tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3712012.post113440778809065715..comments2023-07-04T10:10:25.205-04:00Comments on Apologia: Sunday Thought: A Saint for one Season - the irrelevance of Thomas MoreWilliam Lusehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15928946919078483848noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3712012.post-1138168514889461752006-01-25T00:55:00.000-05:002006-01-25T00:55:00.000-05:00I appreciate the comment, Mr. Andrews, for it prov...I appreciate the comment, Mr. Andrews, for it proves my point on at least one score.William Lusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15928946919078483848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3712012.post-1138152764662979922006-01-24T20:32:00.000-05:002006-01-24T20:32:00.000-05:00My father, raised a Southern Methodist, had read C...My father, raised a Southern Methodist, had read Chambers' biography of More before he met my mother, a Catholic. Asking him about this around 1968 he explained that: <BR/><BR/>"I always knew More was a great man(especially his battle for freedom of conscience, now he talks to me".<BR/><BR/>He became A Catholic in 1970.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3712012.post-1135303991426163472005-12-22T21:13:00.000-05:002005-12-22T21:13:00.000-05:00To take Mr. McManus' points:1. It's good to hear t...To take Mr. McManus' points:<BR/>1. It's good to hear that Fr. O'Connell is orthodox and prolific. I find the former quality especially attractive. But that doesn't change my impression of the tone or substance of his essay.<BR/>2. "Robert Bolt's notion of conscience is a modern one which Thomas More would not have recognized." I can't speak for Mr. Bolt, only for the notion of conscience offered in evidence by the play and the film, and it is More's own, that a man should not be compelled to "state that he believes what he does not believe," (words used by Bolt but taken from Chambers'<BR/>biography). The modern notion of conscience to which O'Connell and Mr. McManus refer is indeed one More would have recognized - as wrong, abominably so. "Such a notion of conscience is not truth-dependent, whereas More's unambiguously was." This is just plain "not truth dependent," or, in common parlance, wrong. Every notion of conscience is truth-dependent. Even the modern man's contention that "my conscience owes allegiance to no guidance but its own" depends on the truth of that statement. That More's notion of conscience (the Catholic one) as owing a duty to Truth is superior to the fashion that its only duty is to itself is something O'Connell should have been at pains to emphasize. Therefore, I do not believe the play "misrepresents" More.<BR/>3. It's a little puzzling to be told by Mr. McManus that on the one hand O'Connell's intentions are 'unambiguous,' but on the other that I should not take his use of 'you and I' literally. For Pete's sake, the thing appears on a Catholic website. Imagine the fascination for the irreligious. If his purpose was to upbraid Catholics for embracing a too-modern concept of conscience, he might have said so.<BR/>4. "Chambers' biography is not evidence. But his interpretations may be correct..." Yes, I made clear in the essay that I prefer Chambers' interpretation to O'Connell's, especially since the latter offers his with no evidence...but..."it does not affect the soundness of Marvin O'Connell's central thesis, since for O'Connell these are not the main issues, and he deals with them only in passing." But you just said two paragraphs before that "Everything else in the essay is evidence for this claim" [about conscience] "or elaboration and qualification of it." You can't have it both ways. And the word "evidence" here is high praise indeed, highly inflated.<BR/>5. "...the portrait of More that emerges from O'Connell's brief essay is that of a man profoundly attractive in many ways yet also deeply alien in a number of important ways." Okay, you see it one way, I another. The attractiveness didn't come through for me. If I were a freshly minted Catholic who - in my newfound love for, and curiosity about, all things Catholic - came across this essay, I would be hard put to comprehend whatever inspired the Church to declare this man a saint, or why he should (as he does) continue to inspire anyone of our own time, even though I saw an atheist friend who attended with me weeping in the movie theater.<BR/>As for Donna Marie Lewis, it's interesting to see her opinion so swayed by a man's charm rather than the evidence, a situation I doubt she would tolerate if the target were John Henry Newman.William Lusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15928946919078483848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3712012.post-1135267133390760252005-12-22T10:58:00.000-05:002005-12-22T10:58:00.000-05:00I agree with Mr. McManus. What Fr. O' Connell is d...I agree with Mr. McManus. What Fr. O' Connell is doing is not denigrating the real Saint, but some of the misconceptions used to make him more palatable to a modern audience. What he is saying is that it would be difficult for our times to produce a St. Thomas More- and so much the worse for our times ! <BR/>Of course, the fact that I have actually met Fr. O' Connell and fojund him to be both orthodox and charming may have something to do with my judgement...:)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09015745990344837357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3712012.post-1135250545108664972005-12-22T06:22:00.000-05:002005-12-22T06:22:00.000-05:00Mr. Luse,Your rebuttal of Marvin O'Connell's brief...Mr. Luse,<BR/><BR/>Your rebuttal of Marvin O'Connell's brief piece is, as usual, beautifully written and even inspiring. But I fear you have seriously misunderstood O'Connell's unambiguous intentions, and have therefore misread his essay.<BR/><BR/>First, Marvin O'Connell is a superb Catholic historian, author of books on the Oxford movement, Pascal, modernism and other subjects. He wrote essays regularly for the now defunct Catholic Dossier, a periodical edited by Ralph McInerny and published by Ignatius Press. He is not a dissenting liberal debunker.<BR/><BR/>Second, O'Connell's central thesis is that Robert Bolt's notion of conscience is a modern one which Thomas More would not have recognized. Such a notion of conscience is not truth-dependent, whereas More's unambiguously was. This being the case, despite the play's many excellences, A Man for All Seasons misrepresents Thomas More. Everything else in the essay is evidence for this claim or elaboration and qualification of it.<BR/><BR/>Third, O'Connell, though a historian, does not write *merely* as a historian; he is at pains to write beautifully and with a rhetoric that he plainly hopes his readers will find persuasive. When he says 'you and I' or 'us' or 'we' he means 'us-insofar-are-we-are-typical-modern-people.' I see that you might miss O'Connell's point here, since you, Mr. Luse, are plainly the furthest thing imaginable from a typical modern (and that is no insult). But so is Marvin O'Connell, at least insofar as he is an orthodox Catholic. And he is an orthodox Catholic. He should not be taken literally when he says 'you and I.'<BR/><BR/>Fourth, on certain points, such as whether or not More was reluctant to become chancellor, and whether or not he pursued heretics, only the evidence can be sufficient reason to come to a conclusion, and I am not familiar with the evidence, so do not take issue with your arguments. I will say, however, that Chambers' biography is not evidence. But his interpretations may be correct, and you may be correct in quoting them. Even if you are correct, it does not affect the soundness of Marvin O'Connell's central thesis, since for O'Connell these are not the main issues, and he deals with them only in passing.<BR/><BR/>Finally, the portrait of More that emerges from O'Connell's brief essay is that of a man profoundly attractive in many ways yet also deeply alien in a number of important ways. The author implicitly wishes the reader to be aware of that alienness while also continuing to be attracted to his subject's sanctity, his humanity, his genius. Is that such a bad thing? I would say that insofar as you have failed to see this, Mr. Luse, you have failed to understand O'Connell's essay.<BR/><BR/>Frank McManus<BR/>DublinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3712012.post-1135222512592724542005-12-21T22:35:00.000-05:002005-12-21T22:35:00.000-05:00Well said. St. Thomas More pray for us in this new...Well said. St. Thomas More pray for us in this new age of apostasy.John the Madhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17899858119936750764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3712012.post-1134933353897233532005-12-18T14:15:00.000-05:002005-12-18T14:15:00.000-05:00Yes.Yes.William Lusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15928946919078483848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3712012.post-1134890647418917212005-12-18T02:24:00.000-05:002005-12-18T02:24:00.000-05:00Wow. Now I remember the reason I keep checking in ...Wow. Now I remember the reason I keep checking in here. Long live St. Thomas More!<BR/><BR/>(And can we expect Ch. 7 as a Christmas gift?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3712012.post-1134863676793111012005-12-17T18:54:00.000-05:002005-12-17T18:54:00.000-05:00bravissimo!!!!!bravissimo!!!!!aliciahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11687144369505900773noreply@blogger.com