Interesting, but I believe Stephenson is completely wrong about the motivation. Thomas More, as his writings in Utopia make clear, was most worried about the all-against-all that comes from anarchy. Moreover, in some sense, he and his fellow anti-Reformation thinkers were correct; the Reformation did lead to enormous trouble.
The Wars of Religion, from Luther's 95 Theses to the Treaty of Westphalia, lasted for 100 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion). The anti-Reformation thinkers could see perfectly well that they would be the near-inevitable result of letting just anybody set forth their own interpretation of Scripture. From our own vantage point, the Reformation was undoubtedly a good thing, even if you are Catholic, because it established freedom of thought (relatively speaking), but it was several generations of conflict that was often vicious even by the standards of war.
If More had had perfect knowledge of the future, looking at the Wars of Religion that the Reformation would lead to, he would not have been at all surprised. If he thought that burning half a dozen heretics was preferable to several generations of civil war, well, he might have been incorrect, but it doesn't make him a monster. It makes him a man afraid of the storm that's coming, and desperate to avoid it by any means possible.
Nitpick, because it really rubs me the wrong way, to see this repeated again and again.
What you are describing as anarchy here, is anomy in reality.
Anarchy is basically any society without rule from the top, whatever the top may be, replace by reasonable self-rule and consensual interactions of that society.
Anomy is chaos, ruled by the ones with the biggest bats, without any protections against that, for the masses.
It's widely forgotten that burning heretics was widely accepted in Christian theology, especially at the time.
The rationale is quite simple: They believed in an eternal Hell. Unrepentant heresy places you in eternal Hell. Hell also has levels and is not the same for everyone; not necessarily Dante's circles, but not far off. This is easily proven, just look at Saint Thomas Aquinas, who warned that sins against the deliberate intellect (heresy, blasphemy, schism) are much more inexcusable than sins of the passions and nature (lust, sloth); even if both are damnable. Vice versa, Heaven also has levels, and it was (and is) a pious opinion that no two people are ever at exactly the same level.
If Hell is eternal, and it is possible for you to make your own Hell worse, killing you if you refuse to repent directly prevents you from making your eternal punishment worse. It also prevents bringing other people with you, and the guilt you would bear for influencing other people. In a way, it is an act of charity to other people and yourself; causing some Saints and scholars to comment at the time to do otherwise would actually be hateful. There's also the issue of, if someone was going to repent, the logical assumption that going to the noose or stake is a much stronger motivator than dying in your sleep at 73.
In line with the above, the very act of burning itself was seen as somewhat of a charity. A public spectacle to warn against following them (charity to the viewers); but also a constant suggestion, even to the end, to the burned of what is waiting for them eternally, giving them one last chance to repent. For what it's worth though, Historians tell us that most of the burned died by suffocation and not by the actual burning, which would have been probably also been known at the time.
(Worth remembering, both the Reformers and the original Catholics burned at the stake for similar rationales.)
There were atheists in every age. I think its pointless to blame dead people for dead people stuff but I don't think the prevailing belief system exonerates them either.
Well, I frankly think that it’s pretty minor compared to what happened when atheists got the 20th century. Communism was their moment to shine, was the de facto system advocated by atheists during that time period, and to put it mildly, they blew it and any moral credibility to criticize religion with it.
I’ll gladly take 32,000 for the entire Inquisition over another Russian, Chinese, Cambodian, or Vietnamese revolution. Atheists need to own their history too.
Even an amateur Christian theologian can tell you that this only refers to unjust death / murder; as the original Hebrew text also espouses more clearly than the English translation (לא תרצח - lo tirtsah, form of ratzach, murder). The Ten Commandments also come from the book of Leviticus Chapter 19 and not just Exodus, and Leviticus 20 onward is well known for the death penalty for several offenses described in the broader Mosaic Law; forming the religious objection that otherwise, God's chosen leader (Moses) himself ordered violations of the 10 Commandments in the very same book.
It isn't, because there are numerous instances in the Bible of God directly commanding people to kill, and even punishing people for showing mercy.
"Thou shalt not kill" isn't a sin because human life is inherently valuable to God (reading the OT, it clearly isn't) but because humans are God's property, and so only God, who created humans, has the right to decide when and how they die. Under the particularly cruel and brutal Bronze Age ethics from which the Abrahamic God as a concept was derived, killing is perfectly justifiable when God wills it, and is only a sin otherwise because it defies God's will.
...which shouldn't even be possible if God is omnipotent but that's a whole other can of worms.
"Thou shalt not kill" is a rule that appears in every shortlist of rules that has been issued by any king, ever. The rule is there because every society has that rule. It doesn't apply to how you treat people that the king doesn't like, of course. But that exception applies equally to hittite kings and christian kings.
There are other commandments that are characteristic of christianity, but this is not one of them. "Thou shalt not" commandments are basically the same in all cultures. The "thou shalt" commandments are not.
I don’t think you grasp what “omnipotent” means. That literally means unlimited power, which would actually be an argument for why God has this authority.
On that note, who is being cruel here: A God who imposed rules on how he wants his creatures to behave to his other creatures; or a creature who hurts his other creatures, and then calls God cruel for stopping it?
Edit, to your reply:
> I know what omnipotent means. The contradiction is that it shouldn't be possible to violate the will of an omnipotent God.
You will have to provide some citations for such an axiom that aren’t based on an atheist stereotype of “omnipotent” and “will.”
TLDR of a Christian perspective:
God is love. Love does not exist outside of God. Love is defined as willing the good of another person. As such, love is fundamentally a choice. As such, humans must have a choice to love. To do otherwise, would make a human a robot. God knows what choice we will make, but does not force it. (A parent who knows the teen will not resist the cake on the counter, does not force the teen to eat cake.) It does not follow, that if humans refuse to love, God should nullify all consequences.
On that note, Hell was not made for humans but for Satan, and we as humans have only the ability to choose love (God) or absence of love (Hell). A person who has chosen to not love, logically cannot live with love itself. Viewing it as humans choosing to damn themselves by refusing to love, would be a more accurate perspective.
I know what omnipotent means. The contradiction is that it shouldn't be possible to violate the will of an omnipotent God.
You can invoke "free will", but that's just another layer of abstraction for the same problem. If free will truly exists, then God isn't omnipotent. If He does, free will cannot exist.
>On that note, who is being cruel here: A God who imposed rules on how he wants his creatures to behave to his other creatures; or a creature who hurts his other creatures, and then calls God cruel for stopping it?
God isn't cruel for imposing rules, God is cruel for allowing evil to persist and for punishing humans with eternal torment for a state of sin they cannot absolve themselves of. The God of the Bible is very obviously not good, or just, or even self-consistent. More than once He just lets humans into heaven because He likes them.
> If free will truly exists, then God isn't omnipotent. If He does, free will cannot exist.
This doesn't seem logical to me, but perhaps I'm missing something. Can God not be all powerful and yet decide to allow humans to make decisions for themselves?
Just thinking about my own children, while I am not all powerful, I certainly am powerful enough to force them to comply with most of my instructions. Yet I do not, since part of raising them is giving them the freedom to make mistakes and (hopefully) learn from them and do better.
Lets remember these sickos were usually after power, at any cost. The very humans they were supposed to be shepherding were considered an asset to be used. (kind of like our personal data today, no?) Serf/slave labor was to be used, their souls were just a by product to help control them. (also like today with evangelicals, except for votes.)
The Middle Ages spanned hundreds of years across countries that had very different views from each other. If you can think of something strange, it probably happened. Just one example: Women might not be able to own property in one town, but can literally vote alongside princes in another (abbesses in Medieval Germany). Stereotypes are rarely directly applicable to the whole period, any more than me digging up a stereotype of an 1850s Californian would be applicable today.
Secondly though, it downplays the likelihood that the majority of priests, bishops, and cardinals, did labor in good faith and, at least on paper, viewed the rules imposed as equally applicable to themselves. Whether they followed them or not, even the serf believed God would avenge. I would say a more accurate comparison for the nuanced authority and love-hate relationship might be our modern police.
<priests, bishops, and cardinals, did labor in good faith>
Indulgences, crusades, excommunication, infallibility of the popes and only God knows what else. These are not stereotypes, they are facts. The belief that God would avenge is a Biblical fact, all the others was pure fantasy, used as controlling tools. That is history.
Don't be offended, protestant atrocities are well documented. (Luther and Calvin and others have a lot of blood on their hands , to be sure.) Documented history, just like the catholic history, both of which are not opinions at all.
Facing reality is never easy, just necessary for avoiding future calamities. Here in the states, we avoid truthful history all the time, hopefully not to an eventual disaster.
In addition, the words of a heretic were believed to be a mortal threat to the eternal lives of those who might hear them. So heresy was the spiritual equivalent of randomly spraying bullets into a crowded place with a machine gun.
The beliefs have not changed, but democratic society has moderated their effects.
I have no doubt, nor question, that some people were burned alive, for no actual crime; just as I have no doubt, nor question, that some people are imprisoned for stupid reasons today. The principles matter; and explaining the cold logic behind it, should not be interpreted as an apologia.
On that note, "for nothing" implies an automatic bias towards lack of belief; not shared by the majority of people on earth. While Christians no longer burn at the stake, Islamic countries still stone for adultery.
if it matches what happened in my country during the witch hunt era, people were often burned so other people could take their loot. That is, there was a strong alignment between who drove the accusations, and who stood to gain from the victim's untimely death.
People like to paint the witch burners as ignorant, but they knew exactly what they were doing. Evil people using religion to give cover for their actions goes back forever.
Having just lived through a period where witch hunts were popular, my impression is very much that most people involved in them were misguided and perhaps only a select few were truly opportunistically evil.
Quite possibly; however, it's very difficult to say due to lack of data and no way to prove it one way or the other. I do know that within Christian theological circles, this would have been considered an abhorrent crime of bearing false witness, just as it has always been.
The other reason it's difficult is the sheer prevalence, even in our modern culture, of the Black Legend which injected all sorts of myths regarding the Inquisition and Medieval culture. For example, the Inquisition rarely used torture, Torquemada only had 1% of his heretics executed, and there is only one documented instance of a woman ever being racked (and it wasn't even part of the Inquisition). The effects of the Black Legend were so extreme, that to quote the modern European historian Elvira Roca Barea:
"If we deprive Europe of its hispanophobia and anti-Catholicism, its modern history becomes incomprehensible."
Or, if that sounds too boring, broad, or controversial, here's History for Atheists admitting the Inquisition and witch hunts is one of the dumbest arguments for atheism, due to heavy involvement of commonly accepted myths:
Right. And understanding the why requires one to put aside their feelings and analyze the unsavory. Reducing everything to knee-jerk call outs does nothing for anyone.
Ha. That's the most brilliant joke in this whole write-up. Of course he could not agree with them. Just as Luther simply could not stop himself from raising his 95 questions.
> No reasonable human, then or now, believes that there's any institution, made up of fallible humans, that's never wrong.
One of the basic tenets of (both Orthodox and Catholic) Christian theology is that the Church, as the whole, can't be wrong because it is explicitly guided by the Christ himself through the Holy Ghost. That's why ecumenical councils were (and are, in the Orthodox branch) considered so important: if the brightest and most pious would come together and, while praying for the divine guidance, try to resolve a theological matter, then they will come to the correct answer. The Catholic church, as I understand it, has largely decided that this approach is overly cautious and expensive since a decision of a single person (by the virtue of being the pope of Rome) is already guaranteed to be correct.
That was basically my reaction to the whole thing - I was expecting some amazing exposé of More but it was ... More being More.
And 1+ billion Catholics believe that the specific institution of The Church, which is made up of fallible humans, is never wrong on matters of doctrine and morals - because it is the Body of Christ and cannot be wrong.
They may get into major arguments and quibbles about exactly what that means but the concept of infallibility is pretty well cemented.
Wait until the author digs deeper and learns that many, many intelligent people of the time and before thought burning at the stake was the best option for the burned - and really, truly believed that, and had deep arguments for why.
Also I have to love the recency bias, clearly Henry VIII can only be understood through the lens of a recent and current president!
> And 1+ billion Catholics believe that [...] The Church [...] is never wrong on matters of doctrine and morals
It's a bit exaggerated to say that. Not all Catholics believe in the infallibility, neither in every single dogma, which are not articles of faith (and not believing in them, discussing them doesn't make one less Catholic than an other).
Even wondering what proportion of Catholics know about all of them.
Hmm. I think Neal is aware of the ins and outs of this portion of Christian religious culture and history.
The question of infallibility was not open then or now to most ‘thinkers’ in the church: that is while it was a matter of public doctrine and thus a rule for the parish, in private elites debated and discussed. More was a contemporary of Erasmus, and the church had an entire concept of anti popes for goodness sake, popes that had deceived the church. These are frameworks for acknowledging precisely this point - mistakes are made, new things happen.
Modern Catholicism (to this outsider’s eye) has many vigorous sects and differences of opinion carried out regionally and locally. Perhaps on those terms More was correct - if you stop burning people at the stake they tend to disagree more volubly.
What Neal sketches and I think is intriguing is that More seems to have had the bad taste to have been a hard hard ideologue, principled in that he died for his ideology, but not someone who say wanted to stick around to be father to his daughter or husband to his wife if it meant turning a blind eye to Henry VIII’s marriage plans.
I don't know if he is. A lot of people, even historians, do not understand traditional medieval Christian (i.e. what is today Catholic and Orthodox) dogma, and so are often surprised when people historically act in ways that "don't make sense". I suspect the reason is because in today's America-centric world, the most visible strain of Christianity is Protestantism, which functions very differently.
You misunderstand what an Antipope is. It is not "a pope who deceived the Church", it is someone claiming to be a pope while he is not. And that notion is in no way abandoned, there have been a number of antipopes in contemporary history, see Peter II, Gregory XVIII and Peter III of the Palmarian Church as the most notable examples.
Thanks for the additional education. My religious upbringing claimed all popes were antichrists so I have to come at catholic history cautiously at best :)
That said do you think the main point stands, that doctrinal debate is a thing that happens out of the public eye in the history of the church? It certainly seems that way to an outsider.
I think part of it is that most people can agree that someone could believe in something so strongly that they wouldn't compromise it, even if it meant death.
The hard part is understanding someone doing that about something YOU wouldn't care about.
There is a rather important distinction, in that Papal infallibility and the patriarchs and ecumenical councils all apply to very narrow circumstances.
The Church is a duality that mirrors Christ's dual nature: as both mortal man and God the son, so too is the Church made up of mortal people and God the holy Spirit. The divine part is infallible, the mortal part is still very much human.
All of which is to say that yes, Catholics and Orthodox Christians both agree that the institutions can get things wrong, most especially when people in power fail. After all, the Pope was once one of the patriarchs of what is now the Orthodox Church. It is impossible for the two to be in schism if the institution was infallible prior to the schism itself.
> After all, the Pope was once one of the patriarchs of what is now the Orthodox Church
This isn't true: the formal institution of the Pentarchy (ordering the Church under five patriarchs -- Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch) was only introduced by the decrees of the Quintisext Council (692), which the Pope notably refused to ratify. In essence, the eastern patriarchs declared there to be a Pentarchy with the Pope as 'first among equals' (a "prerogative of honour"), while the Pope continued to claim a position of pre-eminence over all other bishops.
> It is impossible for the two to be in schism if the institution was infallible prior to the schism itself
The Catholic position is essentially that ratification by the Bishop of Rome is a pre-condition for the Church to make a declaration on matters of faith or doctrine. With that in mind, divergences like the Quintisext Council or the Iconoclast Crisis are at best local policies, at worst heresies, but certainly not "teachings of the Church" which later had to be "reverted". The later schism is also just that -- the Patriarchs in the East choosing to break off from the "primary body" of the Church, moving from a state of union to a state of disunion, but leaving the Church itself still secure.
While I'm not quite as well-versed as with Catholic doctrine, my understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox position is symmetrical, though less strictly defined since the Orthodox tend towards a less legalistic expression of Church hierarchy. They believe that the Church speaks through a consensus of its patriarchs, and therefore that the Pope has simply broken off of the Church by declaring otherwise. In their case, cases like the Council of Hieria (the council which instituted Iconoclasm) are invalid because neither the patriarchs nor their representatives were present at the council -- so heresy was never professed by the Church.
> The Eastern Orthodox … believe that the Church speaks through a consensus of its patriarchs
I understand that the Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church, and the Church speaks through the Ecumenical Councils (not through the patriarchs). Of course, there have been false councils, too, and the only way to distinguish between them is that some are recognised by the Church as ecumenical and some as false. Practically speaking, one might say that the Church speaks through the Church.
> More has to stake out a position, and he has to do so “publicly” where the “public” in this case is a few thousand literate Englishmen who actually care about such things.
I guess he’s saying that only a few thousand people cared about More’s position.
But as an outsider what has always puzzled me is how strongly common people care about what seem to me to be hair-splitting religious arguments. Henry’s split with the catholic church touched off numerous rebellions. And ironically when some later Kings tried to become catholic again, there was even more violence.
To be it’s unfathomable that people who struggle to put food on the table will take up arms in the name of quite abstruse arguments.
Reformation was an extremely important historical event, with very high spiritual, practical and political stakes. This might seem strange to people living in today’s post-religious world, but back then, things were much different.
> how strongly common people care about what seem to me to be hair-splitting religious arguments
it wasn't hair splitting. The Reformation coincides with nation-forming (and is driven by it). So instead of loyalty to the remote Pope, you get loyalty to your nation. The Bible and service. etc in your language and so forth. Classic tribalism of "us" vs "them" which kings and others at the top happily exploited.
The Reformation v0.1 - Jan Huss - was kicking out Germans and others out of Prague University on the basis of it being Bohemian (i.e. Czech) institution.
>To be it’s unfathomable that people who struggle to put food on the table will take up arms in the name of quite abstruse arguments.
It has been shown many times that those people are the easiest to be fired up for some ideological cause. As the bolshevicks were saying "proletariat has nothing to lose, but their chains"
Despite the obscurity of the book, GPT 4o easily "translates" the archaic blackletter and attributes it to More; presumably, it's been trained on this text.
Interesting deep-dive; but I'm afraid the diagnosis for authoritarianism at the end doesn't really ring true to me. He sees More defending things he must know deep down can't be true; but he doesn't actually see why, he's only making conjectures. So I don't think his model will be very useful in helping inoculate people against authoritarianism, or cure them once they've been infected.
Heresy isn't a sin against a man like a pope or a president.
Heresy is a sin against the moral convictions of the in-group.
> They're making a public gesture of submissiveness.
Submissiveness, as seen from the outside. Loyalty, as seen from the inside. The head of the group is the standard bearer of the group, not just the person in charge.
The concept of loyalty signaling makes a lot of nonsense more understandable to me.
---
On the whole, I think labor unions are net positive benefit - so it's hard to point out any problems with them. It feels disloyal.
But one problem is that union representatives have to fight on behalf of the worst dues-paying members. If you don't fight for them, you get voted out next election. You can't have a disloyal rep!
You signal loyalty by pushing boundaries, especially when it's time to fight.
I'm loyal to you, I'm fighting for you - so you should be loyal to me.
---
I'm living through my 3rd personal heresy. The first was against the church I was raised in, but more importantly against the church my family still attends.
It's the 2nd heresy that's notable to this discussion - Heresy against the rational skeptics. Debunking was never enough. Being right was never enough. There is no such thing as irrational thought - all thoughts are reasonable inside a person's head.
There might be such a thing as rational communication - the ability to build a common picture in a group of people.
You're wrong - we are both communicating in the same (or proximate) framework or context, but you have incorrect observations or conclusions.
I don't understand what you mean - you need to do more work if you want me to understand.
You're being irrational - we have a severe context mismatch and you need to take my context.
But what we have right now is loyalty signaling in public speech
It is disloyal to even try to understand the context mismatch. People not in our context are dangerous enemies.
The problem with rationality is that we use leaky meat to think with, but we pretend like we don't.
> Heresy is a sin against the moral convictions of the in-group.
Honestly I’m perplexed. Consider the heresy of Arianism. In what way was this heresy morally different from the orthodoxy position? I just don’t see how the nature of Christ affects any possible moral or practical, or even ritual position.
I doubt that this person has a comprehensive understanding of Catholic theology. When one of the primary beliefs of Catholicism is in an infallible Church, of course the Catholic theologian believes the Church is infallible. Then Neal just goes into the usual Catholic bad, Trump == Hitler talk. I was hoping for a more interesting read.
Thats fascinating. Wolf Hall has a lot about Thomas Moore in it ... I should note Wolf Hall is essentially fiction but largely based on things that did happen - I guess you can view it as "lets imagine how the story of Henry VIII would work if much maligned Thomas Cromwell was actually the good guy"
... anyway in Wolf Hall, the character of Thomas Moore as written is largely consistent with what the OP is finding in that old manuscript - someone quite keen on their own cleverness and relatively comfortable with interrogations and burning people at the stake. In Wolf Hall his death is stubborn and needless, and in defiance of the wishes of his wife and daughter. At first I took those parts of Wolf Hall as an exercise in "lets see if its possible to invert the plot of A Man For All Seasons". But then this document "A dialoge concerning heresyes" seems to actually back up the Wolf Hall picture of Moore.
As an aside, the "inversion of A Man For All Seasons" aspect is brilliant. The scene of More and Cromwell together in the Tower of London has this incredible exchange where Cromwell predicts that their dispute will be replayed throughout time and he fears he is being already typecast as the villain. I don't have the book in front of me, so I'm likely misremembering it. But the way that it tips its hat to the play was really moving to me.
I'm obviously preaching to the choir, but damn, Hilary Mantel was brilliant.
Interesting, but I believe Stephenson is completely wrong about the motivation. Thomas More, as his writings in Utopia make clear, was most worried about the all-against-all that comes from anarchy. Moreover, in some sense, he and his fellow anti-Reformation thinkers were correct; the Reformation did lead to enormous trouble.
The Wars of Religion, from Luther's 95 Theses to the Treaty of Westphalia, lasted for 100 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion). The anti-Reformation thinkers could see perfectly well that they would be the near-inevitable result of letting just anybody set forth their own interpretation of Scripture. From our own vantage point, the Reformation was undoubtedly a good thing, even if you are Catholic, because it established freedom of thought (relatively speaking), but it was several generations of conflict that was often vicious even by the standards of war.
If More had had perfect knowledge of the future, looking at the Wars of Religion that the Reformation would lead to, he would not have been at all surprised. If he thought that burning half a dozen heretics was preferable to several generations of civil war, well, he might have been incorrect, but it doesn't make him a monster. It makes him a man afraid of the storm that's coming, and desperate to avoid it by any means possible.
Nitpick, because it really rubs me the wrong way, to see this repeated again and again.
What you are describing as anarchy here, is anomy in reality.
Anarchy is basically any society without rule from the top, whatever the top may be, replace by reasonable self-rule and consensual interactions of that society.
Anomy is chaos, ruled by the ones with the biggest bats, without any protections against that, for the masses.
That is a big difference.
Anomy is chaos, ruled by the ones with the biggest bats, without any protections against that, for the masses.
Then anarchy as you describe it can not exist. In a power vacuum someone will have the biggest bat and thus be the ruler.
It's widely forgotten that burning heretics was widely accepted in Christian theology, especially at the time.
The rationale is quite simple: They believed in an eternal Hell. Unrepentant heresy places you in eternal Hell. Hell also has levels and is not the same for everyone; not necessarily Dante's circles, but not far off. This is easily proven, just look at Saint Thomas Aquinas, who warned that sins against the deliberate intellect (heresy, blasphemy, schism) are much more inexcusable than sins of the passions and nature (lust, sloth); even if both are damnable. Vice versa, Heaven also has levels, and it was (and is) a pious opinion that no two people are ever at exactly the same level.
If Hell is eternal, and it is possible for you to make your own Hell worse, killing you if you refuse to repent directly prevents you from making your eternal punishment worse. It also prevents bringing other people with you, and the guilt you would bear for influencing other people. In a way, it is an act of charity to other people and yourself; causing some Saints and scholars to comment at the time to do otherwise would actually be hateful. There's also the issue of, if someone was going to repent, the logical assumption that going to the noose or stake is a much stronger motivator than dying in your sleep at 73.
In line with the above, the very act of burning itself was seen as somewhat of a charity. A public spectacle to warn against following them (charity to the viewers); but also a constant suggestion, even to the end, to the burned of what is waiting for them eternally, giving them one last chance to repent. For what it's worth though, Historians tell us that most of the burned died by suffocation and not by the actual burning, which would have been probably also been known at the time.
(Worth remembering, both the Reformers and the original Catholics burned at the stake for similar rationales.)
There were atheists in every age. I think its pointless to blame dead people for dead people stuff but I don't think the prevailing belief system exonerates them either.
Well, I frankly think that it’s pretty minor compared to what happened when atheists got the 20th century. Communism was their moment to shine, was the de facto system advocated by atheists during that time period, and to put it mildly, they blew it and any moral credibility to criticize religion with it.
I’ll gladly take 32,000 for the entire Inquisition over another Russian, Chinese, Cambodian, or Vietnamese revolution. Atheists need to own their history too.
It seems to me "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty clear and unambiguous.
All I can say is history is inevitably determined by the sick fucks that rise to the top.
> "Thou shalt not kill"
The word "kill" here is famously a translation issue. The original Hebrew word means something closer to (but not precisely) "commit murder".
Don't assume that the King James translation would capture the kind of nuance you are asserting is absent.
Even an amateur Christian theologian can tell you that this only refers to unjust death / murder; as the original Hebrew text also espouses more clearly than the English translation (לא תרצח - lo tirtsah, form of ratzach, murder). The Ten Commandments also come from the book of Leviticus Chapter 19 and not just Exodus, and Leviticus 20 onward is well known for the death penalty for several offenses described in the broader Mosaic Law; forming the religious objection that otherwise, God's chosen leader (Moses) himself ordered violations of the 10 Commandments in the very same book.
It isn't, because there are numerous instances in the Bible of God directly commanding people to kill, and even punishing people for showing mercy.
"Thou shalt not kill" isn't a sin because human life is inherently valuable to God (reading the OT, it clearly isn't) but because humans are God's property, and so only God, who created humans, has the right to decide when and how they die. Under the particularly cruel and brutal Bronze Age ethics from which the Abrahamic God as a concept was derived, killing is perfectly justifiable when God wills it, and is only a sin otherwise because it defies God's will.
...which shouldn't even be possible if God is omnipotent but that's a whole other can of worms.
"Thou shalt not kill" is a rule that appears in every shortlist of rules that has been issued by any king, ever. The rule is there because every society has that rule. It doesn't apply to how you treat people that the king doesn't like, of course. But that exception applies equally to hittite kings and christian kings.
There are other commandments that are characteristic of christianity, but this is not one of them. "Thou shalt not" commandments are basically the same in all cultures. The "thou shalt" commandments are not.
I don’t think you grasp what “omnipotent” means. That literally means unlimited power, which would actually be an argument for why God has this authority.
On that note, who is being cruel here: A God who imposed rules on how he wants his creatures to behave to his other creatures; or a creature who hurts his other creatures, and then calls God cruel for stopping it?
Edit, to your reply:
> I know what omnipotent means. The contradiction is that it shouldn't be possible to violate the will of an omnipotent God.
You will have to provide some citations for such an axiom that aren’t based on an atheist stereotype of “omnipotent” and “will.”
TLDR of a Christian perspective:
God is love. Love does not exist outside of God. Love is defined as willing the good of another person. As such, love is fundamentally a choice. As such, humans must have a choice to love. To do otherwise, would make a human a robot. God knows what choice we will make, but does not force it. (A parent who knows the teen will not resist the cake on the counter, does not force the teen to eat cake.) It does not follow, that if humans refuse to love, God should nullify all consequences.
On that note, Hell was not made for humans but for Satan, and we as humans have only the ability to choose love (God) or absence of love (Hell). A person who has chosen to not love, logically cannot live with love itself. Viewing it as humans choosing to damn themselves by refusing to love, would be a more accurate perspective.
I know what omnipotent means. The contradiction is that it shouldn't be possible to violate the will of an omnipotent God.
You can invoke "free will", but that's just another layer of abstraction for the same problem. If free will truly exists, then God isn't omnipotent. If He does, free will cannot exist.
>On that note, who is being cruel here: A God who imposed rules on how he wants his creatures to behave to his other creatures; or a creature who hurts his other creatures, and then calls God cruel for stopping it?
God isn't cruel for imposing rules, God is cruel for allowing evil to persist and for punishing humans with eternal torment for a state of sin they cannot absolve themselves of. The God of the Bible is very obviously not good, or just, or even self-consistent. More than once He just lets humans into heaven because He likes them.
But yes humans are cruel, too.
> If free will truly exists, then God isn't omnipotent. If He does, free will cannot exist.
This doesn't seem logical to me, but perhaps I'm missing something. Can God not be all powerful and yet decide to allow humans to make decisions for themselves?
Just thinking about my own children, while I am not all powerful, I certainly am powerful enough to force them to comply with most of my instructions. Yet I do not, since part of raising them is giving them the freedom to make mistakes and (hopefully) learn from them and do better.
Lets remember these sickos were usually after power, at any cost. The very humans they were supposed to be shepherding were considered an asset to be used. (kind of like our personal data today, no?) Serf/slave labor was to be used, their souls were just a by product to help control them. (also like today with evangelicals, except for votes.)
This is a historically inaccurate take.
The Middle Ages spanned hundreds of years across countries that had very different views from each other. If you can think of something strange, it probably happened. Just one example: Women might not be able to own property in one town, but can literally vote alongside princes in another (abbesses in Medieval Germany). Stereotypes are rarely directly applicable to the whole period, any more than me digging up a stereotype of an 1850s Californian would be applicable today.
Secondly though, it downplays the likelihood that the majority of priests, bishops, and cardinals, did labor in good faith and, at least on paper, viewed the rules imposed as equally applicable to themselves. Whether they followed them or not, even the serf believed God would avenge. I would say a more accurate comparison for the nuanced authority and love-hate relationship might be our modern police.
<priests, bishops, and cardinals, did labor in good faith>
Indulgences, crusades, excommunication, infallibility of the popes and only God knows what else. These are not stereotypes, they are facts. The belief that God would avenge is a Biblical fact, all the others was pure fantasy, used as controlling tools. That is history.
Yeah, yeah, thanks for announcing your Protestantism as the definitely historically accurate opinion.
Don't be offended, protestant atrocities are well documented. (Luther and Calvin and others have a lot of blood on their hands , to be sure.) Documented history, just like the catholic history, both of which are not opinions at all.
Facing reality is never easy, just necessary for avoiding future calamities. Here in the states, we avoid truthful history all the time, hopefully not to an eventual disaster.
In addition, the words of a heretic were believed to be a mortal threat to the eternal lives of those who might hear them. So heresy was the spiritual equivalent of randomly spraying bullets into a crowded place with a machine gun.
The beliefs have not changed, but democratic society has moderated their effects.
They burned people, alive, for literally nothing. Your 4 paragraphs of apologia are simply that.
I have no doubt, nor question, that some people were burned alive, for no actual crime; just as I have no doubt, nor question, that some people are imprisoned for stupid reasons today. The principles matter; and explaining the cold logic behind it, should not be interpreted as an apologia.
On that note, "for nothing" implies an automatic bias towards lack of belief; not shared by the majority of people on earth. While Christians no longer burn at the stake, Islamic countries still stone for adultery.
if it matches what happened in my country during the witch hunt era, people were often burned so other people could take their loot. That is, there was a strong alignment between who drove the accusations, and who stood to gain from the victim's untimely death.
People like to paint the witch burners as ignorant, but they knew exactly what they were doing. Evil people using religion to give cover for their actions goes back forever.
Having just lived through a period where witch hunts were popular, my impression is very much that most people involved in them were misguided and perhaps only a select few were truly opportunistically evil.
I think you underestimate how many people are willing to play dumb if it will get them out of trouble.
Quite possibly; however, it's very difficult to say due to lack of data and no way to prove it one way or the other. I do know that within Christian theological circles, this would have been considered an abhorrent crime of bearing false witness, just as it has always been.
The other reason it's difficult is the sheer prevalence, even in our modern culture, of the Black Legend which injected all sorts of myths regarding the Inquisition and Medieval culture. For example, the Inquisition rarely used torture, Torquemada only had 1% of his heretics executed, and there is only one documented instance of a woman ever being racked (and it wasn't even part of the Inquisition). The effects of the Black Legend were so extreme, that to quote the modern European historian Elvira Roca Barea:
"If we deprive Europe of its hispanophobia and anti-Catholicism, its modern history becomes incomprehensible."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend
Or, if that sounds too boring, broad, or controversial, here's History for Atheists admitting the Inquisition and witch hunts is one of the dumbest arguments for atheism, due to heavy involvement of commonly accepted myths:
https://historyforatheists.com/2024/02/the-great-myths-14-th...
Right. And understanding the why requires one to put aside their feelings and analyze the unsavory. Reducing everything to knee-jerk call outs does nothing for anyone.
> He could have simply agreed with them.
Ha. That's the most brilliant joke in this whole write-up. Of course he could not agree with them. Just as Luther simply could not stop himself from raising his 95 questions.
> No reasonable human, then or now, believes that there's any institution, made up of fallible humans, that's never wrong.
One of the basic tenets of (both Orthodox and Catholic) Christian theology is that the Church, as the whole, can't be wrong because it is explicitly guided by the Christ himself through the Holy Ghost. That's why ecumenical councils were (and are, in the Orthodox branch) considered so important: if the brightest and most pious would come together and, while praying for the divine guidance, try to resolve a theological matter, then they will come to the correct answer. The Catholic church, as I understand it, has largely decided that this approach is overly cautious and expensive since a decision of a single person (by the virtue of being the pope of Rome) is already guaranteed to be correct.
That was basically my reaction to the whole thing - I was expecting some amazing exposé of More but it was ... More being More.
And 1+ billion Catholics believe that the specific institution of The Church, which is made up of fallible humans, is never wrong on matters of doctrine and morals - because it is the Body of Christ and cannot be wrong.
They may get into major arguments and quibbles about exactly what that means but the concept of infallibility is pretty well cemented.
Wait until the author digs deeper and learns that many, many intelligent people of the time and before thought burning at the stake was the best option for the burned - and really, truly believed that, and had deep arguments for why.
Also I have to love the recency bias, clearly Henry VIII can only be understood through the lens of a recent and current president!
To further confuse our friend, he can visit the Church of England's website: https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-t... and search "Thomas More" finding July 6th.
> And 1+ billion Catholics believe that [...] The Church [...] is never wrong on matters of doctrine and morals
It's a bit exaggerated to say that. Not all Catholics believe in the infallibility, neither in every single dogma, which are not articles of faith (and not believing in them, discussing them doesn't make one less Catholic than an other).
Even wondering what proportion of Catholics know about all of them.
Hmm. I think Neal is aware of the ins and outs of this portion of Christian religious culture and history.
The question of infallibility was not open then or now to most ‘thinkers’ in the church: that is while it was a matter of public doctrine and thus a rule for the parish, in private elites debated and discussed. More was a contemporary of Erasmus, and the church had an entire concept of anti popes for goodness sake, popes that had deceived the church. These are frameworks for acknowledging precisely this point - mistakes are made, new things happen.
Modern Catholicism (to this outsider’s eye) has many vigorous sects and differences of opinion carried out regionally and locally. Perhaps on those terms More was correct - if you stop burning people at the stake they tend to disagree more volubly.
What Neal sketches and I think is intriguing is that More seems to have had the bad taste to have been a hard hard ideologue, principled in that he died for his ideology, but not someone who say wanted to stick around to be father to his daughter or husband to his wife if it meant turning a blind eye to Henry VIII’s marriage plans.
I don't know if he is. A lot of people, even historians, do not understand traditional medieval Christian (i.e. what is today Catholic and Orthodox) dogma, and so are often surprised when people historically act in ways that "don't make sense". I suspect the reason is because in today's America-centric world, the most visible strain of Christianity is Protestantism, which functions very differently.
You misunderstand what an Antipope is. It is not "a pope who deceived the Church", it is someone claiming to be a pope while he is not. And that notion is in no way abandoned, there have been a number of antipopes in contemporary history, see Peter II, Gregory XVIII and Peter III of the Palmarian Church as the most notable examples.
Thanks for the additional education. My religious upbringing claimed all popes were antichrists so I have to come at catholic history cautiously at best :)
That said do you think the main point stands, that doctrinal debate is a thing that happens out of the public eye in the history of the church? It certainly seems that way to an outsider.
I think part of it is that most people can agree that someone could believe in something so strongly that they wouldn't compromise it, even if it meant death.
The hard part is understanding someone doing that about something YOU wouldn't care about.
There is a rather important distinction, in that Papal infallibility and the patriarchs and ecumenical councils all apply to very narrow circumstances.
The Church is a duality that mirrors Christ's dual nature: as both mortal man and God the son, so too is the Church made up of mortal people and God the holy Spirit. The divine part is infallible, the mortal part is still very much human.
All of which is to say that yes, Catholics and Orthodox Christians both agree that the institutions can get things wrong, most especially when people in power fail. After all, the Pope was once one of the patriarchs of what is now the Orthodox Church. It is impossible for the two to be in schism if the institution was infallible prior to the schism itself.
> After all, the Pope was once one of the patriarchs of what is now the Orthodox Church
This isn't true: the formal institution of the Pentarchy (ordering the Church under five patriarchs -- Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch) was only introduced by the decrees of the Quintisext Council (692), which the Pope notably refused to ratify. In essence, the eastern patriarchs declared there to be a Pentarchy with the Pope as 'first among equals' (a "prerogative of honour"), while the Pope continued to claim a position of pre-eminence over all other bishops.
> It is impossible for the two to be in schism if the institution was infallible prior to the schism itself
The Catholic position is essentially that ratification by the Bishop of Rome is a pre-condition for the Church to make a declaration on matters of faith or doctrine. With that in mind, divergences like the Quintisext Council or the Iconoclast Crisis are at best local policies, at worst heresies, but certainly not "teachings of the Church" which later had to be "reverted". The later schism is also just that -- the Patriarchs in the East choosing to break off from the "primary body" of the Church, moving from a state of union to a state of disunion, but leaving the Church itself still secure.
While I'm not quite as well-versed as with Catholic doctrine, my understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox position is symmetrical, though less strictly defined since the Orthodox tend towards a less legalistic expression of Church hierarchy. They believe that the Church speaks through a consensus of its patriarchs, and therefore that the Pope has simply broken off of the Church by declaring otherwise. In their case, cases like the Council of Hieria (the council which instituted Iconoclasm) are invalid because neither the patriarchs nor their representatives were present at the council -- so heresy was never professed by the Church.
> The Eastern Orthodox … believe that the Church speaks through a consensus of its patriarchs
I understand that the Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church, and the Church speaks through the Ecumenical Councils (not through the patriarchs). Of course, there have been false councils, too, and the only way to distinguish between them is that some are recognised by the Church as ecumenical and some as false. Practically speaking, one might say that the Church speaks through the Church.
> More has to stake out a position, and he has to do so “publicly” where the “public” in this case is a few thousand literate Englishmen who actually care about such things.
I guess he’s saying that only a few thousand people cared about More’s position.
But as an outsider what has always puzzled me is how strongly common people care about what seem to me to be hair-splitting religious arguments. Henry’s split with the catholic church touched off numerous rebellions. And ironically when some later Kings tried to become catholic again, there was even more violence.
To be it’s unfathomable that people who struggle to put food on the table will take up arms in the name of quite abstruse arguments.
Reformation was an extremely important historical event, with very high spiritual, practical and political stakes. This might seem strange to people living in today’s post-religious world, but back then, things were much different.
> how strongly common people care about what seem to me to be hair-splitting religious arguments
it wasn't hair splitting. The Reformation coincides with nation-forming (and is driven by it). So instead of loyalty to the remote Pope, you get loyalty to your nation. The Bible and service. etc in your language and so forth. Classic tribalism of "us" vs "them" which kings and others at the top happily exploited.
The Reformation v0.1 - Jan Huss - was kicking out Germans and others out of Prague University on the basis of it being Bohemian (i.e. Czech) institution.
>To be it’s unfathomable that people who struggle to put food on the table will take up arms in the name of quite abstruse arguments.
It has been shown many times that those people are the easiest to be fired up for some ideological cause. As the bolshevicks were saying "proletariat has nothing to lose, but their chains"
> I was not able to find an electronic copy on the Internet, which is surprising given the author's prominence.
I'm not sure if Stephenson is specifically looking for a PDF scan, but I found an online copy reasonably easily:
https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A07698.0001.001
Despite the obscurity of the book, GPT 4o easily "translates" the archaic blackletter and attributes it to More; presumably, it's been trained on this text.
Interesting deep-dive; but I'm afraid the diagnosis for authoritarianism at the end doesn't really ring true to me. He sees More defending things he must know deep down can't be true; but he doesn't actually see why, he's only making conjectures. So I don't think his model will be very useful in helping inoculate people against authoritarianism, or cure them once they've been infected.
Heresy isn't a sin against a man like a pope or a president.
Heresy is a sin against the moral convictions of the in-group.
> They're making a public gesture of submissiveness.
Submissiveness, as seen from the outside. Loyalty, as seen from the inside. The head of the group is the standard bearer of the group, not just the person in charge.
The concept of loyalty signaling makes a lot of nonsense more understandable to me.
---
On the whole, I think labor unions are net positive benefit - so it's hard to point out any problems with them. It feels disloyal.
But one problem is that union representatives have to fight on behalf of the worst dues-paying members. If you don't fight for them, you get voted out next election. You can't have a disloyal rep!
You signal loyalty by pushing boundaries, especially when it's time to fight.
I'm loyal to you, I'm fighting for you - so you should be loyal to me.
---
I'm living through my 3rd personal heresy. The first was against the church I was raised in, but more importantly against the church my family still attends.
It's the 2nd heresy that's notable to this discussion - Heresy against the rational skeptics. Debunking was never enough. Being right was never enough. There is no such thing as irrational thought - all thoughts are reasonable inside a person's head.
There might be such a thing as rational communication - the ability to build a common picture in a group of people.
But what we have right now is loyalty signaling in public speech The problem with rationality is that we use leaky meat to think with, but we pretend like we don't.> Heresy is a sin against the moral convictions of the in-group.
Honestly I’m perplexed. Consider the heresy of Arianism. In what way was this heresy morally different from the orthodoxy position? I just don’t see how the nature of Christ affects any possible moral or practical, or even ritual position.
I doubt that this person has a comprehensive understanding of Catholic theology. When one of the primary beliefs of Catholicism is in an infallible Church, of course the Catholic theologian believes the Church is infallible. Then Neal just goes into the usual Catholic bad, Trump == Hitler talk. I was hoping for a more interesting read.
Thats fascinating. Wolf Hall has a lot about Thomas Moore in it ... I should note Wolf Hall is essentially fiction but largely based on things that did happen - I guess you can view it as "lets imagine how the story of Henry VIII would work if much maligned Thomas Cromwell was actually the good guy"
... anyway in Wolf Hall, the character of Thomas Moore as written is largely consistent with what the OP is finding in that old manuscript - someone quite keen on their own cleverness and relatively comfortable with interrogations and burning people at the stake. In Wolf Hall his death is stubborn and needless, and in defiance of the wishes of his wife and daughter. At first I took those parts of Wolf Hall as an exercise in "lets see if its possible to invert the plot of A Man For All Seasons". But then this document "A dialoge concerning heresyes" seems to actually back up the Wolf Hall picture of Moore.
The burning of Thomas Hitton plays a role in Mantel's book, too.
As an aside, the "inversion of A Man For All Seasons" aspect is brilliant. The scene of More and Cromwell together in the Tower of London has this incredible exchange where Cromwell predicts that their dispute will be replayed throughout time and he fears he is being already typecast as the villain. I don't have the book in front of me, so I'm likely misremembering it. But the way that it tips its hat to the play was really moving to me.
I'm obviously preaching to the choir, but damn, Hilary Mantel was brilliant.