Talk:Thomas More/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

early life

"seriously considered becoming a monk"? according to Erasmus, who would have us believe that any man of intellect must require some direct route of access to god. In fact More's time in the Charterhouse (again only testified by Erasmus) was quite commonplace for a lay religious man seeking to: 1, impose a religious (monastic) discipline on his life 2 create an aura around his name, en route to a life in the highest represetative bodies of politics (this accords to his early work for henry were he went unpaid for over a year, another act of rhetorical humility in order to show his devotion to the realm and lack of ambition- itself a hugely ambitous ploy)

furthermore he never abandonded his law career whilst in this charterhouse he became a civic officer for london (deputy sheriff?)

it seems hard to title thomas as doubtful over the course his life should take. yes, the fact that he is reported to have desired a more religous life than he had is important to an article on him. However, surely the point that must be made on close readings of his work is that he consistently strove for harmony between secular and religious life (a civic, christian humanism) until Henry VIII's supremacy act compromised his the concilaition of his ideologies?

let me know if i'm violently wrong -conal 14:57 14MAR06 UK

regarding "also considered joining the Carthusian order. Perhaps because he judged himself incapable of celibacy, More finally decided to marry in 1505" : I am not quite sure if these expressions are precisely true. I do not think Erasmus shared the opinion in the comment above (he was not a monk himself but a free-minded priest). Erasmus writes that, after his years in the Charterhouse, Thomas More married "ne pouvant secouer le désir de prendre femme" (I do not have the original text). He was just in love for an adolescent woman ; but, according to the rules of the time, he agreed to marry her elder sister Jane Colt. I mean, according to Erasmus, the point is not the disadvantage of celibacy, but rather the advantage of marriage. - FrédéricLN 1 apr. 2006

Inventor of utopian fiction?

another issue: was More the 'inventor' of Utopian fiction? I know he gave us the word...--MichaelTinkler

There was Plato's Republic, of course, and there was the Greek myth of the Golden and the Silver age, which both have similarities to Utopian literature, and more surely had good knowledge of the Republic (studying in Oxford under the likes of Grocyn will do that to you). But as far as the term Utopian literature goes, Utopia was the first such piece of writing and thus, logically, lent its name to the genre. -- Bringa

Head of the Church

uhhhh - Cardinal Wolsey was archbishop of York and papal legate of the Church in England pre-Oath of Supremacy, which still isn't quite "head of the church". I'm revising now. --MichaelTinkler

Michael, you've done a fantastic job helping this article along, but I have a question for you: the article says "which required all who should be called upon to take an oath (1) acknowledging the legitimacy," etc., which I misread twice. It seems to me to be worded in such a way that "all who are called upon to take an oath" must do something, when what you mean is "all who are (summoned to the king's court?) must take an oath affirming 1) and 2)." Does that make any sense? I'd change it except I'm not sure I understand what you mean and my entire knowledge of Thomas More comes from the (fantastic, IMHO) movie A Man for All Seasons. --Koyaanis Qatsi

---

yes, that does make sense, except that it wasn't necessarily the king's court. I know it was at Lambeth, which is the palace of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to take the oath. Hmmm. I love A Man for All Seasons, too (though lately it's come under a little criticism for making More a little toooo mid-century by-damn-I'm-an-independent-American kinda man). I'll look at it and revise.

---

folly

"[Desiderius Erasmus]? dedicated his The Praise of Folly to More - the word "folly" is moria in Greek."

moria or moira?

Moira = fate; Moria = foolishness.

Thanks.

Non-Christian Utopia

The page describes More's Utopia as non-Christian. It's been years since I read it, but as I recall the Utopians were converted to Christianity by the crew of a European ship that had strayed there. I'll check. Paul B 12.08 15 March 2005 (UTC)

nope. I'm wromng. They are in the process of being converted... Paul B 12.24 15 March (UTC)

Concern for Education

Thomas More was highly concerned with children education. He gave his daughters the same education that his boys' - most uncommon choice at this time [edit : oops, it's already written in "early life"]. His daughter (and confident) Margaret Roper has been a renowned translator and humanist. Two forged words he uses in Utopia do not have any know greek or latin or other roots, and I guess (this is not a very verifiable content) they may have been forged by children at his house : "tranibore(s)" and "syphogrant(s)". - FrédéricLN, 1 apr 06

Religious polemics

I find this section strange. Is there any reason for such large excerpts of More's writing on this topic? And why the comment "More again feels compelled to respond to Luther in language most unseemly"? I feel that this section should be reduced, using brief excerpts from both Luther and More, to give a general understanding of the points of debate, but the language both men chose to use -- regardless of whether some modern readers find it jarring in its crudeness-- should be irrelevant. Could someone please tidy this section?FoxOfBerlin (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Only posthumously a saint

"posthumously known also as Saint Thomas More..."

Hasn't everyone who has ever been canonized a saint acquired that distinction posthumously?

• Yes, to become a saint in Christianity one must be dead. TheExile 04:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Martyr tag is POV

If More, who participated in the burning of heretics and defense of the Church and the authority of the Papacy, which are the reasons why he was later beatified and canonized by the Church, can be labeled a martyr, then the same must be extended to persons such as Giordano Bruno for being burned at the stake in the name of defending the ability to use one's own mind to come to conclusions about the nature of the universe in opposition to the authority of the Church and its attendant dogma.PJtP (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic church in its wisdom has deemed More a martyr for his faith, references abound, it is a POV but it is not Wikipedia editors' POV. If Bruno has been called a martyr for opposing that same church's doctrine and you can find a suitable trustworthy reference to that statement, you may add it to Bruno's page. Dabbler (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. In the eyes of the RC Church, and, it seems in that of the Anglican communion, More is a martyr. There are, of course, very many Protestant martyrs as well (see Marian martyrs and Oxford Martyrs for example). Some were killed under the purview of Thomas More. These are not recognised by the RC church, which was responsible for most, though not all of their deaths, but that does not stop them beong martyrs. Ausseagull (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

King's lineage

Disagreed upon bits: "... as the king's lineage was, in his eyes, traceable directly to Jesus Christ, and should remain so."

What does this mean about lineage traceable to Jesus - if he got divorced his lineage would not change, nor would the lineage his children trace through him change if he got divorced. If we mean he future children would be illegimate because of the divorce, they would still have the same lineage, although they might not be eligible for kingship. Besides I was not aware that anyone -ever- beleived that Jesus had children. Certainly More as a Catholic wouldn't have beleived this. -rmhermen

No, you can find esoteric speculation on this if you care to. It basically comes down to: It would have been unusual and worthy of note if a guy in Jesus' culture wasn't married; nobody notes this; therefore he was probably married. Mary Magdalene is usually given as the best candidate for Mrs. Jesus. (And the wedding at Cana, John 2:1 may be an account of Jesus' own.)

That's a huge amount of speculation, better suited to The Da Vinci Code. Whatever the facts neither More nor Henry believed that Kings were descended from Jesus in the biological sense. DJ Clayworth 19:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard some people talk about the divine right of kings to rule, but that is not an issue of lineage, but rather about authority.

I think that must be a misunderstanding. Wasn't the issue that Henry VIII declared himself head of the church?

...Henry didn't declare himself head of the English church; the method used was statute law in the passing of the Act of Supremacy. In other words, the authority for the change was derived from parliament. BTLizard 6 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)

quotes

Shouldn't the quotes section just link to Wikiquote? There's already an entry for More there at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_More . It would be even better if someone would add the two quotes we have here to there. --pie4all88 03:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well they do seem to pop up a lot. There are quotes under George Marshall and under Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma just off the top of my head. I think they add a nice bit of flavour to an article. Call me old fashioned. I mean by all means get rid of them but I don't think a couple of quotes at the bottom of a page do any harm. Obviously if there were twenty of them that might be another matter. Tricky one. --Mr impossible 23:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

corrections/more detail

Wasn't it in 1534 (and not 1535) that More was called to sign the Act of Succession and the Act of Supremacy? If I remember correctly, he was jailed for fifteen months in the Tower prior to his execution. Also, I'm currently preparing a presentation on More's connections to the European circle of Humanists (Erasmus, Giles, Bude, Lupset, Busleiden...), but I really don't know how in-depth people want this More article here to be. It could do with some serious brushing up though; starting a More biography in his 50th year is surely not a good idea. -- Bringa

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This sentence, "In 1531, Richard Bayfield, a graduate of the University of Cambridge and former Benedictine monk, was burned at Smithfield for distributing copies of the New Testament.[8]",

could be made more actuate: "In 1531, Richard Bayfield, a graduate of the University of Cambridge and former Benedictine monk, was burned at Smithfield for distributing copies of the William Tyndale's English translation of the New Testament.[8]"

This helps clarify what the controversy was. A link to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tyndale_Bible or to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/William_Tyndale could be inserted.

Also [8] should be "God's Bestseller: William Tyndale, Thomas More, and the Writing of the English Bible---A Story of Martyrdom and Betraya by Brian Moynahan, St. Martin's Press; 1st edition (August 23, 2003)

Perhaps someone else could make these changes. I don't know a lot about how to insert links and don't want to muck things up. 65.171.235.153 (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC) MCS

More as Traitor?

Um, a categorization of this article made me twitch reflexively. How is More classified as a traitor? --Penta 22:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well he was classified as such by the King and the King's courts. That's why he was executed. DJ Clayworth 19:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Good logic DJ - just as the Jews were all "traitors" in Nazi Germany.

Do shut up with that VERY specious reasoning. The fact is that he was branded a traitor, whether or not he actually WAS one. DestradoZero 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Henry VIII's divorce

The article states " Pope Julius II had issued a formal dispensation from the biblical injunction against a man marrying his brother's widow. ". That is inaccurate. The dispensation was issued because the marriage was not consumated. Queen Isabella said that her daughter was a virgin. The Pope accepted this. - and, of course thats why it would have been politically difficult to agree to Henry's divorce, it would mean calling Isabella a liar. --ClemMcGann 16:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jldd 02:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious intolerance

While Chancellor of England, Thomas More used the police power of the State to imprison, torture and burn alive Reformed Christians. His all consuming passion was to arrest and burn alive William Tyndale—the father of the English Bible. He wrote millions of words refuting William's Tyndale's books. Any description of the man that ignores these unfortunate details is seriously incomplete. -Stibbs 31Oct05

I've tried to address your concerns in my most recent edits. Eb.hoop 03:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I find the page unfair in this respect. True, 1) Thomas More WAS an opponent to Luther and to any division of the Christian Church, and 2) Thomas More DID condemn Reformed Christians and assumed that to be a legitimate decision for a Lord Chancellor and for the State's Justice. But he but did it very reluctantly, as many examples and testimonies show. In most individual cases he refused to condemn. For this reason, in the sentence "A number of modern writers, such as Richard Marius, have attacked More for alleged religious fanaticism and intolerance (manifested, for instance, in his enthusiastic persecution of heretics).", the word "enthusiastic" is untrue. - FrédéricLN, 1 apr 06

Sir Thomas More unlike the Lutherans in Germany and Henry VIII in England believed it absurd for a secular ruler to be head of the Christian Church. We see how foolish that idea was then and now as Prince Charles will soon be head of the Church of England with Camilla as his Queen. Charles in English law will be the legal head of the Church and not the Archbishop of Canterbury? Maybe Reformed Christians would like President Bush as the head of their Church. He does appear to speak directly to God as Henry VIII did also claim.

I just read the "Thomas More" article. In this section (religious intolerance) I found the ending "He was an evil man that deserved to die a thousand deaths and hated Protestants. He was an asshole and should have died the same way he killed the poor innocent Protestants." It seemed out of character with the rest of the article. When I went to "edit" it was not there. (Jldd 02:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

When More said "no temporal man may be the head of the spirituality" (a quote I copied from this article), I wonder if he realized that the pope falls in the category "temporal man". Or is that a no-no?JGC1010 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Irony (?)

Is the word "ironically" necessary or justified in the following sentence (taken from the lead paragraph)?

Ironically, he was also added to the calendar of saints in the Anglican Church in 1980.

Thanks for your input --Dpr 03:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Considering that he was a staunch defender of the Catholic Church and the sovereignty of the Pope, it is indeed ironic that he was added into the Anglican saint calendar. TheExile 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed ironic that the Anglican Church should honour a man who burnt Protestants. But it does, and also honours, for example, the Jesuit Martyrs in Japan. In other words, it respects worthy Roman Catholic Christians. In contrast, I doubt if the Roman Catholics honour Cranmer, Latimer, Tyndale or Ridley. Millbanks 08:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is further irony, and indeed discomfort, in the fact that a man who burned his opponents and banned their books was declared, "Heavenly Patron of Statesmen and Politicians" by Pope John Paul II, and that Roman Catholic lawyers who are members of the various St Thomas More Societies are "inspired" by him. Millbanks (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Henry VIII did that too, in a much broader scale and was the founder of the Church of England.Mistico (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Infomation

shouldn't the information about him be at the top of the page? 154.20.174.54 03:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Was he sacked of Oxford?

because he was studiying greek in his own account?, i just read that on a philosophy book, back then greek was the language of the oh-so-hated orthdox church.

- No, he wasn't. He studied at Oxford for 2 years, then left to pursue a legal career (Erasmus suggests at the instigation of his father, to stop him from becoming a penniless academic...). Hackloon 01:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (See Marius, p. 28)

TRUE THE INFORMAION SHOULD BE AT THE TOP. I WONDER WHY IT ISNT?

Nothing of More's family??

It's easy for me to point out that this article reveals absolutely nothing of More's family - no mention of parents, wife or children. Not my subject, I'm afraid, but someone ought to do their duty by the great man...

Thanks Nick Michael 20:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This has now been done.Millbanks (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Screwed up my attemot to revert vandalism. Thanks to Volcanopele who put it right. Epeeist smudge 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Venerated in... Anglican Church?

What BS. It was the leader of the Anglican church who had him killed. I'm almost tempted to remove that reference for pure stupidity.
NewYork1956 04:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't succumb to temptation, because it is a fact, whether you like it or not. As for "BS" and "stupidity", that is purely PoV and specifically unencyclopedic - not to mention, in this context, unChristian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.71.161 (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess the Church of England Holy Day Calendar which has a commemoration on July 6 for him and John Fisher as Reformation Martyrs is BS. MesoCS 03:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you guess right.JGC1010 (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It says something for the forgiving nature of the Anglican church that someone who burnt Protestants is venerated by them. Do Roman Catholics venerate Tyndale who had the impudence to translate the Bible and was burnt for this? I don't think Tyndale ever burnt anybody. Thomas More did.Millbanks (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand Anglicans forgiving More for burning Protestants, but venerating a man like that is surely going a bit far? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.71.161 (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

patron saint

According to the vatican website, Thomas More was not the patron saint of lawyers. That is actually someone else. I actually found this out because I used this entry (and others) to write a trivia night, and had an embarrassing experience when it turned out that this answer was wrong (the rest of the wiki information I used was correct though) 203.202.163.209 00:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC) iiago

Please provide a link to the page at the Vatican's website showing that Thomas More is not the patron saint of lawyers. I can't find it, only a list of saints declared during JPII's and the current papacy. There are half a dozen patron saints for lawyers, and St. Thomas More is usually considered the most prominent. Sorry you were embarrassed, but if he's really not the patron saint of lawyers, the St. Thomas More Society is in trouble! Laura1822 20:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Career

You know, More is a wonderful author and saint and all, but what about his actual career in the service of England? No mention is made of the diplomatic mission to Antwerp that formed the setting for his Utopia, nor of much of his policies beyond his dealings with Protestants and the divorce issue. The article leans heavily toward three poles: his authorship, his religion, and his death; it needs fleshing out. There is much more that needs to be said, especially in comparison with the article on Thomas Wolsey, which is largely divided into domestic and foreign policy as befits an accounting of a chancellor's accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.198.75.22 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of this page

Just seen this, and i suggest that someone..well...change it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.155.1 (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Humanist?

I do agree that one can have, perhaps, both religious views and humanist views at the same time, but is Thomas More and, I suppose the instigator for claims of More's apparent 'humanism', his 'Utopia' at all compatible with humanism? Should a more apparent term be used here instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie M Hayes (talk • contribs) 19:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If Thomas More isn't a Humanist, the term is nonsense. More, Erasmus and the rest of the circle were the first Humanists. It'd be rather like questioning if Karl Marx could be called a Communist. Latter-day Humanism has evolved a long way from its roots, but this is where it started. --129.128.235.107 (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're correct, but much of the praise for More would have to be from "wise men" whose consciouness has barely been elevated to even a glimmer of actual consideration of humanistic morality. If one can burn people at the stake, lie and distort freely for your sovereign (freely intermixed with 'true' opinions) and still be admired and indeed become a saint, then much of the opinions and wisom of the time must, in my opinion, be suspect as the railings of deeply ignorant highly educted men. Call it zeitgeist, but ignorance is ignorance and wisdom from ancient 'scholars' should be suspect as being wrong-headed, slanted, or downright falsehood. Consider the deep admiration for a man who distrusts only Atheists because they don't believe there will be reprecussions for oath-breaking - it follows then that men only obey God out of fear.YAC (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit to feeling a bit hypocritical in that I don't have the same contempt for Alexander the Great, for instance. But, perhaps speciously, see the atrocities committed by ancient military leaders in a difference category from those who claim to care for men's spiritual and moral welfare. I'd still like to see less reverence for the ancients simply because their consciousness had not been raised to any great degree above "us vs them" (Carthage must be destroyed) and sometimes I'm worried about "us". Anyway, specious reasoning seems to be rampant, whatever the cause - I'd prefer to see more ridicule, as it would provide a more accurate historical context - for instance, it seems incredible that so many instituttions should be named after More. Do they even know the history of their own namesake?YAC (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this page is for discussing the article about Thomas More, not More himself or people who venerate him. Dabbler (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think his designation as 'Humanist' makes the subject of what that means in historical context a fair subject. Probably I did wander a little far afield - (a couple of hours later) on second thought, aren't facts about More described in the article fair game in placing into context the overall glowing terms used to describe him and his accomplishments in the rest of the article. He has burned people at the stake and he has freely mixed lies with honest opinion to protect his master. Isn't it fair to suggest that relative to the severity of his bad acts the article is too one-sided and his darker aspects should be given more exposure since they are in direct contrast to the man he and his collegial contemporaries purported him to be and cast doubts on the validity or motivation of his more benign accomplishments? Is it wrong to suggest that the overall information on More is not widely enough desseminated that those who venerate him are aware of who they are venerating? YAC (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Burns people at the stake, lies freely in state documents for his 'master' - reminds you of anyone - actually he's even worse (as far as we know) than Karl Rove. I'm sure the Dobson Reform Church will canonize KR sometime in the future. YAC (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Namesakes

Do we really need to list every school and institution in the world that uses his name? I've reverted a few before realizing that we have a section for it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Origins of A Man for All Seasons

There are two different origins given for the phrase A Man for All Seasons used in Bolt's play/movie. The first is in Scholarly and literary work where it is ascribed to a phrase by Erasmus. The second is in Influence and reputation where it is ascribed to Robert Wittington. The first seems a bit of a stretch as it is a rather free translation of the Latin words but the second seems to be based on an English language source. Can anyone resolve? Dabbler (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the Wittington point is sourced, I will delete the Erasmus point. It seems a bit of OR/speculation/novel synthesis. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This essay sources the quote:

:43. Erasmus once called his good friend Thomas More a "homo omnium horarum," which was translated by one of More's English contemporaries as "a man for all seasons,"[18] but which might be better translated into modern English as "a man for every situation or opportunity."

Footnote 18: "And as tyme requyreth / a man of merueylous myrth and pastymes / & somtyme of as sad grauyte / as who say. a man for all seasons." John Whittington, The Vulgaria of John Stanbridge and the Vulgaria of Robert Whittinton, ed. B. White, Early English Text Society, 187 (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., and Humphrey Milford, Oxford UP, 1932), 64/35--37. Whittington was echoing Erasmus's praise of More in the prefatory letter to The Praise of Folly: "ita pro incredibili morum suauitate facilitateque cum omnibus omnium horarum hominem agere et potes et gaudes," Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, ed. P. S. Allen, H. M. Allen and H. W. Garrod (hereafter Allen), 11 vols. and index (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1906--47, 1958), I: #222, 460/20--21; cf. Encomium Moriae, Vol. 4/3 of Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (hereafter ASD), ed. C. H. Miller (Amsterdam-New York: North Holland Co., 1979) 67/18--68/1; ["the incredible sweetness and gentleness of your character makes you able and willing to be a man for all seasons with all men," Desiderius Erasmus: The Praise of Folly, trans. C. H. Miller (New Haven: Yale UP, 1979), 2]. See also Adagia, I.iii.86, Collected Works of Erasmus (hereafter CWE) (Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1974--), 31: 304--05.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bold print shown as in original article.

I have just added a citation for the Treason act, at the end of the quote was the following comment "Bold print shown as in original article" Who added that and what was the original article? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sir or Saint

In England he is usually known as "Sir Thomas More" not "Saint Thomas More" I think that under MOS#Strong national ties to a topic the lead should be "Sir Thomas More (February 7, 1478 – July 6, 1535), also Saint Thomas More" rather than the other way around. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed- also he has been know as Sir Thomas for a lot longer than he has been known as Saint Thomas. Dabbler (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Devils or Angels

I'll probably get in trouble for this, but it's not a frivolous question. How can an article on a man be taken seriously if everything in the article is not shaded with the qualification that this man burned people alive and lied freely in important state documents - probably treason in itself. Surely, these are the acts that define his character and everything he says and does should be taken in that context. Everything Erasmus said or did should be considered in the context that one of his greatest heroes was a man who burned people alive. Willingness to sacrifice others for your own benefit is a characteristic that has given us the greatest villains in history. Why does limited indulgence in the same evil excuse (apparently) the offense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YetAnotherCommenter (talk • contribs) 18:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few writers are quoted condemning More for the persecution, some in virulent terms. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I heard that More may have interrogated heretics, but where is the evidence that he burned them? And more (no pun intended) to the point, where has this information been sourced from? Another thing doesn't add up here. How could he have burned Protestants when Protestantism developed after More's death, and in King Henry VIII wake? TheBlackWhirlwind (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

He probably didn't put the match to the fire personally, just like Henry VIII never executed any of his wives personally. However, he certainly was in favour of burning heretics Quote from The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record.

The Protestant Reformation is usually dated to 1517 although some people claim that Wycliffe and the Lollards were proto-Protestants. The term came into being around 1530 so it may not have been widespread by the time of More's death but it isn't ahistorical. Dabbler (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Brian Moynahan's "God's Messenger" and Michael Farris's "From Tyndale to Madison" are worth reading in this context —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.71.161 (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. But are there any other sources supporting this claim?TheBlackWhirlwind (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia says "As chancellor it was his duty to enforce the laws against heretics and, by doing so, he provoked the attacks of Protestant writers both in his own time and since. The subject need not be discussed here, but More's attitude is patent. He agreed with the principle of the anti-heresy laws and had no hesitation in enforcing them. As he himself wrote in his "Apologia" (cap. 49) it was the vices of heretics that he hated, not their persons; and he never proceeded to extremities until he had made every effort to get those brought before him to recant. How successful he was in this is clear from the fact that only four persons suffered the supreme penalty for heresy during his whole term of office." Dabbler (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is right. On the other hand, I agree with the point that we can't really talk about English Protestants at this stage. qp10qp (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you certain then that the supreme punishment was to be burned at the stake? Wasn't the majority of executions in the renaissance by beheading?

And at the risk of adding levity to such acts of barbarity, I would argue that the word "numerous" is inappropriate for the number of people executed, and should therefore be substituted more accurately with "several".TheBlackWhirlwind (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The English act of Parliament that decreed the punishment for heresy is De heretico comburendo. Four is what the Catholic Encyclopedia states but that is poentially POV source. I don't know whether there are other sources which may give a larger number. Dabbler (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

There has been an inordinate amount of vandalism on this article. Based on the nature of the vandalism I suspect it may all be coming from one person. Since they use many different IP addresses, it would appear that they want to purposely avoid blocking.

I am recommending immediate semi-protection. Semi-protection disables editing for accounts which are not autoconfirmed. All registered users who agree, please add a comment below this entry. Once we get a good consensus of registered users, I will then request protection. Thanks! Highspeed (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The quick way to do this is just place the request at the link you provided above - Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (one shortcut: WP:RFPP); I've gone ahead and protected the page. Also, I think those who watch the page will appreciate the normal policy of placing new items at the bottom of the page, where I've repositioned this thread. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Frank. When first reading the Wikipedia:Protection policy page, I mistakenly thought that consensus for protection had to be reached before requesting an admin to do so. Obviously, I misread that section. Highspeed (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, sometimes there are just too many words. As I'm sure you've figured out by now, the consensus referred to there is for making a change to a page once it has been protected. (By the way - not all requests at that page are granted; check out its contents and you can see that admin judgment is exercised, as in other places around here.) Let me know if you need anything else!  Frank  |  talk  02:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts and Facts on More

part One

"Sir Thomas More (7 February 1478 – 6 July 1535) was an English lawyer, author, and statesman who in his lifetime gained a reputation as a leading humanist scholar, and occupied many public offices, including Lord Chancellor (1529–1532), in which he had a number of people burned at the stake for heresy." Is it necessary to put that "he had a number of people burned at the stake for heresy" in the opening paragraph of this entry on More? This would seem to suggest that this was one of his crowning achievements, or that he looked forward to burning people. On the contrary:

As Chancellor it was his duty to administer the civil laws of England, which prescribed the death penalty for obstinate heretics. Nevertheless, during his term of office only four, it seems, were burned, and these were relapsed persons, whom he had no power to reprieve.

Actually, it was heresy and not the heretics that More tried to get rid of. (from: http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/THOMASMO.HTM )

As he himself wrote in his "Apologia" (cap. 49) it was the vices of heretics that he hated, not their persons; and he never proceeded to extremities until he had made every effort to get those brought before him to recant. How successful he was in this is clear from the fact that only four persons suffered the supreme penalty for heresy during his whole term of office. (From: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14689c.htm)

part two

Perhaps the reason Thomas More brought detained persons to his house was to try his utmost to convince them to recant and so spare their lives. The suggestion that they were tortured at More's home, under his orders seems to be completely out of character to the man which his contemporary sources tell us he was.

Rather than been opposed to the study of scripture, More was a leading figure of the New Learning at the time. He encouraged the study of Greek and Latin so that people could understand the Bible better. One of Tyndale's vehement charges against the Catholics was what he called their failure to give the complete Bible to the people in a language they understood. His own translations were being smuggled into England from the Continent and avidly read.

Tyndale translated the Bible into English in a Protestant version, with a commentary on the scripture which attacked amongst other things, certain practices (liturgical or otherwise) of the Catholic church. It was the attack on the Church that the law would, at that stage, have had a problem with. The slant by which the scriptures were translated and commented on, in these commentries or glossis, would have been anti the Catholic church and anti the law.

More favored the dissemination of selected books of Scripture in the vernacular; the reading of other books, he thought, should be at the discretion of every man's bishop, who would probably "suffer some to read the Acts of the Apostles whom he would not suffer to meddle with the Apocalypse." More added that some of the best minds among the Catholic clergy were also of this opinion. (from: http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/THOMASMO.HTM)

Part Three

Even today, with our comparitively high levels of education, the book of the Apocalypse (or Revelation) can be quite a confusing book to read. One also has to bear in mind that this age was a different age to our own, and access to information and learning was not as widespread as today. The idea of having the scripture in one's own language was also relatively new.

Part Four

My point of view is that the world needs more men like Thomas More. Leaders who can lead with integrity and who do not compromise their beliefs, no matter what it may cost them. One has to read widely on the information available about Thomas More in order to attempt to come to an understanding on what this man's life was about. It is strictly speaking not true that More burned people at the stake, it was by operation of the law that they were burned, and as I have mentioned above, More had no power to reprieve them.

The danger of placing information that "he had a number of people burned at the stake for heresy" in the introductory paragraph of this article is that people who do not read widely on the life of this man, may come to the conclusion that he relished burning people, or that he did not wish to prevent their burning. However this is not the More which his contempoaries say he was.

"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

"He seems born and framed for friendship, and is a most faithful and enduring friend. He is easy of access to all; but if he chances to get familiar with one whose vices admit no correction, he manages to loosen and let go the intimacy rather than to break it off suddenly. When he finds any sincere and according to his heart, he so delights in their society and conversation as to place in it the principal charm of life... Though he is rather too negligent of his own interests, no one is more diligent in those of his friends. In a word, if you want a perfect model of friendship, you will find it in no one better than in More" - Erasmus on More

Thank you for the interesting article on More.

196.41.124.8 (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter Giles

I would like to create an article for Peter Giles. Thomas Hobson has one. (I see some parallels in terms of notability.) Unfortunately, I don't know anything about him besides that he was a close friend of More, was fictionalized in Utopia, and probably but not definitely designed the Utopian script. If I start this article, who will help expand it? MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search reveals no information except the comment from the Catholic Encyclopedia that the Peter Giles in Utopia is based on a real person. That's not much to base an article on. Do you have a book that you can use as a reference for the small amount of info we have? - PKM (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this him? Pieter Gillis. qp10qp (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha! I knew you would be helpful. - PKM (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Deserving of Sainthood

Many people in the discussion section have voiced their concern over some of the obvious contradictions about More being a saint. Canonising a man who burnt heretics seems very out of date considering he was canonised in 1980 (in the catholic church). But the only reason we know these things is because he was a very prominent person during his time and because of this many documentations of his life. Many other Martyrs and saints who we have little record about could have done things similar or worse but only the good things they did survived. Many other patron saints of countries (St. Patrick or St. George among others) have little known about there lives outside their faith like Thomas More. Who knows what they really did.

And anyway he is a saint so argue with Vatican not Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.142.106 (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful reference

This comes from the European Institute of Protestant Studies who has a very anti Catholic slant to their documents.

We require an independent reference to the original document where this accusation can be substantiated.

"As Lord Chancellor, More had six Lutherans burned at the stake and imprisoned as many as forty others [2] . His chief concern in this matter was to wipe out collaborators of William Tyndale, the exiled Lutheran who in 1525 had published a Protestant translation of the Bible in English which was circulating clandestinely in England (Tyndale had also written The Practyse of Prelates (1530), opposing Henry VIII's divorce on the grounds that it was unscriptural and was a plot by Cardinal Wolsey to get Henry entangled in the papal courts)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSweeper (talk • contribs) 07:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should put up a cn tag on this. What's there isn't really a reference, that anyone can access with ease. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the doubtful material. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Giggs

According to a number of sources,[1][2] Thomas More had a woman he raised as a daughter (or "adopted daughter") named Margaret Giggs. I recently uploaded an engraving of her after Holbein by Wenceslas Hollar at File:Wenceslas_Hollar_-_Margaret_Giggs.jpg. It'd be great if some information about her could be added to this article. Dcoetzee 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We also have the Holbein: Margaret Giggs. Certainly More's family is very interesting, though I think Anne Cresacre is the more fascinating of his adopted daughters. Perhaps it would be hard to fit in much about them in this article, but what is called for is an article on Holbein's lost More family portrait. I fully intend to write that article before long, and it will contain details about all More's children. I'm reading A Daughter's Love: Thomas & Margaret More by John Guy at the moment, and it is full of material. Giggs, like the rest of the family, was a traditionalist, opposed to the Royal Supremacy, and she ended up in the Netherlands. She married her tutor and had a shed-load of children. The inscription on the Holbein is false. (By the way, I need to ask you something about the Hollars; I'll go to your talkpage on Commons.) qp10qp (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added to the article that More asked for Giggs to have his body to bury, reffed to Guy. qp10qp (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Holbein paint

It is written: Portrait by Hans Holbein the Younger (1527). Question: He became Lord Chancellor in 1529. How then he was wearing Chancellors insignia in 1527? question from Hinko Gnito —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.212.206 (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the livery collar or chain of office of a Tudor civil servant, signified by the dual portcullis and the Tudor rose. It may have been awarded on More's knighthood in 1521 or on his entering the king's service in 1517. In 1527, More was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. qp10qp (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

John Frith

There is no citation in the article for the linking of More to the execution of John Frith. The link to the John Frith wiki page leads to a citation dead end, with long sections evidently copied from older English books without citation. Examples of More participating in or approving torture, which have been alleged and debated for centuries, should not remain in this Wiki article without adequate citation.Ajschorschiii (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

This informative articles starts with "Sir Thomas More (7 February 1478 – 6 July 1535), also known as Saint Thomas More, was a true gangsta lawyer, author, and statesman ....". Is the author kidding? The neologism 'gangsta' is meaningless, an abstraction at best, used only to draw attention to the author's hip-ness. Tofindya (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

not a Saint

Thomas More is not venerated as a saint per http://www.allexperts.com/ep/943-63134/Anglicans/Rev-Steve-Parish.htm "The Anglican Church has no method of canonisation. The Reformers expunged most of the saints' days, leaving around 20 - the apostles, other evangelists (Mark and Luke), the Baptist, the first martyr Stephen, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene, plus All Saints Day, the Presentation in the Temple, and Holy Innocents.
In the modern (official) list of "Holy Days" - carefully not called saints days - there are commemorations of pre-reformation saints, and post-reformation Anglicans and others, including Quakers and Catholics. But it's arguable whether we commemorate (e.g.) Ignatius or Vincent de Paul as "saints" because they lived and were canonised by the RC church after the English Church decided the Pope has no jurisdiction in these realms. The last two names in the list are Janani Luwum, Anglican bishop in Uganda, murdered by Idi Amin (1977), and Oscar Romero, murdered RC Archbishop of San Salvador (1980). It's a fascinating list - quite generous really in its inclusion of heroes of the Counter-Reformation!" Nitpyck (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

He was canonised by the Roman Catholic Church some time in the last century. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and if rev steve is correct he is not venerated as a saint by the Anglican Communion as the article states. Since he is fairly famous for fighting heresy and trying to preserve the Catholic Church it would be pretty amazing if the COE made an exception by adding him. However I'm not expert on Anglican theology so someone who is should make the call. Has the COE added Saints in the Roman Catholic sense since they were originally limited to about 20? Nitpyck (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The only person declared a Saint by the Church of England is Saint Charles the Martyr, better known as King Charles I who was deposed and executed by parliament. That is not widely recognised or observed within the church. There is no modern mechanism to create Anglican saints in the Roman Catholic sense, people deemed worthy and historical are added to the list of those commemorated. Dabbler (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Religious polemics

This sentence makes no sense to me- what did the author intend it to mean?- His personal counter-attack began in the manner expected from a writer. Are all writers expected to counter-attack by going after their King's enemies? What if they don't have a king?
He assisted Henry VIII with writing the Defence of the Seven Sacraments (1521) In 1528, More directed his first book of English controversy (Dialogue) against the writings of Tyndale. So all the other works listed were written after 1528. If that is the case shouldn't they be moved below his attack on that Bible? And is there a reason for the 7-year dry spell? Was Henry soft on the Luther for some political purpose during that period? Nitpyck (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to the comment above, the section 'Religious Polemics' reads a little strangely to me - it feels as though the author is trying to pursuade the reader that More's use of language was justified and necessary (i.e. the author is personally defending More against, one assumes, views such as those credited to C.S. Lewis in that section) rather than stating the facts - perhaps it could be rewritten so as to be more objective (and allow the reader to make up their own mind)?Zenira (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious - Luther's Call to destroy the heart of Christendom

Can someone check that the article text "Luther's Call to destroy the heart of Christendom" is supported by the source Gerard B. Wegemer, "Portrait of Courage", p. 136. It seems too strong to me. twilsonb (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It has also been argued in at least one recent change/revert (that I wasn't involved in). twilsonb (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Political career

When I read "At the Field of Cloth of Gold, he met Greek scholar Guillaume Budé (Budaeus).", I first misunderstood that to mean that "Greek" referred to his nationality. It refers of course to Greek scholars in the Renaissance. However, when I looked at the Field of Cloth of Gold and the Guillaume Budé articles I didn't see any hint for such a meeting. The former doesn't mention either More or Budé, and the latter doesn't mention the Camp du Drap d'Or nor that both men ever met in person. That made me regard the whole section Political career more critically, and I realized that it is cobbled together from unreferenced tidbits. The "secretary and personal advisor" paragraph doesn't have any date; when was that? From the flow of the text, it appears that that was when he was undertreasurer after 1521, but then again, "welcoming foreign diplomats" and "liaison between the king and Wolsey" sounds rather like something he would have done at the Camp du Drap d'Or in 1520. — Sebastian 18:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical Context

I noticed some users in here have a strong hatred for Thomas More for the way he seemed to have handled the spread of the Protestant Reformation in England. This hatred as historical roots in the Reformation historians, some of which, I think the less serious and more biased, try to distort the historical context of what happened to pretend that More was a sort of Torquemada. First of all, as much shocking for us this seems, the burning of heretic was seen back then as a acceptable punishment for heretics, even for many Protestants. We can see that by the fact that Erasmus and John Calvin also supported that practise. If More himself said that he never tortured anyone, I think, since he was an integrous man, this deserves to be pointed. I also would like to point that this isn't for judging anyone or try to distort what was the historical truth. If Erasmus said when More died all the praising the article states for some reason that was. I can quote from the "Catholic Encyclopedia" website about his views of "heretics": "As chancellor it was his duty to enforce the laws against heretics and, by doing so, he provoked the attacks of Protestant writers both in his own time and since. The subject need not be discussed here, but More's attitude is patent. He agreed with the principle of the anti-heresy laws and had no hesitation in enforcing them. As he himself wrote in his "Apologia" (cap. 49) it was the vices of heretics that he hated, not their persons; and he never proceeded to extremities until he had made every effort to get those brought before him to recant. How successful he was in this is clear from the fact that only four persons suffered the supreme penalty for heresy during his whole term of office."213.13.244.199 (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

More and Torture-Reference to Ackroyd

The previous editor deleted this paragraph from the discussion page in contrvention of wikipedia guidelines. The reason he/she did so speaks for itself. It restores a fake reference. I alos have this copy of Ackroyd and there is NO such denial of torture on this page. Some censure is in order surely for editor Mistico, both for deleting information on a discussion page and for inserting a fake referemnce.58.163.110.209 (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As an example of this, here is a senetence from the article:
More himself disputed these charges throughout his life, swearing 'as helpe me God' that he had never used torture as a method of interrogation. He claimed that the heretics he detained in his household suffered 'neuer ... so much as a fyllyppe on the forehead'." ref: Peter Ackroyd, "The Life of Thomas More", page 298.

I have a copy of this edition of the book and no such quote appears. The Twekesbury matter is discussed on pp 297-298 of Ackroyd. The article doesn't mention that More sentenced him to death by burning alive at the stake. Further, this is what Ackroyd writes on p 298:
"More declared that he [Twekesbury] had reverted toheresy as a dog returns to his own vomit, and so he was 'burned as there was neuer wretche I wene better worthy'[citation to Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More New Haven and London vol 8 The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer LA Schuster, RC Marius, JP Lusrdi RJ Schoeck (eds) 1973 p21.
If this sort of dodgy scholarship is characteristic of this article its not worth the software its typed on.203.129.61.83 (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"The previous editor deleted this paragraph from the discussion page in contrvention of wikipedia guidelines. The reason he/she did so speaks for itself. It restores a fake reference. I alos have this copy of Ackroyd and there is NO such denial of torture on this page. Some censure is in order surely for editor Mistico, both for deleting information on a discussion page and for inserting a fake referemnce."

Sorry, Mr. Ghost user but I simply RESTORED it to the previous form. This isn´t for personal attacks on Thomas More and Peter Ackroyd source wan´t provided by me. It was in here for ages. Like I pointed there´s a section bellow for the criticism of Thomas More and I didn´t see the purpose of repeating what some of their critics say. If someone should be warned should be the ghost user who tried to give such a deliberate non NPOV to that part of the article or those like you don´t understand Wikipedia guidelines or even when some serious users try to be faithfull to it.Mistico (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

'Ghost user' is just some ad hominem logical fallacy you are indulging because you deleted an entire paragraph from the discussion board in contravention of wikipedia guidelines. Worse-that paragraph highlighted that the reference was fraudulent.203.129.61.83 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC) What you did Mistico was (1) delete the paragraph that gave detailed and referenced evidence that a reference was fraudulent and then (2) reinserted (sic 'RESTAURED' as you put it) the challenged reference. How do you or the other wikipedia editors justify that sort of behaviour? Are there different standards applying?203.129.61.83 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was talking about the article itself. English isn´t my first language. There was an user who tried to give a NPOV about Thomas More and his views of the threatment of heretics. This isn´t for debates about the Reformation controversies and it´s sad to see that some users don´t understand the historical context of the 16th century and the mutual religious intolerance between Catholics and Protestants back then. From a Catholic perspective, to see the Holy Bible being translated to english by an "heretic" could be one of the worst "crimes". The persecution and execution of the so called "heretics" was seen then as acceptable, and it was Henry VIII, when More was dead for 4 years, the responsible for William Tyndale death. Now there´s a reference in the article to a non historian, Brian Moynahan who "makes the case that More was a powerful factor in the betrayal and death of Tyndale.", in a book obviously biased. I wonder why some users aren´t so interested in the alleged religious intolerance of people like John Calvin and John Knox.Mistico (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I'm the person who originally inserted the Ackroyd reference for this part of the article. I have the paperback version of this biography, and the original page numbers are indeed accurate in reference to the edition of the biography I have -- I had the book on my lap while inserting the original reference. I have now created an account to help with improving this page -- I for one am sick of the fact that it is so obviously becoming a Protestant VS Catholic debate, and that there are many users who seem to be using this page to discredit More as the leading Renaissance figure that he is. There was much bloodshed and cruelty on both sides of the religious debate -- why can't we just accept that and try to present a fair portrait of a famous man? The quotes I gave to More in the article are correct: More did indeed strongly deny having any hand in torturing heretics, and all the writings I have read by him seem to point to a man who was against such cruelty.FoxOfBerlin (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thomas More View of Torture

If Peter Ackroyd reference is fake it´s been here at ages. The reason why that user restored that part of the article to the previous form it´s because it was highly biased against Thomas More. An anonimous editor was trying to give an not NPOV tone. For some reason that´s not according to Wikipedia policies. The question is that Thomas More really seemed to have opposed torture as a method to achieve recantations, even if he fully supported the burning of heretics, who was seen as acceptable back, even for people like Erasmus and John Calvin. Sorry, but anyone can see that what Mistico did was totally according to Wikipedia policies, unlike the anonimous anti-More user. I can quote from the "Catholic Encyclopedia" as a source for More view of the threatment of "heretics": "As chancellor it was his duty to enforce the laws against heretics and, by doing so, he provoked the attacks of Protestant writers both in his own time and since. The subject need not be discussed here, but More's attitude is patent. He agreed with the principle of the anti-heresy laws and had no hesitation in enforcing them. As he himself wrote in his "Apologia" (cap. 49) it was the vices of heretics that he hated, not their persons; and he never proceeded to extremities until he had made every effort to get those brought before him to recant. How successful he was in this is clear from the fact that only four persons suffered the supreme penalty for heresy during his whole term of office." There are several biographies of More and so it won´t be difficult to find a reference that shows that he really opposed torture.81.193.189.85 (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous user 203... is an anti-catholic polemicist, who has edit-warred on a number of Catholic-related articles. The fact that he adopts no user name, and appears to have joined for just this purpose, while having an apparent good knowledge of WP practices, leads me to suspect he may be a banned user. Xandar 00:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of torture, 16th century anti-catholic polemicist, Foxe, and derivatives are definitely NOT reliable sources. Foxe was quite happy with Catholics being regularly disembowelled and having their hearts torn out while still alive and excluding this from hie "Book or Martyrs". All information on this subject needs to be from solid reliable modern academic sources. Xandar 00:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree totally, if we are talking about religious fanaticism, John Foxe was much worst then Thomas More. He held the "theories" that Joseph of Arimathea had brought Christianity to England and the English were the new "elected people", among other fascinating things. Read the article about him in the "History of Christianity", written by Alan Kreider. Brian Moynahan is an amateur investigator, not a very serious one or unbiased. In his own "History of Christianity" he focus more in the United States and makes no mention to the Eastern Christianity for example.85.240.23.88 (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Watch on article

This article has seen: deletion of referenced sources, deletion of materail from talk page and reinsertion of fake references (failed verification)58.163.110.145 (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it something should be added on his family. Margaret Roper is mentioned for collecting his remains - I can't see his wife or other children are even named. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor tried to remove teh entire section below on teh basis that "foxe was not a reliable source' More's persecuted heretics and advocated such in his writings.In 1532 More published a six volume (half a million word) Confutation of Tyndale's Answer in response to Tyndale's An Answer unto Sir Thomas More's Dialogue in which he alleged Tyndale was a traitor and a heretic and suggested a manner of tortures.ref Brian Moynahan. William Tyndale. If God Spare my Life. Abacus, London ISBN: 034911532 p248. ref Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More New Haven and London vol 8 The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer LA Schuster, RC Marius, JP Lusrdi RJ Schoeck (eds) 1973 p21 Monynahan writes: "At times More's passion for heretic-burning runs almost out of control. "There should have been more burned by a great many than there have been within this seven year last past," he wrote." ref Brian Moynahan. William Tyndale. If God Spare my Life. Abacus, London ISBN: 034911532 p247 citing Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More New Haven and London vol 8 The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer LA Schuster, RC Marius, JP Lusrdi RJ Schoeck (eds) 1973 p21 More argued that "at every exposycyon have an hote iren thrust thorow theyr blasphemouse tongues." ref Brian Moynahan. William Tyndale. If God Spare my Life. Abacus, London ISBN: 034911532 p247 citing from Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More New Haven and London vol 8 The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer LA Schuster, RC Marius, JP Lusrdi RJ Schoeck (eds) 1973 p21 Moynahan makes the case that More was a powerful factor in the betrayal and death of Tyndale.203.129.61.83 (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has also just tried to remove this entire paragraph203.129.61.83 (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now been accused of vandalism because I tried to stop the deletion of the entire paragraph above. Help.203.129.61.83 (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You are going around inserting highly dubious anti-catholic material in various articles. The passage on More, above, which you have re-inserted does not come from any respectable academic source, but is based on the Polemics of a notorious 16th Century propagandist, whose works, because of their propagandistic desire to run down all leading Catholics of the period, are not reliable sources. It's a bit like sourcing a Jewish history article on "Mein Kampf". The section has to go unless it can be reliably sourced - which I don't believe it can. Xandar 23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of the Most Controversial Section of the Article

I will do my best to achieve a more NPOV in this controversial part of the article. Like it's more then proved, John Foxe book, written in a totally anti-catholic way, isn't a reliable source. A writer who believed the Catholic Church to be the "Antichrist" certainly wouldn't care about the rumours or accusacions he heard about Thomas More or other Catholic martyrs. Brian Moynahan isn't also a reliable source, since he is not even a historian, and his book tries to give a more martyr tone to William Tyndale and put Thomas More as the main vilain of his death and execution. If William Tyndale had been taken to Thomas More custody, he certainly would had the chance to recant and to return to the Catholic faith, unlike Henry VIII who didn't gave him any chance of recantation. Some of Thomas More quotations taken from Brian Moynahan book are also out of context and seem to indicate an obvious bias against the author of Utopia. About the book Thomas More wrote against William Tyndale, I think it´s needed a new article. One thing is certain. More advocated the persecution of heretics, but he also believed in their conversion and was against the use of torture.Mistico (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that all references taken from Brian Moynahan must go. I don't want by any means to obliterate the most controversial aspects of Thomas More religious and political life, specially in what concerns his repression of the Reformation or his role in the execution of heretics, but it's easy to see that Moynahan, whose name appears without any reference to who he is at the most controversial part of the article, is biased against More, like it can be seen by his statement that he "was a powerful factor in the betrayal and death of Tyndale". This seems unbelievable because More was in jail for 14 months, since 1534, before his execution, and was already dead for months when Tyndale was arrested and later executed at the stake. That was all Henry VIII responsability.Mistico (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the presence of a single question you find unbelievable establishes that the source is not reliable. You can be a powerful factor without being the only one. To say it was "all Henry VIII responsability" is certainly not true: there were many who wanted Tyndale removed, not only the king. Can you offer a source which says that More was not a factor? Otherwise, your incredulity is not a good basis to reject a source. Tb (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but from all logics, an anti-catholic author like Brian Moynahan who isn't even an historian, isn't a reliable source, and that phrase is, at least, highly controversial or can be seen as even insultuous to More. Other thing, to state a very controverial statement like that, refering to a person already deceased, it´s pure speculation and it´s not at all assuming a NPOV. Henry VIII was anti-protestant and always remaind a "catholic without the pope". All serious historians know that. Thomas Cromwell and other protestants tried to save William Tyndale life, but Henry VIII never forgave the fact that Tyndale didn´t supported his divorce from Catherine of Aragon. I am very sorry but to quote a very unlikely and controversial source, taken from an anti-catholic author like Brian Moynahan, who relied a lot in anti-catholic propagandist John Foxe, is not according to any of Wikipedia policies. This isn´t a place for speculation. By the other hand you certainly also wouldn´t find any reliable source that proves that a dead man could have had any important role in the "betrayal and execution" of Tyndale.Mistico (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think some users need to understand better Wikipedia policies of Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. [3]. "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." So my edit is totally in tone with Wikipedia policies.Mistico (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some citations for your opinion of Moynahan? I don't disagree with your principles at all, but only with the way in which you have made unsupported assertions about it. Tb (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's excessive to call Brian Moynahan anti-catholic but he is definetely anti-More. He is a journalist not an historian, and that book "If God Spare My Life : Tyndale, the English Bible and Sir Thomas More" is biased thowards More, since the author doesn't try to be neutral about him. It was a now suspended anonymous user who add the references from this book and the claims, that can be found in this review for example [[http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/If_God_Spare_My_Life Tyndale,_the_English_Bible_and_Sir_Thomas_More/0316860921/]] that More "was a powerful factor in the betrayal and death of Tyndale". If so, in what sense? We can't put that reference in the article without any justification. The anonymous user was suspended because he had an history of editing articles about the Catholic Church and famous Catholics in a biased way, like anyone can see. I'm no expert in Tudor History but there are several books written by historians about this time that can be used as reliable sources to clarify the controversy between More and Tyndale in a neutral way. I also should point that More wrote two treaties about Tyndale and the first is hardly mentioned in the article. I think that in very controversial subjects we should try to keep, as much as possible, a policy of neutrality, and both sides of the question. My opinion on Moynahan can be corroborate by his own subjective quotes that appeared in the article. Mistico (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I found two sources that can help the start of new articles about the polemics between More and Tyndale: [4] and [5], More's Dialogue Concerning Heresies (1529) and Confutation of Tyndale's Answear (1531).Mistico (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)