Flora Cantábrica

The process against Thomas More17.3,23

Tweet

 

The process against Thomas More

 

Thomas More succeeded on October 25, 1529 as Henry VIII’s great chancellor to Cardinal Thomas Wolsey. Wolsey was removed from his post, despite his many services to the monarch, for failing to get the annulment of the marriage between Henry and Catherine of Aragon and being despised by Anne Boleyn, her family and supporters, who now surrounded the king. On October 6, 1529, the cardinal was officially dismissed and later charged with the crime of praemunire[28]. He only escaped the sentence by dying on the way to his imprisonment in the Tower of London (29 November 1529).

 

More did not share the king’s opinion that his marriage to Catherine was void, but the king nevertheless chose him: he was a layman, an expert jurist, known to Henry since his childhood and an efficient and loyal public servant, for which reason he could give confidence to all sectors and lead the Parliament that Enrique convened on November 3, 1529. More accepted the position knowing that the times were not favorable to his ideas but he could not now go back on what he thought and had left written in his youthful work, the famous Utopia, regarding «not abandoning the ship in the middle of the storm»[29]. Later he would remember how the king promised him that he would not force him to act against his conscience in the matter of marriage[30], and in fact during his tenure as chancellor the «grand matter of the King», as it used to be called, was entrusted to other officials[31]. Moro dedicated himself to his parliamentary and judicial work in the two royal courts: the «Court of Chancery» and the «Court of Star Chambre».

 

He remained in office for two and a half years[32], seeing how the king’s policy to annul his marriage, marry Anne Boleyn Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell, in a break with the pope and have male offspring who could inherit the throne, was He gradually converted, thanks to new royal advisors such as Thomas, not only as temporal sovereign but also as spiritual head of the Church in England. What was an issue limited to the king’s supposed awareness of living in concubinage (because the marriage with his brother Arturo’s widow was not valid), gradually expanded to the aspiration to have total power over the church, the bishops, the clergy and all the faithful of the Church and an expectation of increasing the wealth of the kingdom and its nobles through the confiscation of lands and properties currently in the hands of convents, religious orders and monasteries

 

He later demanded that the Convocation or synod of bishops of Canterbury declare him supreme head of the church, which he achieved but with the qualified expression that this was «as far as the law of Christ allows»: «as far as the law of Christ allows» (February 11, 1531).

 

The threat was direct and clear: either the prelates recognized him as the sole sovereign and renounced all obedience to the jurisdiction of the Holy Father, or they would be prosecuted. The bishops, presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Willam Warham, already at the end of his life, signed the document called very aptly Submission of Clergy («Submission of the clergy»). In that document, the Convocation of Canterbury declared Henry VIII as the supreme head of the Church in England without any limitation or qualification. It was May 15, 1532.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The following day, May 16, Archbishop Warham forwarded the submission document to Henry VIII[33]. At 3:00 p.m. on the same day, in the garden of Whitehall Palace, Henry VIII together with the Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Howard, received Thomas More to accept his resignation as Chancellor of the Kingdom, and receive the white leather jacket that contained the great seal that symbolized its function and power[34].

 

Unlike Wolsey, More was not dismissed but had his resignation accepted, which in those days required the king’s assent. Moro says in his letters that he had been asking for his departure from the government since before because he had health problems that prevented him from continuing to carry out his position ñ

 

: Moro realized that with his presence he could no longer stop Enrique’s separatist policy and warned that if he remained in office, this would be understood as legitimizing the ruler’s conduct

 

Moro’s departure from office was thus apparently peaceful and satisfactory to both parties. More received high praise from Henry VIII[37] and in turn promised not to meddle in public affairs and to retire to a life of prayer and practice of personal and family piety[38]

 

[Four. Five]. The break with the reformist policy of Henry VIII became evident when More did not attend Queen Anne’s coronation ceremony. It was not an oversight or inadvertence, but rather a previously considered act.

 

 

1. El caso de la «monja de Kent»: Moro incluido en un proyecto de ley de proscripción.

Entre los mensajes revelados especial importancia se dio a los que señalaban que si el rey abandonaba a Catalina ofendería gravemente a Dios, los que fueron siendo cada vez más sombríos llegando a anunciar que el rey dejaría de serlo si se casaba con Ana Bolena[66].

 

Roma tampoco permaneció inactiva. Clemente VII, tras haber censurado el matrimonio de Enrique con Ana, haberle amenazado y finalmente condenado con la pena de excomunión[88],

 

 

La última y sexta parte de la ley contenía algo que ya antes Tomás Moro pudo presentir como lo peor del despotismo legalista: la obligación de jurar asentimiento al contenido del texto normativo. Cuando Moro supo la anulación del matrimonio con Catalina y la declaración de validez del contraído con Ana Bolena, dijo a su yerno William Roper: «Quiera Dios, hijo, que estos asuntos no tengan que ser confirmados con juramentos

———

Inmediatamente después de su aprobación, los miembros de las dos Cámaras del Parlamento prestaron juramento. No hay constancia de que alguno, incluidos los obispos, lo hayan rechazado. Sólo el obispo John Fisher no juró ya que se encontraba enfermo en Rochester, y por ello sería citado al Palacio de Lambeth ante la Comisión de autoridades constituida para exigir el juramento

 

Lo recibió una Comisión especial compuesta Tomás Cranmer, arzobispo de Canterbury; Tomás Audley, lord canciller; Tomás Howard, duque de Norfolk, y Charles Brandon, duque de Suffolk. La Comisión le pidió que prestara juramento al texto que se había preparado como juramento de adhesión a la ley. Moro pidió tiempo para leer detenidamente tanto la ley de sucesión como el texto del juramento. Después de la lectura, se negó a prestar el juramento de acuerdo a dicho texto y alegó que éste no coincidía con el contenido de la ley[97]. Ante la insistencia de los comisionados, ofreció jurar sobre la legitimidad de la sucesión, pero no sobre el resto del contenido de la ley. Los comisionados, sin saber qué hacer, lo hicieron esperar en el jardín de fuera, donde pudo contemplar cómo otros eran citados y prestaban el juramento. Finalmente, fue puesto bajo la custodia de William Benson, el Abad de Westminster, que le llevó a la Abadía donde estuvo por cuatro días.

 

Entre tanto, Cranmer, de regreso a su casa de campo en Croydon, escribió una nota a Cromwell, sugiriendo que a Moro y Fischer, excepcionalmente, se les permitiera jurar sólo por la sucesión dinástica (17 de abril de 1534)[98]. Cromwell consultó la sugerencia con el rey pero éste rechazó absolutamente el compromiso, sosteniendo que si se condescendiera con el juramento parcial ello sería ocasión para que todos rehusaran jurar el texto completo e implicaría la destrucción de la entera causa y de todas leyes hechas para su consecución, ya que la omisión del resto del juramento podría entenderse como una confirmación, no sólo de la autoridad del papa, sino como una reprobación del segundo matrimonio del rey[99].

 

Ante la renovada exigencia y la negativa de Moro, éste fue oficialmente arrestado y conducido a la Torre de Londres, donde lo recibió el lugarteniente (lieutenant) de la prisión, sir Edmund Walsingham[100].

 

 

A Fisher y Moro, se les consideró legalmente culpables de actuar deslealmente al rechazar el juramento de la sucesión desde el 1º de mayo de 1534. A Moro particularmente se le imputaba haber actuado ingratamente contra el rey, su benefactor[111]

 

señor el rey»[119].

Los cargos de la acusación pueden sistematizarse en cuatro alegaciones:

 

1º Negativa maliciosa de Moro a reconocer al rey como Suprema Cabeza de la Iglesia de Inglaterra.

2º Conspiración con John Fisher declarado y condenado por traición.

 

3º Descripción de la Ley como una espada de doble filo, coincidiendo en esta expresión con las respuestas de Fisher.

 

4º Declaración de que el Parlamento no debe ser obedecido si declara al rey Suprema Cabeza de la Iglesia en una respuesta dada a Richard Rich, el día 12 de junio[120]

 

The verdict of the jury and the final defense: «I am not bound to conform my conscience to the Council of one realm against the General Council of Christendom»

 

The twelve members of the jury withdrew to deliberate, but in a short time: a quarter of an hour, they returned and informed the judges of their decision: guilty[182]; More was guilty of having spoken maliciously against the king’s title of supreme head of the Church.

 

Despite the weakness of the charges and Rich’s unique and implausible testimony, it was almost impossible for a jury to find not guilty in front of a commission chaired by the Lord Chancellor himself and made up of Anne’s father and brother. Boleyn, the king’s brother-in-law and even Thomas Cromwell himself[183]. It is unlikely that More thought that he could win this trial fairly, but he had to defend himself in the best possible way to expose the injustice of the accusation and maintain his criteria of not claiming to be a martyr.