At first glance, Hollywood’s interest in St. Thomas More can be perplexing. They don’t make many movies extolling the virtues of Catholic saints these days. Yet there have been two major movies about Thomas More in recent memory. Both were based on the Robert Bolt play A Man for All Seasons.
The 1966 version, starring Paul Scofield as Thomas More and Robert Shaw as Henry VIII, is even available in a shortened form for use in high school classes. The later version, made in 1988, starring Charlton Heston as Thomas More, was produced for the cable network TNT. Bolt’s play centers on the familiar story of Thomas More’s martyrdom at the hands of Henry VIII because of his refusal to assent to Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn.
The Paul Scofield version is one of my all-time favorites. I can remember as if it were yesterday, when I saw it for the first time as a young man, alone, at an afternoon showing in a nearly deserted theater in Queens. Deserted theaters were not the usual thing when the movie was first released. It did quite well at the box office, with Scofield winning the Oscar for best actor that year for his performance. Robert Shaw’s Henry VIII was unforgettable as well.
So, why would Hollywood want to focus on the life of this Catholic martyr? One explanation is that it is a story that sells. I am sure you have noticed: Hollywood is willing to forget political correctness for the sake of the bottom line. That is why we still get movies and television programs that sing the praises of the military and tough cops. The way to judge Hollywood’s bias is to look at the movies they make that everyone knows haven’t a chance in the world of making any money, those films about the evils of apartheid and misunderstood aging hippies and homosexuals with hearts of gold. Hollywood makes those films in spite of the likelihood that they will end up in the red. I sometimes think the producers of these movies are seeking bragging rights for sensitivity at Hollywood cocktail parties.
But there is another element to consider when getting a handle on why Hollywood reacts well to A Man for All Seasons. They are able to manipulate the Thomas More story for their ends, by centering on his stand against authority as a matter of individual conscience, as if he is part of a continuum stretching from Socrates to Luther to Gandhi to Martin Luther King. In other words, they focus on what More did, rather than on why he took his stand.
This issue was raised in the January 2004 issue of First Things, in a discussion of the preface to a book on Thomas More written by Father Joseph Koterski, S.J. of Fordham University. Koterski focuses on the line from the play that gets the most favorable attention from modern critics, the scene where More makes clear to a colleague why he is unwilling to support Henry’s decision to disobey the Church on the matter of his marriage to Anne Boleyn. Says More, “What matters to me is not whether it’s true or not, but that I believe it to be true, or rather, not that I believe it, but that I believe it.”
The stress on the words “believe” and “I” is the key. That is how they were written to be delivered by the playwright, and how Scofield reads them. The message is clear; that the rights of the individual conscience are paramount in moral matters, as if More was inspired by the same convictions that motivate those who talk of “walking to the beat of a different drummer” and being “true to oneself” and “doing your own thing.
Not so. Father Koterski shows us why. There were authority figures Thomas More was willing to accept as valid. He was not championing the cause of unbridled individual rights. Koterski cites the words spoken by More after he had been found guilty and sentenced to death:
Seeing that I see ye are determined to condemn me (God knoweth how) I will now in discharge of my conscience speak my mind plainly and freely touching my Indictment and your Statute, withal. And forasmuch as this Indictment is grounded upon an Act of Parliament directly repugnant to the laws of God and His Holy Church, the supreme Government of which, or any part whereof, may no temporal Prince presume by any law to take upon him, as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome, a spiritual pre-eminence by the mouth of our Savior Himself, personally present upon earth, only to St. Peter and his successors, bishops of the same See, by special prerogative granted; it is therefore in law, amongst Christian men, insufficient to charge any Christian men.
These are not the words of a subjectivist. There would be no “Different Strokes for Different Folks” bumper sticker on this man’s car. This is not a man who would respond to an assertion on a moral question by shrugging, “Whatever floats your boat….” There is right and wrong in Thomas More’s world. He is not going to his death to make a point about the primacy of the individual conscience. He was willing to accept martyrdom to save his soul.
But, you know, maybe there is no reason to dwell on this point. From what I can tell, the Hollywood elite is not as devoted to the primacy of the individual conscience as they pretend to be. I can’t remember many liberal clerics or pundits singing the praises of segregationists for defying federal authorities as a matter of conscience. Or writing sympathetic editorials about Judge Roy Moore for resisting federal courts when they ordered him to remove the plaque with the 10 Commandments from his courtroom. Pro-life protestors aren’t praised by the liberals for their acts of civil disobedience. Nor are parents and students who find ways to maneuver around court-ordered prohibitions on prayer in school. To the contrary, they are attacked as obstructionists who do not respect the rule of law.
St. Thomas More deserves all the attention he gets. But there are those who would exploit his memory. Fr. Koterski is to be praised for his efforts to not let them get away with it.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
