LESSONS FROM THOMAS MORE'S DILEMMA OF CONSCIENCE: RECONCILING THE CLASH BETWEEN A LAWYER'S BELIEFS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATIONS

St. John's Law Review, Fall 2004 by Morant, Blake D

Many lawyers today periodically grapple with conflicts between personally held beliefs and expectations. I surmise that few possess Thomas More's ideological resolve and, thus, struggle to reconcile these conflicts, if reconciliation is indeed possible. Given this reality, my Article will not proffer ineffectual, formulaic solutions. Instead, it advocates a greater appreciation of both the prevalence of these conflicts and an understanding of the fundamental differences of contrary beliefs should contribute to more balanced decision-making by lawyers who confront troublesome dilemmas of conscience.

I. JURISPRUDENTIAL ROOTS OF THE CLASH BETWEEN PERSONAL BELIEFS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATIONS

Comprehension of Thomas More's dilemma of conscience requires analysis of the fundamental differences between personally held moral beliefs,19 professional expectations and objectives,20 and contextual accommodations of a sovereign's goals or expectations.21 In my view, the clash of these values arises because of their respective jurisprudential differences. Particularly in the case of Thomas More, beliefs, professional expectations, and contextual accommodations fit generally within the following jurisprudential categories: natural law, which is grounded in tenets of morality;22 positive law, which by definition is human generated;23 and contextual laws, which facilitate contemporary societal needs or objectives.24

The differing positions and objectives of the protagonists in More's historic drama are reflective of these jurisprudential categories of law and legal interpretation. Summarily stated, Thomas More's moralistic beliefs, which evince a strong nexus to theological dogma, appear closely associated with natural law.25 Henry VIII's proclamation as Supreme Head of the Church as far as the law of God will permit,26 and his 1534 Act of Succession that established his issue with Anne Boleyn as heirs to the throne, function as positive law. Thomas Cromwell's quest to accommodate Henry VIII's proclamations and his commensurate desire for More to endorse the King's proclamations equate to rules formed from context.28 As discussed below, these more western conceptualizations of law and legal interpretation29 form the ideological bases for the clash experienced by More and, perhaps, many contemporary lawyers.

A. More 's Beliefs as Natural Law Conceptualizations

Thomas More's personal beliefs appear well rooted in theological principles. His writings between 1499-1503 demonstrate the fervor with which he believed in, and was committed to, religious tenets and customs.30 This is not to suggest that More's intellectual acumen was confined to theology.31 An exceptionally gifted student of several subjects, his writings include a number of respected pieces in the classics.32

The study of ecclesiastical and theological doctrine, however, appears to have been More's true, consuming passion. His knowledge of church doctrine led to an appearance at the Church of St. Lawrence Jewry, where his lecture on St. Augustine's De civitate Dei impressed many theologians of the time.33 There was little doubt that More was consumed with exercises of piety and belief in a higher Divine order of human existence.34 So strong were his religious convictions that he contemplated entering the priesthood.35 Erasmus, a close friend and confidante, commented on More's commitment to theology and the religious order: