The movie portrays the man, the philosopher, the statesman, the jurist, the linguist, the raconteur, the father, the husband, the theologian, the humanist and his environment. It also paints a portrait of More's one-time friend, and later foe, Henry VIII.

Last year, Pope John Paul II in an Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio of 31 October 2000 wrote:

"Recently, several Heads of State and of Government, numerous political figures and some Episcopal Conferences and individual Bishops have asked me to proclaim St. Thomas More the Patron of Statesmen and Politicians. Those supporting this petition include people from different political, cultural and religious allegiances, and this is a sign of the deep and widespread interest in the thought and activity of this outstanding Statesman". (Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition, no. 45, p. 3) (Note: The complete Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio is available on the Vatican website: www.vatican.va)

Why this renewed interest in this particular layman of the 16th century? In his own time, aside from the testimony by his fellow scholar, Wittinton, Thomas More was known as an excellent lawyer who became the Lord Chancellor of England in 1529. He had the reputation of being fair, incorruptible, and a person who did his work with dispatch.

More is also known as a writer. His Utopia (No Place!?) is likely more widely read than any of his other works. Yet his "Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation" and his "Letters" deserve a wider readership. He is reputed to have been, with Bishop John Fisher, the main contributor for the book: Assertio Septem Sacramentorum by Henry VIII against Martin Luther. Pope Leo X awarded Henry the title "Defender of the Faith" for his defense of the Church. The king rewarded his erstwhile collaborators, later on, by condemning them to be beheaded for their stance in the matter of his divorce of Catherine of Aragon, and the Oaths of Supremacy and Succession that are connected with it.
 

Thomas More as Statesman, reached the most important post of Lord Chancellor of the realm, but decided that he could not be a servant of both the king and the Church at the same time. He did not speak out publicly about the reasons for his resignation. To go public, he considered questionable behavior on the part of a former member of Parliament. His silence, however, was more voluble than the fervent applause of a thousand partisans. King Henry needed a public statement of approval from Thomas for his marriage to Anne Boleyn, and for the Act of Supremacy. In conscience, Thomas could not justify either. For this refusal, an act of obedience to his conscience, he was locked up in solitary confinement in the Tower. It was while imprisoned that he wrote the "Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation".

Thomas only spoke out when he was called to justify his position before Parliament, which had orders from the king to condemn him. Now, Thomas became a witness of the incompatibility of courage and cowardice, of truth and falsehood-an attitude that was not tolerated by his former peers. He had his back against the wall, because of his conscience that served him so well in the first thirty turbulent years of the sixteenth century.

It is not so difficult to draw a comparison between those years and our own time. Like Thomas, we live in a time of fast changes: the discovery of the printing press, the discovery of the New World in More's time, as compared to the changes in communication we have experienced with computers and television, along with outer space voyages and satellites.

In both eras, the laity was, and is, restless vis-ˆ-vis clerical domination of their Church. Both the sixteenth and the twentieth centuries saw the rise of reformers-and a defensive, and sometimes irrational, reaction on the part of government of the Church-certainly when reformers strike at where the Church is most vulnerable.

More lived in a time when sincere people might disagree on the solutions to vital problems that affected both the Church and the world. It was a time when faith became threatened and when hope was difficult to maintain. Apparently, the bishops of that time did not see the threat. They depended on the crown and served the crown. Apparently, neither the bishops nor the lower clergy had the theological insight that papal supremacy was firmly rooted in the Church's awareness of its faith.

As Statesman, Thomas More, was passionately concerned with the reform of the Church, but he would not accept the Act of Supremacy, which severed relations with Rome and promised the reforms that had been promised by several Ecumenical Councils. Most of the English bishops supported Royal Supremacy against papal claims, while holding to Catholic doctrine. Only two men of eminence: a layman, More, and a bishop, Fisher, offered their lives for the papal supremacy and the unity of the Catholic Church. More, along with Fisher, was canonized by Pius XI in 1935.

Yet More, as a Humanist, was very critical of the Church. He shared with Erasmus, and other prominent Humanists, criticisms of the abuses, weaknesses, shortcomings and privileges among the clergy. Both Erasmus and Thomas More used the renewed interest in the Bible and the Church Fathers for the defense, as well as for criticism of the Church. In expressing their criticism, they helped to shape future events by encouraging people to speak out, and by giving the people confidence to express their views even when they disagreed with the authority of the Church. As often in history, anti-clericalism looms large when clerical power is dominant, or when clerics rely on power rather than on sanctity.

Like most Humanists, More and Erasmus, his great friend, refused to become part of a reform movement which separated itself from Rome. They urged the Church to reform in "head and members" as was promised by previous councils, but not carried through by renaissance popes. Tolerance and patience, as presented by the Humanists, looked for success over the long-haul. In this, they differed from many reformers who wanted immediate results. Thomas showed that partisanship could be combined with liberal thought, broad-mindedness and tolerance. Tolerance is an attractive force in human relationships, and Thomas is an attractive person, partially due to his forbearance, and partially due to his wit. He maintained a balance between wit, sanctity and patience. Some quotes may give us a deeper insight into More as man, and as saint:

• Farewell... we may merrily meet in heaven.
• I am the King's good servant, but God's first.
• To the executioner: "Don't cut my beard-it has not been accused of treason."
  "I pray thee, see me safe up, and for my coming down, let me shift for myself."
• Daughter, I never intend to pin my soul on another man's back. (His daughter, Meg, tried to persuade him to take the oath, because most bishops and politicians had done so.)
• The Act of Supremacy is directly repugnant to the laws of God and his holy Church.

More, as a saint, stayed in the middle of the road, at a time of extremists and fanatics. He resisted the temptation to lose his balance.

In More's days, (different from ours?), politicians and statesmen were tainted by corruption. Thomas avoided that infection, as contrary to being human and as contrary to being a believer. Politicians tried to entrap More and bring him down to their level. He not only outwitted them all, but turned the table on his tempters/accusers. In this context, the reading of the account of his trial by Parliament, in E. E. Reynolds' St. Thomas More, (London: 1953), might be very enlightening. Thomas kept his wit and his conscience alive, at the expense of his life.

Why would our contemporary Statesmen and Politicians ask the papacy to declare St. Thomas their patron? Do they admire Thomas' courage, to go against the majority, in the name of the truth? Do they desire a mirror in which to see holiness, wit, tolerance, intelligence and wisdom, in balance, and at work in government?

Thomas More has been accepted by both liberals and conservatives, as well as by those who find themselves at home in the center of the political spectrum. Do our contemporary Statesmen and Politicians desire Thomas, as heavenly Patron, to remind voters that there is at least the possibility that there are saints among them?

Pope John Paul II, toward the end of his Apostolic Letter points to the balance in Thomas' life in politics:

"The life of St. Thomas More clearly illustrates a fundamental truth of political ethics. The defense of the Church's freedom from unwarranted interference by the State is at the same time a defense, in the name of the primacy of conscience, of the individual's freedom vis-ˆ-vis political power. Here we find the basic principle of every civil order consonant with human nature."