Talks with Authors: John Fisher and Thomas More: Keeping Their Souls While Losing Their Heads

Event Video

Listen & Download

In his recent book John Fisher and Thomas More: Keeping Their Souls While Losing Their Heads, Robert Conrad, who serves as a federal district court judge in the Western District of North Carolina, details the lives, trials, and executions of two Catholic saints who opposed King Henry's bid for ecclesiastical approval of his divorce. Thomas More, an attorney and close advisor to the king, underwent a trial filled with grievous errors, the deprivation of due process, and more. 

Judge Conrad will join us to discuss his book, these two men, and the enduring relevance of their stories.

Featuring: 

Hon. Robert Conrad, District Judge, Western District of North Carolina

Moderator: William Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America; Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, and Fellow, The Institute for Human Ecology

---

This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above. 

*******

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Event Transcript

[Music]

 

Dean Reuter:  Welcome to Teleforum, a podcast of The Federalist Society's practice groups. I’m Dean Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society. For exclusive access to live recordings of practice group Teleforum calls, become a Federalist Society member today at fedsoc.org.

 

 

Nick Marr:  Welcome, everyone, to this Federalist Society webinar, as this afternoon, April 12, 2022, we’re hearing about a recently published book — last year, I believe — and we’re calling this episode, Talks with Authors: John Fisher and Thomas More: Keeping Their Souls While Losing Their Heads. Now, this book was written by Judge Robert Conrad. He’s joining us today. I’m just going to do a very brief introduction here, and then we’ll get started. So I’m Nick Marr, Assistant Director of Practice Groups here at The Federalist Society. As always, please note that expressions of opinion on our call today are those of our expert.

 

We’re going to have some discussion of the book between moderator and the book’s author. We’ll be looking to you, the audience, for your questions towards the end of the program, so do submit those via the chat as we go along, so we can get to them at that point. I’ll also be sending a discount code. I believe it’s 25 percent off and free shipping on the publisher’s website. If you’d like to order this book after the program, I’ll be sending that in the chat as well.

 

So we’re very pleased to be joined today with moderating this discussion, Professor William Saunders. He's a professor at the Catholic University of America, Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, and a fellow at The Institute for Human Ecology. He’s also the Chairman of our Religious Liberties Practice Group. With that, Bill, thanks very much for being with us. The floor is yours.

 

William Saunders:  Thanks, Nick. Welcome to those who are joining. I want to say, as Chairman of the FedSoc’s Religious Liberty Practice Group that, if you’re interested in this general subject of religious liberties, join our Practice Group. We’d love to have you. It’s my privilege today to introduce a long-time friend of mine, Judge Robert Conrad, from the US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Judge Conrad was an outstanding student at Clemson University and an outstanding athlete.

 

After Clemson, he attended the University of Virginia, got his law degree there, and, as I say, he now lives in Charlotte, North Carolina with his wife Ann and their five children and ten grandchildren. I also want to say, before we start, that Judge Conrad is a man of many talents. I won’t say a man for all seasons, but a man of many talents. And he’s spearheading right now something in the federal courts, what’s called a Virginia Revival Courtroom, which is a way of setting up the courtroom that’s -- that goes back to colonial times and puts the jury in the center of attention. I’ve seen his courtroom in Charlotte, and it’s fascinating to see how it could affect the dynamics of courtroom advocacy, and I know he has a law review article coming out. I think it’s in the Duke Law Journal, either now -- it’s already come out, or it’s coming out very soon, if you want to learn more about that.

 

But, today, we want to talk about his book, which I hold up here for you to see, John Fisher and Thomas More: Keeping Their Souls While Losing Their Heads, a book that I’ve read, and it’s just -- it’s full of wonderful things, some of which we will explore today. And, Judge, before you start, why don’t you tell us where you’re coming to us from. It looks like a nice library.

 

Hon. Robert Conrad:  I wish it were my library. It actually is a photoshop picture of the library of John Henry Newman, who was a 19th century theologian and author. And I just think it looks a lot better than my messy chambers, and, so, I’m trying to get every advantage I can in talking to such an august group as this.

 

William Saunders:  Well, why don’t you tell us about the book. Give us an intro for those who haven’t heard of it before.

 

Hon. Robert Conrad:  So it’s a book about two 16th century figures, John Fisher and Thomas More. Thomas More, of course, is the more well-known of the two figures, being the subject of Robert Bolt’s incredible play, A Man for All Seasons, that was later turned into an Oscar-winning movie. More’s famous line is that he “died the king’s good servant, but God’s first,” and that’s the motivation for the book. John Fisher was a contemporary of More’s, and he, too, was a man of extreme talent. He was a bishop in the Catholic Church in England. He was also chaplain to the mother of the king. He was Chancellor of Cambridge University and a member of the upper Parliament.

 

Both men were executed for their refusal to go against their conscience and sign an oath inconsistent with their beliefs. And they -- their lives resonate with me. Maybe to come at this book from a motivation standpoint, I would quote Father Paul Scalia, who eulogized his father, the late, great Justice Scalia. And among the many beautiful things he said about his father, he said this. He said, “God blessed Dad, as is well-known, with a love for his country. He knew well what a close-run thing the founding of our nation was. And he saw in that founding, as did the founders themselves, a blessing, a blessing quickly lost when faith is banned from the public square, or when we refuse to bring it there. So he understood that there is no conflict between loving God and loving one’s country, between one’s faith and one’s public service. Dad understood that the deeper he went in his Catholic faith, the better a citizen and public servant he became. God blessed him with the desire to be the country’s good servant because he was God’s first.”

 

And that, of course, sounds something like Thomas More would have said and, in fact, did say. And, in any event, I couldn’t say it better, although I tried to do just that with the book. And, so, the question might become why would a federal judge in the middle of a pandemic, in the middle of a courthouse construction project with a busy docket and a desire to see ten grandkids spend time writing a book about two 16th century figures. And it's because I believe in the power of a well-told story to communicate truth. I know, when I was growing up as a trial lawyer, the advocacy advice I was given by a famous trial lawyer, Jerry McCarthy, the long-time public defender in Chicago. He would tell trial lawyers that, when they got up to speak to a jury, that they should stand up, clear their throats, straighten their tie, and then, say to themselves, “Once upon a time.”

 

And I know that as a grandkid, when I sit down -- grandfather, when I sit on a couch, and grandchildren want me to tell them a story, if I start out with the line, “Once upon a time,” I have their attention. And, so, Bill, if it’s all right with you, I’ll tell this story and then try to focus on some of the deeper truths that lie behind the story. So, once upon a time, at the beginning of the 16th century, the kings of England and Spain decided to expand their kingdoms by marrying off their children. And, so, Arthur, the two-year-old Prince of Wales in England was betrothed to Catherine, the three-year-old daughter of the king of Spain. And it seemed to be a good deal for both families. By marrying Arthur, the heir-apparent to the throne of England, Catherine became its future queen.

 

And for King Henry VII, his son’s marriage to Catherine meant that he could extend England’s rule across the Channel. And, so, in 1501, Catherine, now a teenager, came to England and finally met and married the 14-year-old Arthur. Sadly, the sickly Arthur died five months later, probably from a virus similar in many ways to the coronavirus of today. And Catherine would maintain throughout her life that the marriage was never consummated. And this is where our story begins. In 1509, Henry VII died.

 

And Arthur’s younger brother, Harry, became king of England, known to us as Henry VIII. And, in one of his first kingly acts, he married his brother’s widow, Catherine. And he even got a papal dispensation to remove any impediment to their marriage because of his wife’s prior betrothal to Arthur. And, in the eyes of God, as declared by the pope, the couple’s marriage was valid. King Henry and Queen Catherine would live together amicably for close to 20 years and several children were borne of their marriage, but only one — a girl, Mary — survived. And over that period of time, Henry VIII veered towards self-indulgence.

 

He overate, overplayed, and slept around. His wandering eye settled on Anne Boleyn, one of Catherine’s maids, and the sister of Mary Boleyn, a woman with whom he had previously had an affair. Henry’s other obsession was to bear a male heir, and these two obsessions combined in his mind to the extent that he thought of little else, other than how to divorce Catherine, marry Anne Boleyn, and conceive a son. And this became known as “The King’s Great Matter.” Henry was determined to get his way and to have others ratify his conduct as proper. And at his initiative, Parliament passed two bills.

 

The first one was the Act of Succession, which declared any offspring of Anne Boleyn to be the rightful heir to the throne and, conversely, that any children of his first wife, Catherine, were deemed illegitimate. And this was soon followed by an oath required of all nobles and bishops. And then the second act Parliament passed was the Act of Treason, which made it treasonous to speak maliciously against any of the king’s titles, including his title as Supreme Head of the Church of England. So that’s the story and the background to the courageous stands taken by Bishop John Fisher and Lord Chancellor Thomas More. As to the legitimacy of the first marriage, having granted a dispensation for the marriage to Catherine, the pope was not inclined to annul it. And after years of study, both More and Fisher concluded in their own consciences that the papacy was divinely instituted by Christ and had the power to declare upon the legitimacy of the marriage.

 

Each refused to sign the required oath; it being against their conscience. And later, they would be executed on trumped-up charges that they had spoken maliciously against the king’s title of Supreme Head of the Church of England. In realty, both men were loyal servants of the king, but they were more than that. They were holy men determined to stand for truth, for the divine institution of the papacy and, ultimately, for the hope of eternal life. With a passage of time, they were recognized for their heroic lives and deaths. Both are considered saints and share Feast Days, recognized on June 22nd in the Catholic Church, which is the anniversary of Fisher’s beheading, and on July 6th in the Anglican Church, which is the anniversary of More’s beheading.

 

But that’s background to two essential events I want to talk about in a six-year period between the time of 1529 and 1535 in England. In 1529, two very significant things happened. The first was that, in the king’s efforts to orchestrate a divorce and a remarriage, he had gotten the papacy to agree to have a hearing in England, saving Henry the expense and time and possible embarrassment and humiliation of going to Rome to get his annulment. And instead, Rome sent two representatives to England to conduct a hearing in the Great Hall. And, so, this hearing is the first thing I want to discuss today. It’s called a Legatine hearing.

 

It was presided over by two cardinals of the Catholic Church. It was attended by every noble and every bishop in the realm. And the two principal players were King Henry VIII and his wife, Catherine. And Catherine started out the hearing, when she was called into court by going to the king, kneeling in front of him, and telling him that she had been a faithful wife, that she had left her country to come to his to serve him, that she had made his friends her friends, that she had borne his children — and, through no fault of her own, those children had died, except for the one daughter — that she had lived a life of devotion, and she begged him not to cut her loose. And then she committed her cause to God and left. And this put the king in an awkward position in front of his -- the leaders of his country.

 

And, so, he tried to recover his ground. He said to them that his desire for the annulment was not related to any interest in another woman but, rather, for the realm of England, and he worried about the legitimacy of his heirs and had begun to think that, having married his brother’s wife, that he had sinned and that his wedding, his marriage was not blessed by God. And he announced to all of the people in the hearing that every bishop in the realm agreed with him on this theological position. Henry, being used to being affirmed in everything he said and did, waited for the silent assent of the bishops gathered. Instead, he heard one voice calling out from the queen’s bench. It was John Fisher, and John Fisher said, “No, sir, not I. You have not my consent thereto.”

 

And then the king turned to the archbishop — and he didn’t have the kind of electronic evidence presentation equipment we have today in our trials — but he had a fist full of affidavits from the bishops. And he turned to the archbishop, and he said to the archbishop, waving these affidavits in the air, “Did you not tell me that every bishop in the realm had confirmed my theological position in this matter?” And the archbishop, weakly, consented to the king’s statement. And, again, it was Fisher, having stood up to the king, then stands up to his own archbishop, and he says, “That nothing more untrue has ever been said. I did not sign the affidavit, for it was much against my conscience.” A very stirring kind of courtroom scene in which a man stands on conscience against all the powers in the kingdom, both temporal and spiritual.

 

And his biographer says this of his words. He says, “The effect of Fisher’s words must have been breathtaking, and, yet they are of a piece with everything we know of the man. No one else in kingdom would’ve dared to give the lie in public to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the king.” And, so, this stand on conscience is going to be characteristic of both men. More describes his position to his daughter, when his daughter says, “Well, can’t you just believe in your mind one thing and sign something else to earn your freedom?” And More says to his daughter that signing an oath against conscience is like a man holding water in his hands, and, if he were ever to separate his hands, he would never be able to recover the water that they previously contained.

 

And a man who would be willing to sign an oath against his conscience would never hope to find himself again. And, so, it really is this remarkable willingness to act consistently with a well-formed conscience that attracts me to both these men. And they’re described in Robert -- More is described in Robert Bolt’s book as a person who had an adamantine sense of his own self, and later, he refers to him as “a hero of selfhood.” And my study of these men brought me to a different conclusion as to the source of their conscience. I don’t think it was a subjective belief in self that is portrayed in More’s -- or Robert Bolt’s preface but more of an objective belief in eternal truth. And, so, Bolt registers the emphasis in the phrase, “I believe,” on the pronoun, “I,” as in I believe, and I think that a proper understanding of these two men would register the emphasis on the verb of believe: I believe.

 

And, so, it’s an objective kind of conscience informed by great study — and I would suggest, also, prayer — so that, when they reached a point of informed conscience, they were perfectly willing to stand on that conscience, whatever came their way. And what came their way was a lengthy period of imprisonment followed by execution, which both men responded to in an amazingly cheerful way. They had studied the scriptures and the church fathers. They had come to an understanding of the matter which had been consistent with -- which was -- which, with that, that was understood for a thousand years and a thousand places. It was not their truth or the king’s truth that they were willing to commit their lives to but the truth of God as they understood it. It was not the right of self-will but the duty to obey the divine voice within, and that divine voice, which they understood to be conscience, spoke to them of issues of right and wrong, reconciliation, justice, truth, wisdom, sanctity, benevolence, and mercy.

 

Fisher and More recognized their respective duty to properly inform their conscience to ascertain the divine voice within, but once informed, they understood their duty to act according to it. And, so, their lives reflect this pattern of study, coming to an understanding of things and then acting very consistently with their informed conscience. The second thing that happened in 1529 was that the king wanted to name his very close friend, Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England. And More was hesitant to take that position. He knew that the king and he disagreed on this “Great Matter.” And he was unwilling to subject himself to a position where he served the king and there was a matter of such great consequence that they would come to see differently.

 

And he expressed this to the king, and the king told him that “in my great manner -- in my great matter, you should look first to God and, after that, to me.” And it was upon that understanding that More accepted the role as Lord Chancellor. But things did not work out, according to the agreed-upon approach, and the king became insistently more determined, not only to divorce Catherine and marry Anne Boleyn, but also to have everybody in the kingdom sign an oath that he was doing the right thing and that the first marriage was invalid — second marriage was valid — and that the papacy had nothing to say about it. More’s response to that was to retire as Lord Chancellor but to remain silent. He believed that the law protected him if he were silent, that under the law the only thing anyone could conclude from his silence was actually assent, and, so, being a brilliant lawyer, that was his intended result, to resign from public life and to live out his life in peace with his family. Because of the integrity of both men and the watching kingdom of England and the world at large, it was insufficient to Henry for them to remain silent.

 

He required an oath, and both men were imprisoned by bill of attainder, where Parliament would just say, “You’re guilty without the necessity of a trial.” And, so, both men were imprisoned in 1534 with others who refused to sign the oath. And we fast-forward to 1535. And I want to talk about a series of trials, which began in that year, involving three separate sets of people who were in prison for refusing to sign the oath because, while they were in prison, Henry had the second act passed, which made it treasonous to maliciously speak against the king’s title. Both More and Fisher were in prison for life. They were legally dead.

 

They had never spoken against the king’s title. And, so, the king sent interrogators into their cells to trick them into saying something that could be prosecuted under this act. One of the most important parts of the treason statute was that it was only malicious speaking that got you in trouble, and, so, there were three trials in the summer of 1535. The first trial involved a group of Carthusian monks, who had been asked to sign the oath. And when they refused to sign it as being inconsistent with their own monastic oaths, namely that Henry was the Head of the Church of England, they were imprisoned. And they were brought to trial — and these were men that were not politically active.

 

They were, as I said, monks who’d led a life of prayer and work and stayed out of politics but found themselves in prison, being tried by a jury for their lives. And their defense was, “We didn’t sign the oath, not out of malice, but because we’re monks. All we do is pray and work and concentrate on our vocation, no malice involved at all.” In fact, the jury agreed with them and acquitted the three monks. But when their not guilty verdicts were read in open court, the judges said that the word, “malice,” has no meaning, that anything that is said against the king’s title is, by definition, malice. And, so, this element was -- which was put in place intentionally by Parliament to protect innocent speaking, was read right out of the statute by corrupt judges.

 

And, so, the jurors were sent back in to deliberate again. And they came back again with a not guilty verdict. Apparently, the just simple humility and integrity of the monks had put the jury in a situation where they just would not return a verdict of guilty, until they were sent back into the deliberation room for a third time, and this time, the prosecutor, Cromwell, went in and instructed the jury on what the king wanted in terms of a verdict. And, so, they came back a third time with guilty verdicts, which subjected these three monks to capital punishment. And it was said of the jurors that they were ashamed of their verdict from that day forward. That was in the middle of June.

 

The next trial was John Fisher’s, a few days later. And John Fisher had recently been made a cardinal of the Catholic Church by the pope. The pope erroneously concluding that, if he added a status to Fisher by making him a cardinal, that it might get him out of trouble in England. And, in fact, the opposite happened, that Harry’s response to the hearing that the cardinal was going to send a red hat to England, signifying John Fisher’s status as a cardinal. King Henry said that “he can send the hat if he wants, but there won’t be a head to put it on.” And, so, John Fisher, the bishop/Chancellor of Cambridge, finds himself on trial for his life.

 

And he, too, relies upon this element of malice in his defense because a way he was tricked into saying anything about the king’s title at all was that one of the king’s men, an odious fellow named Richard Rich, went into his cell and told him that he was sent by the king and that anything said would not be used against him, that the king earnestly wanted the bishop’s spiritual counsel on whether he was doing the right thing or not. And upon those terms, John Fisher, ever the priest, gave him his candid response that he believed that the king’s conduct was sinful, erroneous, and he urged him to repent. And it was that conversation — again, Fisher’s belief that it was more of a confessional-type thing, where the king was earnestly seeking his true answer, and he was promised immunity — it was that conversation that was the sole evidence presented at his trial. Fisher’s defense, as he talked to the judges, was this, and he said, “I pray you, my lords, consider that by all equity, justice, worldly honesty, and courteous dealing, I cannot, as the case stands, be directly charged with treason. Though I had spoken the words, indeed, the same being not spoken maliciously but in the way of advice and counsel when it was requested of me by the king himself.”

 

Same jury that sat on the trial of the Carthusian monks convicted Fisher of treason, and that led to the third trial of Thomas More, the one that is the subject of Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons. More, being a brilliant lawyer, compared the element of malice in the treason statute with the element of forcible entry in the criminal statute and defended himself by saying that “if you have an entry but not with force, you may have a wrong but not a violation of the forcible entry statute.” And then, he uses that analogy to defend himself. And he says that “and if I had done so, indeed, as Master Rich has sworn” — the same Rich that went into Fisher’s cell on the same day went into Thomas More’s cell and then had a conversation with him in the presence of two other men. And Rich will testify, perjuriously, at More’s trial, that More told him that Parliament had no authority to make the king head of the church in England. More denies ever saying this, but he says, “Even if I did, seeing that it was spoken but in familiar, secret talk, nothing affirming, and only putting of cases without displeasant circumstances, it cannot justly be taken to be spoken maliciously. And where there is no malice, there can be no offense.”

 

And then, he also says to Richard Rich that he had more -- sorry for Rich’s perjury than for his own peril. And, so, it took the jury about 15 minutes to convict More of treason. And I went into length in these three trials in the bloody summer of 1535 because I’m speaking to lawyers. And I -- I’m just appalled by the lack of due process that was contained in the trials of the monks, of John Fisher, and Thomas More, certainly no discovery, certainly no right of appeal. But, at the end of the day, an element of malice that is intentionally put into a statute by a legislative body for the purpose of protecting innocent speech is corruptly read out of the statute by judges at a trial in order to achieve a for-ordained result at the biding of a vengeful despot. It really is an aspect of the lives and death of Fisher and More that really impacted me as a lawyer and as a judge.

 

It’s interesting that, seven days before the trial of Thomas More, the king had issued a circular publication, commenting on the treason of Thomas More, even before any evidence was presented to a jury or a jury ever convicted Thomas More. These two men had been imprisoned for over a year without the benefit of a trial and then were subject to show trials that had little to do with justice or due process. So that is the legal aspect of these lives in this book. I want to spend the last few minutes, talking about the last days of Fisher and More before maybe opening things up to questions. So, after the trials, in June for Fisher and July for More, similar sentences were imposed on both men.

 

And the sentence read as follows, “You are to be drawn on a hurdle through the city of London to Tyburn, there to be hanged until you be half dead. And, after that, cut down, yet alive, your bowels to be taken out of your body and burned before you. Your privy parts cut off. Your head cut off. Your body divided in four parts, and your head and body to be set at such places as the king shall assign,” a gruesome, brutal verdict. That was mercifully commuted by the king to simple beheading.

 

We all know the More’s response. G. K. Chesterton refers to More as “the man who died laughing,” which resonates with Pope Saint John Paul II’s description of him: “There was harmony between the natural and supernatural, which enabled him to live his intense public life with a simple humility marked by good humor, even at the moment of his execution.” More asked his executioner for help up the steps of the scaffold, telling him he would see his own way down. He warned him of his short neck and asked him to strike clean. He said his beard had never offended the king. He kissed the executioner and told him, “Thou will give me this day greater benefit than ever any mortal man can be able to give me.”

 

And he recited Psalm 51, which begins, “Have mercy upon me, O God, and according to thy loving kindness.” And, of course, he uttered the famous line, “I die the king’s good servant and God’s first.” I doubt that any sentence uttered by any person of that time is more remembered than today. But the last day of John Fisher’s life is little known. In the early morning hours of June 22nd, around 5 a.m., the Tower Lieutenant came to Fisher with good news and bad news. The good news was that the king in his mercy had commuted his sentence from all that hanging, cutting, bowel removing, burning, and dividing to simple beheading.

 

The bad news was that it was going to take place in four hours. And Fisher’s reaction was to thank the guard and then said he would go back to sleep. His life of virtue led him to respond to the news of his imminent execution by taking a nap. And he got up shortly before 9 o’clock, dressed in his finest clothes, told his servant that it was his marriage day, and “it behooves us to dress for the solemnity of the marriage.” And then, he did a random thing. He just took a copy of the New Testament off the shelf and went down to the courtyard to await the sheriffs for the trek to his place of execution.

 

And as he waited, he opened the New Testament at random and read from the book of John. He read this, “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” And he closed the book and remarked to those who were around, “Here is learning enough for me, even to my life’s end.” And at the scaffold, he told the gathered people that he died for Christ’s holy Catholic Church, asked God to save the king and the realm, and prayed that God may hold His holy hand over it and send the king good counsel.

 

And then, he prayed Psalm 31, which says, “I am forgotten as a dead man out of mind; I am like a broken vessel. For I have hear the slander of many, ‘Fear was on every side,” while they took counsel together against me and devised to take away my life. But I trusted in thee, O Lord; I said, ‘Thou art my God.’” And he stretched out his body. The headsman struck one blow at the outstrike -- stretched body, and the head of the first canonized cardinal martyr, like the Baptist head he had long honored, had won its title to a place forever on the altar of sacrifice.

 

And after he was beheaded, they stripped him and left him naked overnight, threw him in a shallow grave the next morning, and his head was set up on London Bridge. Two weeks later, it taken down to make room for the head of Thomas More. And this is a difficult place to end, two heads on a pole, when all along it has been my hope to present these men to you in an attractive way, as lives worthy of imitation. But maybe this is a good place to end for, when all is said and done, we stand where More stood when warned that the wrath of the king is death. “Is that all, my lord?” said More. “Then, in good faith, there is no more difference between your grace and me, but -- that I shall die today and you tomorrow. For a man may lose his head and have no harm.” And I think that is a message for all seasons. Thank you.

 

William Saunders:  Beautiful, beautiful, Judge. Two sublime lives, well-rendered in your book. One thing that you said that struck me, in particular, was that, when Rich’s perjury was being done in trial or before the king, that Thomas More said that he was sad more for Rich’s perjury than for his own peril. So why would More think that that perjury was so bad? And what I’m really asking is to take us into one of your chapters. Your book chapters are single-word, compelling things, like “Conscience,” “Truth,” and the third is “Oath.” So I assume More was referring to the fact that Rich was lying, contrary to his oath to tell the truth.

 

Hon. Robert Conrad:  Yeah. And, so, to both Fisher and More, to speak against their conscience under oath had eternal consequences. And, so, More’s daughter would say to him, “Can’t you just cross your fingers? Can’t you believe in your heart something else and sign this oath?” And More said he couldn’t, that testifying falsely jeopardized his eternal soul. And it’s a profound viewpoint of life.

 

Both More and Fisher, throughout their lives, would maintain an understanding of their lives, that this was prelude to an eternal life, and what you believed and said on earth matters to your eternal destiny in heaven. And, so, it was unthinkable to them to testify or sign an oath inconsistent with their true belief. What’s remarkable about that, Bill, is, in my course of conduct as a judge, I’ve seen and administered and actually taken hundreds, perhaps thousands, of oaths, and the seriousness which these men approached oath-taking and testimony given is profound. When I looked at the North Carolina statute that speaks to giving and taking of an oath, it references this very same attitude, that there’s an omniscient, omnipotent God who rewards truth-telling and punishes falsehood, and that’s in our modern-day statutes. That’s -- would that our -- the witnesses that appear in our cases had that serious and attitude, that eternal perspective, would that we in our relationships with each other, would take the necessity of integrity and truth-telling to heart. I think it would profoundly impact the world we live in.

 

William Saunders:  I think it’s interesting that the whole judicial system is built on a premise of this integrity and of an obligation to something beyond yourself, so you swear to it because you’re responsible to it, and, for most people, that’s God, of course. But I just think it’s interesting that our whole Western system of justice couldn’t really function without this kind of deep integrity as constitutive of the whole process, and that’s also why it’s so mind-blowing that Cromwell would instruct a jury what verdict to bring. I just think that’s -- and when that breaks down, the whole system breaks down, and you will have injustice, which you had in those cases.

 

Hon. Robert Conrad:  Yeah. And, so, as a former trial attorney, current judge, I love jury trials. I believe passionately in that institution. And you mentioned that the tinkering that we do, even with the placement of where the jury box is in a courtroom, all of that is to make this profound search for truth more meaningful, more effective. And, at the end of the day, it depends for its validity on the willingness of that witness -- put their hand on the Bible, raise their other hand, and swear to the truth, so help them, God. And, yes, it speaks to us over the centuries, that these men gave up everything rather than to violate that oath.

 

And I’d add this, Bill, it -- these were happy men who went to their death, believing that they would meet their judges and their prosecutors and their enemies in the next life and that they would be merry with them together. And it was this sense that they had a faith in something they couldn’t see. They had a hope that didn’t depend on appearances, and they had a love that was based in eternal things. And it actually affected their whole personas. These were joyful, happy men who witnessed to truth in their own day and are witnesses to truth 500 years later.

 

William Saunders:  Yeah, I know that people -- I’m sure some people -- I’m sure most people listening know Thomas More -- or anybody who just happened to get on -- he was one of the men of Europe. He was, along with Erasmus, was one of the great minds of Europe, so people were naturally paying attention to what happened to him. I think it’s interesting, Bob, that John Fisher was also one of those men, although many people nowadays haven’t heard of him because, as you mentioned, he was Chancellor of Cambridge University. He founded one or two colleges there. And he was elected or made chancellor for life of one of the -- and also enjoyed the esteem of Erasmus and many others.

 

But I’m fascinated and grateful that you brought him into this book because I hope everybody listening has seen the film, A Man for All Seasons, where you can get to know More to some extent, although you point out where its -- the portrayal’s a little bit defective, but it’s still pretty good. But very few people have ever heard of Fisher, and he is one of the great -- well, one of the great saints and one of the great minds in Western history.

 

Hon. Robert Conrad:  Yeah, he was considered the best preacher of his day. For ten years in a row, annually re-elected as Chancellor of Cambridge, and then they just gave up and made him chancellor for life. He actually died as the Chancellor of Cambridge University. In the weeks leading up to his death, there were some amendments to the charter that had to be signed by the chancellor. And they actually brought those scrolls to his cell, figuring he would just sign them to be done with it. But he made them stay while he perused every line, every word, and only when he was satisfied that it in the best interest of Cambridge, did he sign off on it.

 

And, so, these were men that didn’t shirk the work. Part of the model that I think they are for us is they weren’t flippant in their opposition. They studied for years, prayed hard, but once they became firmly convinced, they were able to live their lives consistent with their convictions, and that model, I think, is a wonderful one for lawyers. So do the work, seek the truth, and then live in accordance with it.

 

William Saunders:  Well, let me ask Nick, if you have any questions you would like to bring in for Judge Conrad.

 

Nick Marr:  Yeah, this has been a great discussion. Just a quick reminder for the audience, if you’d like to ask a question, please send that in via the chat or the Q&A chat. We have one question, and it is — oh, and another one just popped up — recommended biographies and primary sources that you recommend or that you may have used in your research.

 

Hon. Robert Conrad:  What a great question. There is a bibliography in the book. I think the best biography of More that I read was by a professor at the University of Dallas named Gerard Wegemer, and he wrote a biography called, Portrait of Courage. Peter Ackroyd has a great biography of More, as does John Guy. And there’s some older ones that are great as well. The best biography that I read of John Fisher was by an author named Michael Macklem, M-A-C-K-L-E-M. And his book is titled, God Have Mercy, and it’s great.

 

William Saunders:  Hey, Nick. Let me say a word, before you give the next question, about the organization of the Judge’s book. So, obviously, for Christians, we’re in Holy Week, and there’s some very interesting things Judge Conrad has at the end about some of the prayers that More and Fisher used, said, or wrote or prepared for others. And that’s a great resource for you. This book is -- I wish we had done this a few weeks ago because this book is a great resource for Holy Week. Okay, Nick. You got another question?

 

Nick Marr:  Yeah, great point. This question is about -- you -- Judge, you spoke about the informed consciences of Fisher and More. The questioner says, “In 1521, before the Diet of Worms, Martin Luther declared that ‘going against conscience was neither right nor safe.’ In your research, did you find whether this appeal to conscience arose at that time or was a long-standing or traditional approach to these kinds of questions?”

 

Hon. Robert Conrad:  The whole -- what a great question in added history. But the whole history of England involved this struggle to understand issues between church and state and go back to Magna Carta, and leaders of England are wrestling with that, the role of the king, the role of the Church and certainly go back to Thomas Beckett and his issues with Henry II. I think, in the 16th century, the nations are fumbling towards an understanding of church/state relationship, far short of our own understanding of religious liberty and freedom but struggling towards it. And it's a profound thing that under the Tudor kings, both Catholic and Protestant, that religious dissenters were executed at such astronomical rates. I think now there are some estimates that over 50,000 people lost their lives because of their willingness to follow their conscience in religious matters when it went against the religion of the king then in power.

 

And, so, there’s a sense, in Fisher and More, that there is objective truth, that it’s discoverable, and that one has a duty to pursue that truth, but, once there’s an understanding of what that truth is, right or wrong, as suggested in the question, it would be wrong to go against that understanding of truth. And, so, Fisher and More are on a threshold of a Renaissance period in the world, and there’s much about the new learning that they supported and embraced. But they’re anchored into the truths that have been found to be true over the centuries and millennia, and that’s an interesting balance that those men achieved in that day.

 

[CROSSTALK]

 

William Saunders:  Well, I just wondered, Judge Conrad, why did you include Fisher? What lead you to -- I understand it. It makes sense, but you’re one of the few, if maybe the only one who’s ever done it.

 

Hon. Robert Conrad:  I had an adult lifetime admiration for More and a growing understanding of Fisher’s importance in that day and a sense that, in this storytelling mode that I was in, believing that a good story can communicate powerfully, given truths. They were men of the same period, wrestling with the same issue, but they were completely different. More is the witty, brilliant, public man, and Fisher is this ascetic, studious priest. And, yet they wind up in the same place, holding the same, courageous convictions in a way that, together, I thought, made a more compelling story. So, for instance, if you were more of an introvert, if you were more scholarly, if you didn’t care about the political affairs of the world, Fisher might speak to you in a way that More never did.

 

And my own personality and public career and sense of big family and love of people, More speaks to me more naturally; where I learn more about the right path through my study of the discipline and the courage of John Fisher, a man who is very different from me. So, presenting these two personalities, at the same time, in the same era, was  something that really appealed to me.

 

William Saunders:  Thank you, Judge. Nick, are we about out of time?

 

Nick Marr:  That’s great. We’re at 3 o’clock, so I’ll just offer -- Bill, unless you have any closing thoughts to offer.

 

William Saunders:  The one thought I’d have is it’s a great book. Get a hold of a copy.

 

Nick Marr:  That’s a good note to end on. Well, thank you, both, very much. On behalf of The Federalist Society, I want to offer our sincere thanks for your time, your expertise, Judge Conrad, for your time in putting together this book and presenting on it here today. Thank you to our audience, of course, for calling in and your great questions. Keep an eye on your email and our website for announcements about upcoming events, like this one. And in the meantime, check out the book. Until that next event, we are adjourned.

 

 

[Music]

 

 

Dean Reuter:  Thank you for listening to this episode of Teleforum, a podcast of The Federalist Society’s practice groups. For more information about The Federalist Society, the practice groups, and to become a Federalist Society member, please visit our website at fedsoc.org.