Will the PBS series ‘Wolf Hall’ tarnish St. Thomas More’s halo?

Print More
Anton Lesser as Thomas More in Wolf Hall. Photo courtesy Ed Miller/Playground & Company Pictures for Masterpiece/BBC

Anton Lesser as Thomas More in Wolf Hall. Photo courtesy Ed Miller/Playground & Company Pictures for Masterpiece/BBC

(RNS) Sir Thomas More loses his head in this Sunday’s episode (April 26) of the acclaimed PBS historical drama, “Wolf Hall,” which is not much of a spoiler since that’s what infamously happened to More in 1535 at the hands of King Henry VIII.

The real suspense now is whether More will also lose his halo.

Not officially, of course: Thomas More remains a Roman Catholic saint by dint of his refusal to accept Henry’s plot to have his first marriage annulled.  The onetime Lord Chancellor of England also opposed Henry’s power play against the pope, which led to the establishment of the Church of England.

More was formally canonized in 1935, on the 400th anniversary of his execution.

But in these past decades the secular world was also burnishing More’s reputation by turning him into the contemporary standard-bearer of the righteous man, wielding only his conscience and religious principles against the power of the state — the “Man for All Seasons,” as the 1966 Academy Award-winning film (and earlier play) depicted him.

“I die His Majesty’s good servant, but God’s first,” More declares in playwright Robert Bolt’s famous line, a riff on More’s own last words.

Yet what “Wolf Hall” does — and the reason such an intense debate has erupted over the series — is to engage in some bold revisionism by depicting More not as a saint but as “a heresy-hunting, scrupulous prig,” as the Catholic writer George Weigel put it.

Conversely, More’s nemesis, Thomas Cromwell — who maneuvered to supplant More as the king’s chief lawyer and political operative, and became a Protestant icon — is now, in Weigel’s words, “the sensible, pragmatic man of affairs who gets things done, even if a few heads get cracked (or detached) in the process.”

This new-and-improved version of Cromwell (not to be confused with his 17th-century Puritan descendant Oliver Cromwell) is in fact very much the hero of the series, which airs Sundays at 10 p.m. ET, just as he is in the best-selling 2009 novel by Hilary Mantel that the BBC show is based on.

(RNS) Mark Rylance as Thomas Cromwell in "Wolf Hall" For use with RNS-WOLF-SPLAINER, transmitted April 9, 2015. Photo courtesy Giles Keyte/Playground & Company Pictures for MASTERPIECE/BBC.

(RNS) Mark Rylance as Thomas Cromwell in “Wolf Hall” For use with RNS-WOLF-SPLAINER, transmitted April 9, 2015. Photo courtesy Giles Keyte/Playground & Company Pictures for MASTERPIECE/BBC.

It’s an approach that irritates many scholars and critics, but the debate poses a special threat to today’s defenders of religious freedom, especially American culture warriors on the right who have taken More as the symbol of their fight.

“(T)o me it is impossible to miss the allusions to current debates about rational government and religious belief,” wrote Mark Movsesian, a professor at St. John’s University School of Law,  in the conservative journal First Things. “The message, for religious liberty, is not a congenial one.”

“The fact that this hatchet job on Thomas More appears in an impeccably well-done BBC production — surely the gold standard in upper-middle-class entertainment — shows how fast our culture is changing, and how much work defenders of religious liberty have before them,” he wrote.

Indeed, in 2012 the U.S. Catholic bishops picked More as a poster saint for their annual “Fortnight for Freedom” campaign, aimed in large part at pressuring the White House to change a requirement that religious employers provide free birth control coverage in their health care policies.

Cardinal Francis George was a leader in that fight, and when he died last week, the former Chicago archbishop was himself compared to More.

Yet rarely is anyone, in today’s politics, or in history for that matter, as simple as we might like.

In fact, when the American bishops were hailing the use of More in their religious freedom campaign, George took the microphone at their meeting to warn his colleagues “to be careful how we use” More. The reason: “He was not a tolerant person. … He himself put people to death because they did not accept the truth of the Catholic faith.”

So were More and Cromwell saints to emulate? Or sinners to castigate?

Even More’s ardent fans acknowledge he was far from perfect and, as Villanova law school professor Michael Moreland put it,  More “generally shared in the prejudices of his age and was complicit in practices … that we would today regard as morally odious.”

Among those practices were burning alleged heretics at the stake — six such executions took place while More was Henry’s chancellor, from 1529-32, and More had a direct hand in at least three of those.

More’s agents also succeeded in apprehending the famous Bible translator William Tyndale, who was brutally killed a year after More’s own death.

Torture was another common practice, one that “Wolf Hall” shows More employing quite sadistically, and More’s vicious broadsides against heretics (“the devil’s stinking martyrs”) undoubtedly contributed to the persecution of many.

Yet More denied that he ever tortured anyone, and his record was certainly distorted by centuries of Protestant counterpolemics.

Largely absent from “Wolf Hall” is the charming and witty More, a renowned humanist and clear-eyed observer of the sins of his age; a father who insisted on educating his daughters just as he did his sons, and who kept a menagerie of exotic animals.

“More was neither blood-soaked nor a hypocrite, but he was a man of his times, not of ours,” the eminent Cambridge University church historian Eamon Duffy put it in The Tablet of London. Some revision is needed but the new portrait, Duffy complains, “is too dark.”

In “Wolf Hall,” Mantel — who was raised Catholic but is now a sharp critic of the church — seeks to rehabilitate Cromwell to such an extent that she, and the series, turn him into an overly sympathetic protagonist: a man of common birth who overcame an abusive childhood to become a loving family man and successful lawyer. Saddened by the injustice he sees around him, he does what he can to mitigate the violence and instill a sense of Protestant moderation and reason into the headstrong monarch.

Except that’s hardly the truth either, which makes distinguished historians such as Simon Schama grind their teeth.

Rather than “a much-maligned, misunderstood pragmatist from the school of hard knocks who got precious little thanks for doing Henry VIII’s dirty work,” Schama wrote in the Financial Times, Cromwell was “a detestably self-serving, bullying monster who perfected state terror in England, cooked the evidence, and extracted confessions by torture.”

Cromwell “was the Islamic State of his day,” Dominic Selwood wrote in The Telegraph, a man “whose record for murder, looting, and destruction ought to have us apoplectic with rage, not reaching for the popcorn.”

So will an argument about a television show change the course of history?

Probably not.

Since sanctity and ambiguity don’t seem to mix for many people, the vast majority of viewers may simply throw up their hands and declare a pox on both their houses and conclude that all religions wind up in fanaticism.

Yet this fourth episode (of six total) is in many ways the most powerful and affecting — and instructive — so far.

It features pointed debates about personal conscience, and while More’s character is deprived of his most famous final lines, and Cromwell’s image is further buffed, their final encounter in More’s prison cell reveals a deeper humanity — and spirituality — in each of them, and perhaps a better lesson than their dueling hagiographies.

“When we meet again in heaven, as I hope we will,” More says to Cromwell, “all our differences will be forgotten. But for now, we can’t wish them away.”

YS/MG END GIBSON

RECOMMENDED READING

“More or less,” by Eamon Duffy in the Tablet of London. The eminent Cambridge University church historian provides a balanced take on the historical record and contrasts it with the account in “Wolf Hall.”

“How ‘Wolf Hall’ will entertain millions — and threaten to distort history in the process,” by Gregory Wolf in the Washington Post. Wolf details many of the arguments critical of Mantel’s version.

“Thomas More: Villain: What ‘Wolf Hall’ means for religious freedom,” by Mark Movsesian in First Things.

“‘Wolf Hall’ and upmarket anti-Catholicism,” by George Weigel. The Catholic apologist says the series and novel show an anti-Catholic bias that has shifted from the Protestant to the secular world.

“imagining Thomas More (or not),” is a blog post by the Baylor literary critic Alan Jacobs. Jacobs cites his own review of Mantel’s book five years ago and comments on the Weigel and Movsesian essays.

“Sir Thomas More: saint or sinner?” by Peter Stanford, a Catholic writer, in The Telegraph.

“Thomas Cromwell was the Islamic State of his day,” by Dominic Selwood in The Telegraph. Selwood argues that Cromwell was in fact a man “whose record for murder, looting, and destruction ought to have us apoplectic with rage, not reaching for the popcorn.”

“Like Isis, Thomas More believed passionately in burning people alive,” by Kate Maltby in The Spectator. Maltby criticizes Catholic bishops who have denounced the depiction of More in “Wolf Hall” and says More demonstrates where religious warfare of any kind leads.

“Thomas More is the villain of Wolf Hall. But is he getting a raw deal?” by Vanessa Thorpe in The Guardian. Thorpe quotes the Catholic writer Peter Stanford as well as the Oxford church historian Diarmuid MacCulloch, a great fan of Cromwell over More.

“Invitation To a Beheading,” by the New Yorker book reviewer James Wood. This 2012 review makes some interesting observations about the goals of Mantel’s revisionism, and how it plays to a modern audience.

“Thomas More Was Not ‘Unnaturally Fond of Torturing Heretics’,” is a 2012 post on Mantel’s book at the Mirror of Justice blog. Written by Villanova law professor Michael Moreland, it details More’s record.

  • Pingback: Will the PBS series ‘Wolf Hall’ tarnish St. Thomas More’s halo? - by Rev. Ron Gronowski - Rev Ron Gronowski - The Reverend()

  • James Carr

    St. Thomas More did not live the holiest of lives, but did die defending the Catholic Faith and the legitimacy of the Pope. This act alone accords him Sainthood. Henry VIII’s lust was the only reason England broke from Rome, and More would have nothing to do with such a pompous act of pride and sin.

  • The Great God Pan

    Right-wing Catholics have chosen as their avatar of “religious liberty” a man who had people burned to death for so-called heresy (otherwise known as “exercising religious freedom”). That is their problem, not anyone else’s. It is they who have been engaging in “bold revisionism.”

  • James Carr

    Burning at the stake was the form of execution then, and heresy was a crime against civil law also. Read, please.

  • The Great God Pan

    Right-wing Christians like to gripe about moral relativism, but they always appeal to it when convenient.

    Burning people at at the stake over differing opinions on religious doctrine is either wrong or it isn’t, James. Which is it going to be?

  • opheliart

    James,

    that is no excuse. Jesus spoke on what? He challenged what? Recall the stoning and … ? The idea that Jesus built a church on abuse, torture, murder and Roman Catholic precepts never to be questioned is … not good, not right, not holy …

  • James Carr

    It was accepted as right and lawful, both civilly and theologically in the 1500’s. You cannot judge the past by today’s standards.

  • Mel

    Don’t you tell us what we can’t do. Burning those people was terrible then and it is terrible now.

    And isn’t it odd that your supposed god wouldn’t tell his flock that burning people alive was wrong to do, then or now.

  • James Carr

    It is an excuse. To think that the Society of the 1500’s consciously acted against their moral teachings is ridiculous. Church law and Civil law had been almost equal up to the time of the Reformation, and heresy was viewed as a danger to society, a crime. The Protestants continued the practice unabated after the break with Rome……so obviously executing heretics was not a bone of contention.
    Yes, Jesus spoke of a merciful toleration towards pagans and sinners, but the mindset of the largely Catholic world was that heresy was cause for reconciliation, penance, or ultimately death. The Church burned its own Joan of Arc for witchcraft, but reconciled her with the Church 20 years after her death in a retrial……and Canonized her as a Saint 500 years later. The Church acted in concert with the world as it understood it, they did not have the views we have today.

  • James Carr

    Oh, and Mel, do as you please, but don’t pretend that the people of the 16th Century thought exactly like we do in 2015. In fact, society pursued newer forms of execution rather than phasing it out altogether. Don’t blame God or the religions today……we don’t burn anyone, or stone them, or torture them, or imprison them, or hang them. Well, one religion does, but dare we speak their name?

  • opheliart

    Study the “life” of those like the Essenes … because I do not believe your “moral teachings” of burning at the stake was the Way, the Truth and the Life.

  • Every “Saint” is soiled by the anointing.

    “Bring to me those enemies of mine and Execute them in front of me” – JESUS (Luke 19:27)

    Halos are doled out by mindless absolutists in praise of mindless absolutism
    – they are dangerous and something to mock.

    If halos were worth anything the Atheist Jonas Salk would have had one in his own lifetime for discovering, and giving away for free, The Polio Vaccine – forfeiting all profits to truly save humanity.

    But Salk is ignored by the devout.
    What he did for humanity was “useless” in the eyes of this ghastly Christian philosophy (just ask commenter Karla) – because Salk didn’t believe in Jesus he wasted everything and was worthless to God.

    Saints are cowards who never questioned a single thing.
    They don’t deserve Halos – they deserve red button noses and clown paint.

  • Post by ‘A232’ presents an instance of a Circular Argument and contains non sequitur content.

    http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

  • Susan

    exactly.

  • Elledra

    It looks to me like traits connected to More in “A Man For All Seasons” have now been shifted over to Cromwell here. More was known for educating his daughters in Latin (especially his eldest, Margaret). –in the series we instead saw Cromwell’s eldest daughter Latin-ing away. More used to be witty and sharp, now Cromwell is, while More is just sour. I also think Rylance’s Cromwell looks more like Holbein’s famous portrait of More than Anton Lesser does.
    I remember when More used to be a hero to the religious and secular Left–he obviously got a new agent!

  • Re: “Since sanctity and ambiguity don’t seem to mix for many people, the vast majority of viewers may simply throw up their hands and declare a pox on both their houses and conclude that all religions wind up in fanaticism.”

    Yes, and … ? Not sure what the problem with this conclusion could be. Sure as heck seems apt.

  • James Carr

    I agree. Cromwell comes off as very practical and unassuming, when history tells a different story. I like the show, but noticed that the portrayal of More is quite a revision from the truth. It’s ironic that Cromwell suffered the same fate as the Saint, but whimpering and cowering on the scaffold. All because he set up a blind date for the King with an ugly girl.

  • opheliart

    The question remains, James C, did he approve of burning people at the stake because he viewed them as heretical? This demonstrates a lack of understanding, especially in his position. He may have been devoted to his “church” beliefs, but this only says that he was devoted to church beliefs, and refused to acknowledge Spirit in its adversarial role of challenging doctrinal beliefs harming Spiritual Growth, and the health and well being of Society as a whole. He refused to move. He refused to listen. He allowed doctrine to rule him rather than the truth of the confessional. People were confessing their views for much needed change. He advocated for denial of this. He was stiff-necked and lost his life because he took and took and took life away from those needing to breathe NEW. Your church cannot and should not demand allegiance. It’s madness.

  • Larry

    Actually it wasn’t. Religious law was kept separate from civil law. Britain had separate courts for both.

    Civil (Common Law) law was meant to keep the nobility away from rule by decree dealing with the foibles of the hoi polloi. Religious law/courts was meant to act as the mouthpiece of Rome.

  • Larry

    Lets make this easy for you. It was immoral but legally approved. Much like the beheading of Thomas More.

    This is why when Christians can’t be taken seriously when they start sputtering about having a “moral compass” and atheists allegedly lacking one. It is obvious any act is permissible, even murder, if you claim God sanctioned it. Rather than look at the nature of the act, you look at who validates it for you. Very relativistic (and yet you guys accuse others of such things).

  • Larry

    So when you claim something was immoral back in Biblical times it means it may not be immoral now. You judge morality by the context of its time. So employing such logic when a Bible thumper says a certain act is immoral because it says so in whatever New Testament citation, they can cough up, one can simply say that was the morality of the times.

    We should not judge present conduct on what they thought so many centuries ago. So please don’t pretend that the people of the 4th Century thought exactly like we do in 2015 or should.

  • Larry

    The big problem with viewing someone like Thomas More in a purely religious context is it misses important facts of the times. Religion was more than just belief back then, it was a political force and pawn of empires playing power games in Europe.

    The refusal of the Vatican to sanction Henry VIII’s divorce had nothing to do with dogma, morality or scripture. It had to do with Henry’s brother in law Charles V, ruler of the largest empire in Europe holding the Pope hostage. Charles was not pleased about his sister being kicked out of the British rulership. In light of all of this, More was more of a toady for his Vatican (and Holy Roman Empire) masters than a man standing on personal conscience.

  • James Carr

    Not worthy of a comment.

  • Larry

    You walked into that one. 🙂

  • James Carr

    First, everyone accepted burning at the stake as just punishment for numerous crimes in the 16th Century……there is no sense in trying to moralize it now. We still execute people today!
    You seem to have an issue with his dying for his Faith…. which is the same as his Church’s beliefs. Catholic Doctrine is no more than the true understanding of Scripture and Holy Tradition. More was unmoved by the plea to recognize Henry as the head of the English Church, because the King has no authority to name himself so and remain Catholic. Henry wanted to bed Anne Boleyn, so that reason alone makes his break from Rome akin to a teenage boy having a tantrum because his parents scolded him.
    Again, the Church demands allegiance to its teachings because it teaches as God would. The Earthly Church exists in real time, with human beings acting in the manner of the times, so matters of execution, heresy, excommunication, piety, etc. must be viewed in the timelines appropriate.

  • Charles Freeman

    Except for the great power of the Roman Catholic Church to distort fact and make it stick among believers, your statements would be funny. As it is, most of us know your point of view is without historical merit.

  • Charles Freeman

    Your words betray you as a self-righteous prig, somewhat on the order of More.

  • Elledra

    Larry, what you say about religion as a political force makes a lot of sense to me. But in the end I doubt that More was just a toady for the Vatican. A smart toady (and More was very smart and politically savvy) would have figured out a way to side-step the divorce issue while managing to stay alive–and perhaps even profiting from the situation. Refusing to the point of being executed, however, does sound like a bad case of “conscience”.

  • Larry

    Actually it didn’t at the time. The Papacy had granted divorces for similar reasons to monarchs in the past. It was not an unusual request for Henry to make.

    The real issue is that Henry was trying to divorce the sister of the most powerful man in Europe. A man who happened to be holding the Pope hostage at the time. The Church demanded allegiance because it was a political force which always reacted to division through violence.

  • Larry

    More was in a bind. If he did not support the Vatican’s position he was probably a dead man anyway. There was no choice which would allow him to keep breathing.

    Plus, he probably thought, as most of Europe did, that Britain would fall in line to the might of the Holy Roman Empire should Henry try to split from the Church. Britain’s survival for the next half century after the issue was a close run thing.

    Correction Charles V was the nephew of Catherine of Aragon, not her brother. By bad 🙂

  • Elledra

    Larry, why would More’s life be in danger if he didn’t support the Vatican? Under duress, just about everyone–including most high-ranking churchmen–supported the divorce. Wouldn’t the bishops have been considered more important to the hierarchy than More, a “mere” layman? ( I think Fisher of Rochester was the only bishop to hold out.)

  • Larry

    What people don’t realize was the Vatican meant at the time was really Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire and Spain. It was more than saying no to the Vatican. It was saying no to the most powerful empire in Europe. Britain was not exactly a powerhouse on the European scene at the time. More would not be safe. The king himself was not necessarily be same under those conditions.

    More was not only a mere layman, he was Lord Chancellor. A senior figure in Henry’s court. A man who had huge responsibility with the religious courts and meant to be separate from some level from the direct word of the Church

    More may have simply backed the wrong losing side of the dispute, underestimating what Henry would do in response to the Vatican’s decision.

  • Larry

    I am not the one trying to excuse burning people at the stake.

    I am also not delusional enough to pretend that following an arbitrary set of rules and unquestioned authority figures is moral conduct.

  • gwol

    Presumably, however, an omniscient, never changing creator of the universe is not a prisoner of contemporary culture and beliefs. Were this being actually communicating with his chosen on earth, would it not be in his power to communicate his everlasting truths (say, burning someone for hold different religious beliefs is wrong)?
    If contemporary culture and beliefs are stronger than God, then what good is God?
    Don’t kid yourself, there were plenty of people in the 16th century who questioned the morality of burning others at the stake for holding ‘heterodox’ religious beliefs.
    So, then I take it from your argument, if I can demonstrate that contemporary culture ‘accepts’ certain practices (e.g., homosexuality), regardless of Catholic doctrine, then I am, essentially, blameless/sinless for engaging in them?

  • gwol

    Apparently in your world, failing to show the proper stiff upper lip decorum while on the chopping block is worthy of rebuke, but causing people to be burned at the stake for remaining true to the dictates of their conscience (the very thing More desired for himself) is excusable.

  • gwol

    Just curious, are there any behaviors we can condemn on moral grounds that can arguably be demonstrated to have been consistent with prevailing social mores/customs of the time?

    I find this a curious defense for bad behavior by religious folk who otherwise claim to be the possessors of certain immutable ‘religious’ truths.

  • Michael Vaughan

    Wolf Hall is fiction and not a documentary.

  • gwol

    From where I sit, it’s very worthy of a comment. YOU are the one claiming that prevailing cultural norms trump arguments of moral universality. If this argument can be applied to discredit 21st Century moral criticism of 16th Century behavior, it’s completely logically consistent to argue in turn that it can be applied to discredit Iron Age moral criticism of 21st Century behavior.

  • Everyone should lose their halo. No exceptions.

  • norman ravitch

    Catholics murdered Protestants. Protestants murdered Catholics. Both murdered religious radicals. Christians murdered Jews. Jews murdered Jesus of Nazareth. There is nothing new here.

  • Pingback: Will the PBS series ‘Wolf Hall’ tarnish St. Thomas More’s halo? – Religion News Service | Daily Goodness()

  • Alfonso

    Wolf Hall follows a black legend, which still has some England fans, who sees Moro as a torturer of Protestants. This crazy version of Moro also influenced the recent series The Tudors. The origin of this myth is in Foxe, the infamous Protestant propagandist. The truth is that Foxe stated in the 1563 edition of his famous book of martyrs, a pathetic speech Tewkesbury, Protestant English before being burned at the stake accused Thomas More for his misfortune. But the immediate criticism of the Book of Martyrs, Foxe forced to eliminate this speech the following editions, an implicit recognition that it was apocryphal. Otherwise recent biographers of Thomas More, even non-Catholics, have acknowledged that rumors of torment and torture of heretics at the home of Chelsea and the Tower of London are false and slanderous. In fact Thomas More was the first European to advocate for religious freedom in his Utopia, 180 years before Locke, however if it is true that it has from 1527 his feelings…

  • Alfonso

    Hugh Latimer, an English “reformer”, had, remarks Will Durant, “tarnished his eloquent career by approving the burning of Anabaptists and obstinate Franciscans under Henry VIII.” (Durant, 597)

    Queen Elizabeth, writes Philip Hughes:

    . . . enacted a definition of heresy that made life safe for all who believed in the Trinity and the Incarnation. But the statute left intact that heresy was, by common law, an offense punishable by death. An English Servetus could have been burned under Elizabeth, and, in fact, in 1589 she burned an Arian.(Hughes, 274)

    It wasn’t until 1679 that capital punishment for heresy was abolished in England, by an act of Parliament of Charles II. (Hughes, 274)

  • Alfonso

    According to A. Poch, Moro was a man of compromise with relatives who chose the Reformation and the schism of the Anglican Church and proves his relationship with his son-Roper, who professed a strong Protestantism (Poch, 2008, p XLIX. ). But while Moro was the hammer of heretics Luther, who considered the epitome of depravity that the Christian religion had fallen for wanting to adapt the dogma, should be, to be, the present state of society (Surtz, 1949, p. 562).

  • Alfonso

    T. Moro writes in Utopia
    :
    “It’s foolish refusal to use force and violence to impose, with
    the arts are a religion you believe that is the true forcing
    others to accept what can only be subject to review. Further,
    if one is true and the other false, he thought it was the most
    reasonable and honest wait for the real was imposed by their own
    media and that it should exceed all other clairvoyance “

  • Alfonso

    Wolf Hall follows a black legend, which still has some England fans, who sees Moro as a torturer of Protestants. This crazy version of Moro also influenced the recent series The Tudors. The origin of this myth is in Foxe, the infamous Protestant propagandist. The truth is that Foxe stated in the 1563 edition of his famous book of martyrs, a pathetic speech Tewkesbury, Protestant English before being burned at the stake accused Thomas More for his misfortune. But the immediate criticism of the Book of Martyrs, Foxe forced to eliminate this speech the following editions, an implicit recognition that it was apocryphal. Otherwise recent biographers of Thomas More, even non-Catholics, have acknowledged that rumors of torment and torture of heretics at the home of Chelsea and the Tower of London are false and slanderous. In fact Thomas More was the first European to advocate for religious freedom in his Utopia, 180 years before Locke, however if it is true that it has from 1527 his feelings…

  • Alfonso

    Hugh Latimer, an English “reformer”, had, remarks Will Durant, “tarnished his eloquent career by approving the burning of Anabaptists and obstinate Franciscans under Henry VIII.” (Durant, 597)

    Queen Elizabeth, writes Philip Hughes:

    . . . enacted a definition of heresy that made life safe for all who believed in the Trinity and the Incarnation. But the statute left intact that heresy was, by common law, an offense punishable by death. An English Servetus could have been burned under Elizabeth, and, in fact, in 1589 she burned an Arian.(Hughes, 274)

    It wasn’t until 1679 that capital punishment for heresy was abolished in England, by an act of Parliament of Charles II. (Hughes, 274)

  • Alfonso

    According to A. Poch, Moro was a man of compromise with relatives who chose the Reformation and the schism of the Anglican Church and proves his relationship with his son-Roper, who professed a strong Protestantism (Poch, 2008, p XLIX. ). But while Moro was the hammer of heretics Luther, who considered the epitome of depravity that the Christian religion had fallen for wanting to adapt the dogma, should be, to be, the present state of society (Surtz, 1949, p. 562).

  • Alfonso

    T. Moro writes in Utopia
    :
    “It’s foolish refusal to use force and violence to impose, with
    the arts are a religion you believe that is the true forcing
    others to accept what can only be subject to review. Further,
    if one is true and the other false, he thought it was the most
    reasonable and honest wait for the real was imposed by their own
    media and that it should exceed all other clairvoyance “