT Huachuca, a friend of mine (a Methodist) used to introduce new MI officers to their new branch by showing Hans Holbein the Younger's portrait of More because the symbol More wore on his chain of office (The" Compass Rose and Dager") is also the insignia of MI Branch.
Thomas Hitton, Thomas Bilney, Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbury, Thomas Dusgate, or James Bainham: what do these men have in common? They were all burned at the stake by Thomas More for being protestants. Saintly behavior if there was any.
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.
@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."
It's a good film but it's not historically accurate so I wouldn't put too much store on it. The break with Rome didn't necessarily happen in the reign of Henry VIII or at least it wasn't completed until the seventeenth century. There is some evidence that More supported the persecution and burning of heretics.
This is not a reasonable response to the question of who gets to "assume" the power of policy architecture in our society. In a democracy, we the people decide. Religious individuals don't get to assume power because they say it was given to them by God. Nor do individuals like Henry 8th get to assume power for their personal beliefs either. Both are the same. This democracy we speak of is designed to avoid the recipe of producing the secular and religious tyrants we all are familiar with.
@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 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.
From the book "To Save a Thousand Souls" by fr Brett Brannen Sometimes God uses celibacy to show a man that he is not called to become a priest. St. Thomas More was one of these. As a young man, already a successful attorney, St. Thomas More felt called to live the life of a Carthusian, a very strict monastic life. Much to his father’s displeasure, he moved into the London Charterhouse for four years and strived to live a monastic life. He eventually abandoned this pursuit. When asked why, he replied that it was “better to be a chaste layman than a priest impure.”53 St. Thomas More had discerned, through intense prayer, spiritual direction, and mortification, over an extended period of time, that he did not have the gift of chaste celibacy. He returned home, married, fathered a number of children, rose quickly in the government, become Chancellor of all England, and eventually was martyred for his faith. St. Thomas More became a saint in his respective vocation, but he was not called to become a priest or a monk. And God showed him his vocation through his discernment of celibacy. Notice, though, that he had to go away and give it “the old college try” before he came to know God’s will for him.
@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.
@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.
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!
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
Yes you are right Allen! An enemy of such men like Stalin, Lenin, Chairman Mao, Hitler, shall I keep going? Christ's love had many enemies (and still does) therefore so will we: leity and clergy alike. America continues to WEAKEN with a false sense of individualistic idealisms. Remember "E Pluribus Unum" is what used to make America great...IN GOD WE TRUST!
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.
NO. she acted to preserve an ideology that was different from the catholic point of view. you are merely arguing the "Elizabeth's view was right because I agree with it" view of history.
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!
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.
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!
Elizabeth I had much more blood on her hands than poor Mary Stuart. She sent hundreds of priests to their deaths, killed thousands of Catholics AND Protestants (from the kookier sects she didn't like), disenfranchised Catholics for simply practicing their faith privately, & I haven't even mentioned her embrace of the slave trade (which no faithful Catholic monarch could contenance). But...but...Shakespeare! Defeating the Spanish Armada! "Elizabethan Golden Age"! Whatever. The Tudors were awful.
@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.
It doesn’t MATTER what you think. His sainthood is for Defending THE ONE TRUE CHURCH IN ROMW. which Henry and his children ( besides Mary) failed to understand. God Bless sir Thomas more! Martyr for the Catholic Church!!
Bishop Barron then Fr Barron , misses the point entirely. He confuses religious freedom with religious liberty. Religious freedom binds one to worship God in truth which is found in the Catholic religion while religious liberty is a Masonic idea that says man is free to worship any diety he desires. That idea is condemned by Popes of history. St Thomas More would have abhorred this.
When I think about all the republicans in the senate and the way they voted at the end of the gilt president's impeachment process, each one has played the roll of Richard Rich, whose name it seems to me, in this context, is extremely fitting. I'm not a scholar so I still have a question. What part was played by Mitt Romney, the only one among them who voted with his conscience, not out of lust for a position?
Hello, hellooooooooo. Is there anyone still out there? Has no one here survived the president's mishandling of the virus? Or are you all too busy grappling now with the pointlessness of repentance?
I still think Richard Rich was the REAL villain in the movie. IMHO, Henry was a slave to his appetites but Rich had to think, plan & execute his treachery.
Cardinal Wolsey's last words come to mind here. The Pope would not have been able to persecute and execute him as a practical matter. However, ironically men in More's position like Wolsey before him and Cromwell afterwards who took King Henry's position had similar fates. Wolsey was not executed but cast aside and exiled from power. Cromwell was executed, and Henry became a thoroughly monstrous tyrant by the end of his reign arbitrarily executing those foolish or unfortunate enough to come near him even if they bowed to his will as well as seeking out those who would not further from court. Henry began by executing More, Bishop Fisher, Robert Aske and hundreds of the peasants and commoners who participated in the Pilgrimage of Grace. Having made himself the supreme religious as well as temporal authority in England, the King quickly seems to have become much less restrained in the exercise of his arbitrary power over life and death. This was very much what Thomas More feared and what Bishop Barron is discussing here. More's last words in court were that Henry did not have the authority to assume power over the Church, and that even a King was bound by the laws left behind by Christ, and the history of his kingdom and his oaths. It was his refusal to concede Henry near absolute power that leads to his execution.
@@bobbq8380 No doubts if your word is good and your knowledge of history sufficient to provide the details. Tell us who the Pope was and upon whom he imposed worse fates than those who fell victim to Henry VIII? Perhaps you could start with victims in England punished for having taken the king's side regarding his divorce?
let me point out that a conscience must be formed rightly before it serves as a sure guide to right decision making. This means that a conscience rightly formed is first educated in the truth, and moral laws, as the church proclaims them. Then, when uncertain, even after the church's teaching has been sought, makes the most moral, truth centered decision possible. Thomas More did this; Luther did not.
FaithandReason101 What unadulterated nonsense! The obscene Catholic church that says AIDS is bad but not as bad as condoms thinks it has a monopoly on morality? Surely ye jest? This the Catholic Church that had treaties with NAZI Germany and Italy? This Church that terrorized Europe for a thousand years with the Inquisition? This the church that hides pedophile priests from the rule of law all over the world? Shuffling them from church to church so they can prey on more children. Surely you are kidding.
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...
