|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.172.194.64
In Reply to: RE: More an "ultra-conservative?" Hardly. posted by tinear on March 20, 2008 at 10:43:16
tinear,
Yes, in my view, More was an ultra-conservative in that he was a religious fundamentalist. His objections to Henry's usurping of Church authority from the Pope derived the idea that Popes were "descended" spiritually from St. Peter in an unbroken line and of course, he was admimant on Papal infallibility. You're correct that More makes statements against private property in "Utopia", in favour of the kind of "monastic communalism" you mention, but this was a detail in support of his ideal World as a complete marriage- without the possibility of divorce- of politics and religion. There would be some latitude of multiple religions, but atheists were a lower cateogry of citizen without most of the society's rights- including the communal food. Though More mentions positive aspects of Plato, "Utopian" politics were hierarchical as a meritocracy and not Classically Platonic nor democratic. His objections to property were based on the poverty of Christ- see Franciscans- and More was advocating that for the best possible world that the population as much as possible should emulate the life of Jesus.
If More were alive today in the US, he would almost surely be pro- divine right of rule, anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-sex (premarital sex would be a crime), and especially anti-Church and State separation. More also doesn't make any protests against slavery and every household would have them. -Except for the unlimited greed, the current primacy of private property over life, and the promotion of war for profit- a perfect fundamentalist.
Chees,
Bambi B
Follow Ups:
..being a "conservative", in the sense that his actions, once pressed to take a stand, reveal a follower of principles that transcend the "prudent". Jesus was a radical in the best and dearest way, and His true followers do not readily endorse regimes either.
"Qui Tacet Consentire" (silence gives consent) -- my favorite exchange in the play/movie -- is a moment where the prosecutor's argument that More's refusal to affirm is denial, is layed waste. More thought that he could wiggle out of swearing an oath against the Vatican by saying nothing. Of course the English Court has already decided More's fate, but has no power over an uncomporomisingly transcendent and everlasting spirit/mind.
Quiescat in Pace, noble Scofield.
and to God what is Gods ( regardless of whose face is on the coin )
That is the drum Thomas More was marching to; regarding eternal principles as being of higher value than transient regimesGrins
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.
a
believe in TRADITIONAL Catholicism hardly is conservative or ultra-conservative.
In fact, the Church was and remains a liberalizing influence over the alternative religions. Until the abortion issue, Catholics were solidly Democratic voters.
Reagan's handlers were geniuses to find this issue and so well exploit it.
Anyhow, More is an interesting guy and Scofield portrayed him very well.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: