Leland Miles critically examines the merits of the 1935 canonization of Thomas More and its resonance in Great Britain. He reinforces the doubts of critic Ernest Baker, who poses this difficult question to More’s legacy: “is a free conscience which keeps silence really free?” (19). Accordingly, Miles opines that, because More maintained silence, or worse, did not actively oppose Henry’s treatment of Lutheran heretics while he was chancellor, More is at best an “unsatisfactory Saint” or, worse, a “negative martyr”.

             In his account, Miles applies More’s own definition of torture from his Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation to his personal treatment of heretics. The three forms of torture More articulates are: lowest, the deprival of property; intermediate, minor harassment; and most intense, painful death. There is little evidence More, as Lord Chancellor, violated the first form with anything besides confiscating Lutheran books (21). With regards to the second tenant, critics argue that he imprisoned heretics, but supporters contend he treated them in accordance with the law. With regards to the most intense form of torture, it is noted that he burned heretics. In his defense, it is likely that More had little oversight over these burnings because they occurred at the end of his tenure when he possessed less power. Additionally, More viciously attacked the views of Luther (27). However, Miles contends, the state, not the church was ultimately responsible for these deaths, and, as Lord Chancellor, More was in the position of ultimate responsibility.

            Though More may have had little influence over these outcomes, and they may have perceivably been justified to protect the church (26), Miles contends that “one must regret that a Saint followed, rather than transcended, the predominant views of his time” (26). In short, at a minimum More acted with disregard for the principles he espoused in Utopia, but it could simply be the case that “More simply changed his mind”(30) over time.