A Man for All Seasons

I. SUMMARY

A Man For All Seasons tells the life story of this famous Englishman whose popularity amidst his fellow citizens comes from a reputation for fair and impartial judgment. Yet More's standing within his professional circle is shaken when he declines to support King Henry VIII's desperate desire to rid himself of a wife who cannot produce a male heir (the fact that the Ruler has found another woman is also adding urgency to his plight). In order to successfully petition the Catholic Church to grant him a divorce from Katherine of Aragon, His Majesty needs the collaboration of the ecclesiastical and political leaders in his own country. Using his royal authority to exert the necessary power of persuasion (including bribes, threats, and levying taxes), the Monarch soon enlists the ruling class in his cause. More is also subjected to these tactics.

First he is bullied by Cardinal Wolsey, a high ranking official both in church and state, who calls More's religious point of view ?a horrible moral squint.? Then he is flattered by career advancements. When these approaches fail to sway his loyalty to honor King before God, the attack moves to the courts where clever lawyers attempt to snare More in various legal loopholes. Recognizing the potential dangers of his situation, More tries to shield himself with strict adherence to the letter of the law, using incredible self-control to avoid any incriminating statements. However, his silent conviction to his principles roars louder than any inflammatory speech.

II. CLIMAX OF THE FILM

The climax of the film is Thomas More's trial in Westminister. But the plot centers on what we today would call the "plea negotiations": various interrogations of More, including by Cromwell at Hampton Court; the pressure from friends and high officials to take the deal and spare his life; and a hearing while More is imprisoned in the Tower of London.

III. CONSCIENCE TREATED BY THE FILM

The conscience treated in the film in this way that a man should look to his personal conscience to determine what he will believe and how he will act is the view of conscience. It was not the view of Thomas Moore. He sacrificed his life for the medieval view of conscience, one that was not independent of others, but which derived its legitimacy from his community and the tradition to which he subscribed. In Thomas More's case, this was the community of believers in the Roman Catholic Church, which had lasted for a thousand years and spanned the continent of Europe. Thomas More would have thought the view of conscience described in the film to be radical and subversive. He would probably have had anyone subscribing to the view of conscience burned at the stake (as he had ordered Protestants burned at the stake when he was Chancellor of England).

IV. EVALUATION OF MORE'S CONSCIENCE

One may say that Thomas More firmly grounded in the search for the truth, renders us responsible for our decisions, that is to say, masters of ourselves and thus free from all bonds except that bond — proper to a creature — which binds us to God. This means to say that Thomas More knew very well his moral obligation and urges him to fulfill them. Moreover, the moral faculty which speaks about the synderesis and More's antecedent conscience speaks of his personal process he undertook in which the general norms of the moral law must be applied to a concrete action. This is how More's actualized his moral faculty. In the vantage point of his moral science, More was able to discern what is right, true and good. He was guided by his principles in arriving a firm and strong decision. Consequently, the moral judgment in More's life was also obvious, because he knew very well what will be the consequences of his actions or decision that he made.

In abovementioned paragraph, I could say that the conscience of More is free, correct, clear and certain. He stated that his purpose was not tocondemn the conscience of any other man, but that his conscience prevented him from swearing the oath upon pain of damnation. He offered to swear to the succession and to swear that his conscience prevented his taking the oath of supremacy, but his offer was refused. It is clear that More did not privilege conscience as a final and unassailable arbiter. He allows that his conscience might be changed upon its being persuaded by further study or by the teaching of the appropriate authority. In the case of the requested oath of supremacy, however, the dictate of his conscience was confirmed by the teaching of the Church, an authority he recognized as superior to the civil authority in this question of the faith.

The moral conscience rightly understood is a "witness of God Himself, whose voice and whose judgment penetrate the intimacy of man down to the roots of his soul" (Veritatis Splendor, n. 58). This — it seems to us — is the fundamental lesson Thomas More offers all statesmen: the lesson of flight from success and easy compromises in the name of fidelity to irrevocable principles, upon which depend the dignity of man and the justice of civil society — a lesson truly inspiring for all who, on the threshold of the new Millennium, feel themselves called to expose and eradicate the snares laid by new and hidden tyrannies.