Rustling paper welcomed yet another useless ballpoint pen I’d flung into the trash. One dog lifted a sleepy eyebrow, the other too old to be bothered. The third pen in as many days, and I was tired of adapting my writing to the idiosyncrasies of these drug store purchases. Something niggled at the back of my rabbit trail mind, and out of nowhere, it came. Sir Thomas More, the man who had refused to adapt and convert.
How A Man Lost His Head For the Sake of His Faith
Saint Thomas More was a lawyer, judge, author, statesman, and humanist. A man of his time to be reckoned with, and the final achievement came when He was appointed as Lord High Chancellor of England under King Henry Vlll
Thomas More opposed the Protestant Reformation, arguing against the theology of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and William Tyndale. But these were minor issues compared to his vehement opposition to Henry VIII’s decision to break away from the Catholic Church, establishing himself as the Supreme Head of the Church of England. That had been Henry’s reaction in a fit of pique when he could not get an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Now he could get his divorce, and he did.
Still More resisted, refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy. He could not, would not change his allegiance to his Catholic Faith and the Pope.
He would not adapt, and so he lost his head.
Saint Thomas More was canonized in 1935 as a martyr, and in 2001, Pope John Paul ll declared him the patron saint of statesmen and politicians.
I thought about life and politics as we know it today and came across the following sentence in a Franciscan reflection on More.
The supreme diplomat and counselor, he did not compromise his own moral values in order to please the king, knowing that true allegiance to authority is not blind acceptance of everything that authority wants.
Saint Thomas More lived in England from 1478 to 1535. Much has been written about him, and his life story is one for the books. There’s even a movie about his life. A Man for all Seasons.
I have always found his life story astounding. How he adapted and adapted again, yet always staying true to his Roman Catholic Faith. He was convicted of treason, and it is said, went to the scaffold with the following words
I die the King’s good servant, and God’s first.
My attention returned to my notebook, notes partially written in one pen, then another, and even a pencil! Is it even the same person writing here?
Have you ever noticed how your handwriting adapts itself, depending on the pen you use? Or glanced at the scrawl that appears when you sign with one of those electronic doodads on an artificial screen after gifting your credit card to the machine?
Or when you’re required to sign something crucial with an actual pen on genuine paper. Gasp! How archaic. But the agent/salesman/clerk/ helpfully produces one. You sign. And squint at the squiggle.
Well yes.
Maybe you’re in the car when a brilliant idea for an article surfaces. No pen, no paper. An old shopping list will do. And hubby’s pen.
You’re out on a walk. Phone forgotten at home. Scrubby receipt from your pocket and a stubby piece of crayon you picked up. Different again and as I tumbled down the rabbit hole that is Graphology, I wondered how many people lurk within me.
Adapt as required.
The parallel to my life stared me in the face.
Through the years, how much of my soul did I sacrifice to adapt? And was it worth it?
How Much Would I Sacrifice To Be Accepted?
I worked in Public Relations and later in Sales for two major airlines. I became a chameleon. It was my job to fit in, to be liked. And so, I socialized. Adapting as required. I could be whatever I needed to be. More deals were discussed and dissected at cocktail parties than in an office environment.
I knew about their families. Their interests. Their politics. I was successful, but I think my clients realized I was honestly interested in them. I was not simply faking it for the sake of business and work.
I was like a packet of assorted pens.
Those days are far behind me now. A fond memory. And in my purse, I have a pen I seldom use, but carry everywhere. It was a gift from my son and daughter-in-law some years ago. A gold-plated Cross ballpoint with The Lord’s Prayer engraved in minute letters, going round and round. A tiny gold cross mounted at the top of the pen.
How blessed I am to live where I’m not being persecuted for my faith. Or required and pressured to adapt.
And so, I return to my pen.
19 thoughts on “Would My Beliefs Hold True Under Pressure?”
MikeNJ@1:55a-
No Mike, I’m not interested in addressing matters other than what I originally did, which was your contention that the actions of Henry VIII and his sycophants were equatable to those of St. Thomas More. Henry VIII assumed an office reserved for the successor of St. Peter by effectively declaring himself “pope” of England and demanding that all bow to his schismatic and heretical decree. He acted on behalf of a lie. Likewise with his actions in nullifying a marriage, contrary to the laws of the Church. Nothing St. Thomas More did was comparable. Henry VIII acted out of self interest and for self gain. St. Thomas More did not. Henry VIII in effect, made an idol of himself and his reign. St. Thomas More acted in good faith, based on his appreciation of his duties and the laws of England and the Church at that time. Even if you think More got what he deserved, which seems to be what you do think, how to justify the killings of St. John Fisher and the Carthusian monks, who died solely for refusing to swear to the Supremacy Act? Did they somehow also have it coming?
Can we all agree that heretics, nonbelievers, and believers should not be executed by the state because of their religious beliefs?
I agree. I would go farther and say it has _never_ been good for any state past or present to ever execute someone for their religious beliefs. It’s a wrong for a person in an Islamic state to kill someone just for being a Christian (whether raised as one or converted). In the same way it was wrong to kill the Waldensians and other “heretics”.
The simple truth is that St Thomas More and St John Fisher were executed for their defense of marriage and religion, at a time when the vast amount of Church leadership in England just wanted to turn the page.
A few years back, there was an effort to also promote the cause of Queen Catherine of Aragon for sainthood. The courage of these three is undoubtedly worth honoring.
CaptCrisis@9:46p-
“As More admitted, Henry should have been granted an annulment.”-
When did he ever do that? According to whom? St. Thomas More, as far as history records, insisted that the granting of an annulment was a papal prerogative. To my knowledge he never judged the Pope or contradicted him. What authority can you cite to the contrary?
And why would it have taken “courage” for the Pope to do as Henry VIII insisted? The easy way would have been to do as he wanted. If you want examples of courage look to those who stood on principle even at the cost of their own lives. Like St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher.
The simple truth is that St Thomas More and St John Fisher were executed for their defense of marriage and religion, at a time when the vast amount of Church leadership in England just wanted to turn the page.
A few years back, there was an effort to also promote the cause of Queen Catherine of Aragon for sainthood. The courage of these three is undoubtedly worth honoring.
Mike from NJ @ 7:38p.
You missed the point. Contrary to your claim, St. Thomas More was not put to death for the same crime as those he prosecuted in the course of his duties. Henry VIII was a heretic who falsely claimed to be head of the church and who presumed the power to annul his own marriage, or at least had designated flunkies who did so on his behalf. More prosecuted those who violated laws of the realm against heresy. There was nothing false about what he did. He defended truth as he saw it. Henry VIII invented a novel theology out of thin air for his political advantage.
More prosecuted those who violated laws of the realm against heresy. There was nothing false about what he did. He defended truth as he saw it.
And today they rant against moral relativism like its a bad thing.
The whole mess could have been avoided if not for the Pope’s lack of personal courage. As More admitted, Henry should have been granted an annulment.
You’re focusing on the thoughts of More vs. Henry VIII and choosing to ignore the thoughts of those fighting for their religious freedom vs. More. Do you have any regard for the six people who More had burned? They too fought against those who would forcefully silence those who disagreed with them. They too died defending “truth as they saw it”. Just because a country has one allowed faith doesn’t mean others should be forbidden from spreading their beliefs. This includes non-Catholics in a Catholic land and Catholics in a non-Catholic land.
CaptCrisis@ 7:17p-
No one will face a hint of persecution for opposition to the death penalty. To the contrary they will be lauded by the elite of our world. By contrast, those who steadfastly defend innocent life in the womb, can expect to face varying degrees of persecution. That can include loss of employment and the right to travel freely, as those who for reasons of conscience refuse the vaccines, can attest.
Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Ms. Adams, I think you may have glossed over More’s actions in opposing the Protestant Reformation. He did more than simply argue against Protestants, but in his role as Lord High Chancellor persecuted them and was involved in the burning of several of them. Their crimes were having a different opinion as to the nature of God than that of the government — the exact same crime for which More was executed. No one, including More, deserves such treatment; but it’s important to also consider the pressures of those who disagreed with More to not hold true to their beliefs and choose to instead be accepted.
No Mike, it wasn’t a matter of having a different opinion or the “exact same crime for which More was executed”. Agree with his methods or not , More was acting in defense of truth as defined by the Church instituted by Christ our Lord. Henry VIII and his sycophants were acting in defense of falsehood; namely that a secular ruler could take it upon himself to be the “head of the church”, whether in England or anywhere else, or that such a ruler could, unilaterally by his decree, declare his marriage null and void.
Faithful, it’s shocking that you’re approving of the killing of another for having a different faith than yours. Just as you are sure that your faith is true and other faiths are false, you’ll find that everyone (including the people who Thomas More had killed) feel/felt their faiths were the one true one. It’s the same reasoning an Islamic country might kill someone for something as simple as owning a Bible or speaking about Jesus. Would you be for killing people _today_ for proselytizing a non-Catholic faith?
A better question might be ‘will unbelief cease to be without pressure.’ And what kind of
religious leverage is needed to bind the scattered sheep. Maybe it’s not leverage – make that understanding. I have the same problem with any kind of stylus too and the answer
is blue tooth communication to a notepad of some sort which is beyond my capacity to
exercise.
Ida, Pray, pray often and real hard. The demons and democrats,and the socialists and other totalitarians are just this close to public, legalized persecution of faithful catholics in the USA and in other places around the world- not the cafeteria ones, not the prodeath ones, not the prouniversal mercy there-is-no-hell ones – the real catholics. If we do not adapt to the new protestantism spewed by bishops and priests – do not laugh or sneer – we could very well lose our heads, even in what was once America. I pray that in that moment, if it comes, I can persevere in first being a servant of God. Guy, Texas
Guy, don’t be so dramatic ; give us some credit nobody’s ever going to take your head in America.
Guy
What’s this with “lose our heads”? You are the one in favor of capital punishment. The “Democrats” you warn against are opposed.