A Man for All Seasons – Legal Positivism

Perhaps one of the greatest films about the life of a saint ever made, A Man for All Seasons chronicles the last years of St. Thomas More. And what a story it is. St. Thomas More is the model every Catholic should follow. “I have been the king’s good servant,” St. Thomas declares as his execution draws near, “…but God’s first.” It would surprise you then to hear that beneath what may seem to be the pinnacle of Catholic movie making lies a philosophical error that sits radically opposed to Catholic theology. At its very core, A Man for All Seasons pushes a philosophical position about the nature of God and the strength of the law that denies the existence of the former and improperly distorts the strength of the latter. The simple fact is that it is certainly possible to watch a movie made by a non-Catholic and find Catholic virtues displayed in it.

There are actually three separate versions of the story A Man for All Seasons.

1. A Man for All Seasons – Book/Play – Written by Robert Bolt.

2. A Man for All Seasons – Movie – Starring Charlton Heston in the lead role.

3. A Man for All Seasons – Movie – Starring Paul Scofield in the lead role.

Each chronicles the same time period in St. Thomas More’s life but two of them are vastly different from the third. The book/play written by Robert Bolt, and the Charlton Heston movie are nearly identical in every way. In fact, the Charlton Heston movie is basically an on-screen reading of the play. The dialogue is (as far as I could make out) almost exactly identical. It even included the character “The Common Man” which is something seldom done in actual movies as it breaks the fourth wall (the character turns to the audience and speaks to them directly). The Common Man is responsible in the play for a number of key twists in the plot that result in St. Thomas’ execution. He makes a deal with Cromwell to spy on St. Thomas among other things. In the Paul Scofield version, The Common Man as a character is dissected and split up into a couple of characters. Large parts of the The Common Man end up in Richard Rich who was a real life person responsible for spying on St. Thomas and delivering the perjury that resulted in his execution. Other portions, like following St. Thomas and listening into his conversations, end up either with St. Thomas’ housekeeper named Matthew or with unnamed characters like the boatman that gets St. Thomas up and down the river or various spies that St. Thomas evades or catches. The Paul Scofield version also differs quite drastically in the actual dialogue from the original play but this is, as will be explained shortly, to its great advantage.

Robert Bolt is an atheist. Plain and simple. He doesn’t believe in God and whatever cosmological beings he does believe in hardly resemble spirits as the Catholic Church teaches them to be. A clear and concise definition for what Robert Bolt is the name Legal Positivism. I will explain what this means by defining the second word first.

Positivism – Positivism is the philosophical position that every rationally justifiable assertion can be empirically tested or is capable of being explained through some mathematical proof. In layman’s terms, everything can be proven by some form of science and there is nothing that cannot be proven by some form of science. Thus, a positivist, by definition does not believe in God as the Catholic Church defines Him (i.e. immaterial, without mass, weight, size, or origin).

Legal Positivism then is a combination of the positivist philosophy with a heavy emphasis on the man-made legal system as the only true moral protection humans have from each other and whatever other beings exist in the universe. It is hard at first to grasp how the legal positivist is looking at the world because many of you (I hope) are Catholics and have been strong Catholics most of your lives. It seems silly to Catholics to claim that something man-made like a legal system can protect us from spirits that are of much greater power than we are. But that’s exactly what Robert Bolt believes. He writes…

…well I can’t seem to find my copy of A Man for All Seasons at the moment so… read the introduction to the play some time and you’ll notice a general disregard for what is opposed to God.

This idea even translates down to Bolt’s interpretation of St. Thomas More. The parallel becomes clear in this scene…

“…whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law!”

– Thomas More (from the play)

We’ll analyze that in a second… first let’s look at one more quote from the same scene:

ROPER: Then you set man’s law above God’s!

MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact-I’m not God.

The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing,

I can’t navigate. I’m no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I’m a forester.

I doubt if there’s a man alive who could follow me there, thank God . . .

Now the two quotes together show Bolt’s true colors. They are certainly not Catholic. Note in the second quote that Thomas More is remarking to himself and Roper that he is an exceptionally good lawyer. And it is here, in the law, that Thomas More sees himself as safe. Not in God’s grace. Not in Divine Providence. In the law. Bolt has made a couple of concessions here for the sake of his character sounding authentic. It would be grossly incorrect for a Catholic like St. Thomas More to claim that man’s laws are above God’s laws. That’s why Thomas More in the play never goes that far. But if man’s laws are far below God’s laws then why should one take refuge in man’s laws? This is indicative of Bolt’s true nature; that of Legal Positivism. Further there is the first quote. It just doesn’t sound particularly Catholic. How many Catholics do you know that refer to God as “hunting” for them? Admittedly you have to put on some sepia toned glasses to see it but there’s almost an implied equality in the quote. By itself, I’d say then that the reader was looking into the first quote too much. But in light of the second quote (which actually chronologically appears first in the text) it takes on a strange if vague odor of bad philosophy. It seems a far  cry from everything we know about St. Thomas More. I highly recommend reading this sequence. As a Catholic it makes me feel uneasy. It’s in the first act of the play.

I’m sure I’ll hear it from somebody that I’m reading into the sequence too much and that there is simply not enough there to unpack. Again, if you doubt the authenticity of the sequence, you need only investigate Bolt’s background. Pick up a copy of the play and read Bolt’s own introduction! But don’t misunderstand me. The Paul Schofield version is still a movie about a Catholic man who died for the faith.

The Dilemma

As was the case with Gravity and the director’s existentialist leanings (see the Gravity article), A Man for All Seasons again is a film that can be taken in a Catholic light. However the intent of its author is exactly the opposite. So the question remains… what are we to do when confronted with art that seems to be Catholic but does not have official Catholic foundations? This is the problem with art in general. What to do when the only way to make something digestible is to change its root meaning.

Let’s take a look at two cases of the the changing of something’s root meaning. The first will be an especially grisly affair while the second is much more family friendly.

Case 1 – Helter Skelter, The Beatles

The song Helter Skelter by the Beatles is nothing but a raucous, rowdy rock song about dancing the horizontal mambo. Morally depraved? Yes. Bloodthirsty and cold? No. You’d be surprised to hear then (if you are unfamiliar with it) that this song was the ignition spark for some of the most brutal and bloody murders in history.

Charles Manson, by all accounts completely insane, said that John Lennon, the song writer behind Helter Skelter had given him a secret message through the song to go out and kill some people. The story is slightly more complex than I will go into here. But the murders were horrific. I forebear the details. John Lennon, of course, stated that the song was in no way any kind of message to anyone. And he would know since he wrote it. It’s a pointless rock song. Charles Manson listened to the song and put his own meaning into the lyrics. He then went out and committed murders and blamed them on the song.

This is a case where one can put their own completely incorrect spin on art and draw all sorts of wrong ideas from it with terrible consequences.

Case 2 – Christmas Trees, A Pagan Custom

Perhaps many of us have had this encounter when discussing Christmas with a non-Catholic: “Well you know the whole idea of Christmas Trees is a pagan custom that the Catholic Church stole from pagans!”

In fairness, I haven’t (and don’t intend to) research the truth of this claim although I don’t deny that it could be possible and it is very likely that it is. The simple fact is that it doesn’t matter in the least. Catholic missionaries looking for a way to reach the hearts and souls of a peoples will attempt to take their customs and Christianize them. This is not some new idea by any stretch of the imagination. It has happened an enormous amount throughout history. Let’s start with Christmas trees:

• Christmas Trees – A Pagan Custom
  • I seriously doubt that the pagans put a star or angel atop their tree in commemoration of the Nativity. Now that the Catholic Church has Christianized the custom, it remains as a Catholic symbol of Christmas.
• The Cross – A Symbol of Torture and Execution
  • The Roman tool for humiliating deaths of felons and criminals was chosen by Our Lord to be the symbol of salvation and mercy. Our Lord’s death upon the cross has solidified its meaning for all eternity.
• The Breaking of Bread – A Jewish Custom
  • The breaking of bread at dinner was a Jewish custom in commemoration of the mana that God provided for them while the Hebrews were in the desert without food. No Jew would ever believe that the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ was present in the bread they broke. At the last supper, this is exactly what Christ instituted. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist has started out as a Jewish commemoration but through Our Lord’s will, it became infinitely more important. It used to nourish the body. Now besides the many healing miracles that Christ has performed through Holy Communion, the sacrament nourishes the soul as well.

So you see then that it is not completely unthinkable that a symbol of one culture can be Christianized to give glory to God. Thus there is no reason why the same cannot be applied to modern entertainment. In fact if we call to mind the four marks of the Catholic Church: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, we are reminded that we should spread Catholicism to the extent that we are able. This means doing what we can to win back as much of the world for Christ as possible. Thus one might argue that it is our duty to shine the light of Christ in the world through whatever beacons or lanterns are available to us whether they be modern entertainment or protesting outside abortion clinics or going on pilgrimage, etc.

There are in fact many pieces of entertainment that have something of value in them but that are not through-and-through Catholic entertainment. The Catholic must then ask himself, “Where do I draw the line?” What is worth saving and what should be discarded? This is a question that can only be answered by the unique way a Catholic interacts with modern society and entertainment as a whole.

 

What to do?

I say all this knowing full well that I’ll be seen as one of those crazies that just likes to tear down all that’s holy. After all, that’s what this blog is all about isn’t it? Exposing the ugly underbelly of Hollywood’s blockbusters? Well… no. I like many of these movies. I thoroughly enjoy them. I watch some of them many times over and over in a single week. So how can I (or you) enjoy movies that have incorrect philosophies in them? Simply by remembering that you are Catholic first.

Entertainment is necessary for our survival. This is stated clearly by many saints. Even for those in the religious life, there are times when the body and mind become weak and recreation becomes necessary. God gives us entertainment as a means of relaxing after our work. In today’s society though there is much that is passed off as entertainment that is coarsening to our souls. As Catholics then we have three options for dealing with such a dilemma:

1. Attempt to close ourselves off from all modern entertainment.
2. Attempt to discern which entertainment is corrosive to our Catholicism and filter entertainment accordingly.
3. Freely accept all entertainment and trust that God’s grace will nullify the bad effects that improper entertainment might have.

There are various pros and cons to each of these positions. I’ll attempt to outline a few for each.

1. Seclusion from Modern Entertainment:
   • Pros:
     • Why ingest poison if you don’t have to? The same logic that governs why one doesn’t stare down the barrel of a loaded gun applies here. If it has been proven that modern entertainment is analogous to a minefield capable of destroying one’s soul, then the simple solution is not to enter the minefield.
     • It is easier to avoid than to ‘mine-sweep’. And since discerning involves researching the entertainment, it’s just less time consuming to assume all modern entertainment is guilty until proven innocent.
     • In the case of those who attempt to discern which entertainment is permissible and which isn’t, one must become acquainted with the entertainment in question at least on a peripheral level. This means that through the very act of research, one is at least peripherally exposed to the errors inherent in bad entertainment. Best to avoid all exposure to vice if possible.
   • Cons:
     • Catholics become completely out of touch with the world around them. We are called to be in the world and not of it. If we review the four marks of the Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, we take note of the last two: Catholic and Apostolic. We are called to spread the faith (Apostolic) and we are called to do so universally (Catholic) to everyone we meet. When St. Maximilian Kolbe traveled to Japan, he donned a long beard because Japanese culture viewed men with long beards as wise. So in order to evangelize more effectively, St. Maximilian Kolbe grew the beard in the hopes that the Japanese would listen to him. If we are unable to touch base with ANYTHING that modern society presents to us then we become like the Amish. Easily written off and forgotten. Who are the Amish? Exactly.
     • There is a finite amount of ‘old’ entertainment that has been produced. As much as it pains me to say it… Humphrey Bogart is dead. The poor guy just isn’t still starring in movies. John Wayne? Gone. Mozart? 6 feet under. Agatha Christie? Kicked the bucket. You can’t expect to find a limitless supply of something that has stopped being produced. And you also can’t expect yourself or your family to keep rehashing the same entertainment over and over. Entertainment is like food. You can only eat the same thing a few times in a row before you grow tired of it.
       • There are two counter-arguments here. One is to try something new that is old. But suppose it’s just not your thing? Very few people enjoy absolutely EVERYTHING that has been written. The second is to look for more of the same type. But sometimes there just isn’t anything that is as high a quality as what you’ve already tasted. So the end result is you end up lowering your standards to find ‘old’ entertainment. If you’re willing to lower your standards to find more ‘old’ entertainment, then why not simply lower your standards to try finding some ‘new’ entertainment? The counterarguments are self-defeating.
     • There is also the assumption here that ‘old’ entertainment is necessarily better entertainment. To those who think this is true, I challenge you to watch anything my Dad enjoys these days. There’s a lot of ‘old’ junk out there too. And to those who argue that non-Catholic entertainment is necessarily worse entertainment than Catholic entertainment, what of those older artists, musicians and authors that are not Catholic that have written magnificent works of literature? By contrast, how many Catholic films are there out there that just plain stink?
2. Discernment of Modern Entertainment
   • Pros:
     • Modern entertainment is still being produced. Although it may take a fine-toothed comb to find good entertainment among the muck, it at the very least will continually offer possibilities for one to consider.
     • The act of trial and error along with the accepting of suitable modern entertainment creates a touchstone for one with society. The day to day conversations, chatting with coworkers, the cashier at the coffee shot, etc. are all a little easier. You may have something in common. “Hey did you read The Hunger Games?” “I saw The Dark Knight the other day.” The person on the street knows these things because they are most likely not being as strict as you are. This gives you something to talk about. If you can talk to them and make them smile, maybe you’ll say something that the Holy Spirit can use to save their soul.
   • Cons:
     • The act of trial and error when looking for decent entertainment is a double-edged sword. It does mean that occasionally you will be exposed to anti-Catholic sentiments or content that is harmful to your soul.
       • The easy response to this is simply to “switch it off”. Get rid of the entertainment, whatever form it may be, the minute you realize it has crossed a line that you cannot in good conscience tolerate.
     • There can sometimes be a confusion about one’s motives regarding a certain form of entertainment both from Catholics and non-Catholics. For instance, a Catholic who is a fan of Elton John’s music will have a bear of a time explaining himself both to his Catholic and non-Catholic friends. The Catholics who fall under the more Benedictine like approach to entertainment will ask, “Why do you like music written by a man with Elton John’s lifestyle?” The simple answer is because one just likes the music. And to the extent that one doesn’t endorse the morally depraved works of a particular artist… you’re free to enjoy those works of theirs that are safe! But most Catholics of the Benedictine style have a hard time coping with/understanding this approach. Furthermore, non-Catholics, sometimes through ignorance and sometimes through malice, are ever ready to throw it in your face with the familiar line, “Oh I never would have guessed you like so-and-so’s music… And you’re that guy that goes to Church all the time too!” The stench of the piety-wears-a-dull-face argument is pungent as soon as it’s in the air.
       • You do have to have a go-to response to deal with this objection unless you plan on keeping it secret exactly how much modern entertainment you ingest.
     • This method of picking entertainment certainly does require the most amount of work. Entertainment must be researched, reviews read, sometimes one might take a chance on a film or song only to be disappointed and the game starts all over again. Rinse, lather, repeat.
       • My personal thought on this complaint: You want to have fun? Do a little work.
3. Complete Liberality in Entertainment
   • Pros:
     • Very little or no effort is extended in entertainment discernment making this a very easy process to follow.
   • Cons:
     • It’s hard to say that someone who is more free with their choices of entertainment doesn’t already display some form of “screening” when considering entertainment. Whether they say, “Oh that’s not my kind of thing… it’s too violent,” or “That film was too explicit for my liking,” at the end of the day… they are already behaving like the second possibility just on a much less rigorous scale.

 

Whichever path you choose to follow in your search for entertainment is up to you. Where one is able to draw the line and say that a given piece of entertainment is coarsening may be different from one person to another. The purpose of this article aside from a passing look at A Man for All Seasons is to argue that there are in fact methods of enjoying entertainment and even Catholicizing entertainment that was created by non-Catholics. A Man for All Seasons is a great movie. A phenomenal movie. Even though it isn’t in its heart a Catholic movie, it almost cannot be seen from any other light. So don’t be afraid to venture out into the land of  modern entertainment in search of Catholic recreation. Like the great explorers Lewis and Clark, you may not find what you are looking for but you may just find something useful none-the-less.