By: Blake D. Morant
The story of Sir Thomas More, the former Lord Chancellor of
England who refused to endorse King Henry VIII’s ecclesiastical
proclamations, has become legendary fodder for historians and
playwrights. The resulting plethora of literature is no doubt
due to More’s extraordinary adherence to the theological principles
that fueled his refusal to capitulate to power—a stance which
ultimately led to his demise by decapitation.
Thomas More’s legacy takes center stage each summer at St.
Dunstan’s Church, Canterbury, England, where the martyr’s head is
buried. This historical and physical connection to More has
inspired St. Dunstan’s to sponsor an annual lecture devoted to
More’s teachings, philosophies, and life.
The gracious invitation to deliver the 2003 St. Thomas More
memorial lecture at St. Dunstan’s Church compelled me to study
More’s life with particular emphasis on the impact of his moral
convictions on his professional decision-making. My research
revealed the degree to which his historic confrontations with Henry
VIII and Thomas Cromwell have continuing relevance to legal
scholars and practitioners. This legacy, and the honor to
deliver the St. Thomas More lecture, inspired this admittedly
modest Article.
. . . .
Part I of this Article commences with a jurisprudential analysis
of the competing value systems that led to Thomas More’s
confrontation with Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell. More’s strictly
held belief in theological dogma suggests that he was a natural law
thinker. These beliefs, which are closely linked to the
concept of a deity, together with his keen understanding of
theological rules and his adroit lawyering skills, made fulfillment
of Henry VIII’s and Cromwell’s expectations virtually
impossible. Part I also describes Henry VIII’s Acts of
Supremacy and Succession as positive laws, and Cromwell’s
pragmatic, contextual attempt to persuade More to endorse the
King’s Acts. The variant features of these competing beliefs
explain, to some extent, More’s historic clash of personally held
beliefs and professional expectations. To demonstrate the
modern day prevalence of conflicting beliefs, Part II of the
Article presents a personal narrative from my career as a
practicing lawyer. That experience, though admittedly not
universal, demonstrates the contemporary reality of the conflict
between personally held beliefs and professional
expectations. Part II then employs cognitive dissonance
theory to explain the decision-making influenced by conflicting
beliefs. This analysis confirms that individuals attempt to
reduce the dissonance associated with contradictory beliefs through
various contextual remedies, including compromise. The
Article ultimately concludes that the search for truly effective
dissonance-reduction remedies commences with a more complete
understanding of what leads to a clash of beliefs, and the thought
processes required to resolve this clash.
Full text version available for download
in PDF format.