re: #217 godfrey

I neither can, nor desire, to make any defense of burning heretics. Tudor England was a vicious place, and viciousness came from every side. I am deeply skeptical that St. Thomas More felt any “gleefulness” in any of the situations we all (I suspect) have no expertise in pontificating about.

What I object to is Charles’s insinuation that Thomas More is “known for” burning heretics. He is not. He is known for not capitulating to the tyranny of Henry VIII and not disowning his Catholic allegiance. It’s no secret I’m sympathetic to that, and I will make no apology for it.

I’m no scholar, but have read a good deal of Tudor history. Thomas
More. I recently read these observations by Joanna Denny in her book”Anne Boleyn”:
..but the irony is that More was intolerant of all dissident opinion. His zeal for public order verged on the fanatical.”
And…”It was said More resigned as Chancellor because he opposed the King’s new policies, but claimed in a letter to Erasmus that it was simply because he was ill. For nearly two years he had been writing tracts denouncing ‘heresy’ as “the worst crime that can be’ and praising the burning of martyrs like Tewkesbury ‘as there was never wretch I ween better worthy’.”

BTW I resent the implication that all here use Wiki for their reference.

‘