I used to say positive law... Am I now a follower of natural law?

For a long time, I have worried about the loss of my integrity and fidelity to concepts that I once held dear.

I have long believed that no person can have more than one sovereign. A sovereign is someone or something whose judgment is substituted for your own. For some people, their sovereign might be their boss at a workplace. For some, it might be a concept of racial identity or purity. For some, it might be adherence to a moral code or religious precept. Some people (crazy people) might yield their own choices to voices that they hear in their head. Yet others will place their sovereign in the realm of government.

In reality, people will claim to have many sovereigns. We will obey our bosses while on the job, and our government when deciding whether to engage in stealing. The 1935 Nazi in Germany might do what the Fuhrer commands in the name of racial purity. The zealous religionist who slays an abortion doctor will claim that they are doing the will of God, not their own.

In the end, though, we must choose a single sovereign to place above all others, since the wills of the various institutions, people, or ideas that compete for the place of being our sovereign can conflict with each other. Just as the religionist who slays the abortion doctor, we must decide whether to follow one potential sovereign (the government which commands that we not kill other citizens) or another potential sovereign (the religionists view of a religion which demands that he kill someone who is evil to prevent them from further committing gravely evil deeds).

This was all brought up by a recent viewing of the fantastic 1966 movie, “A Man for all Seasons.” I’d seen it before as an undergraduate, but had largely forgotten much of the central messages of the film. For those of you who haven’t seen the movie, it is a thrilling morality play concerning a man who faces precisely the type of choice I have outlined above: whose orders is he supposed to follow?

The story takes place in England during the reign of Henry VIII (I may be off by a King or two since my grasp on English history isn’t very strong). Thomas More is a friend of the King and privy to much of the King’s thoughts and experiences. When the King decides to prevent a foreseeable civil war for succession upon his death (due to a lack of a male heir) by divorcing his current wife (who is barren) for another who can bear him a male heir, the Catholic Church in Rome opposes the action (no divorces are allowed). King Henry VIII then declares himself the head of the new Church of England and seizes title to being the spiritual leader for all Englishmen, and to legitimize his position, he asks all of his nobles to swear an oath recognizing him as the head of the church.

Thomas More is troubled by this and refuses to say the oath. He is chastised, loses his friends and property, is thrown in prison, and eventually executed, all while knowing full well that his family will continue to pay the cost for his refusal to say the oath, paying maybe even with their lives as well.

Through all of the film, More must decide whether he is to follow the laws of his King, and simply say the oath (he does not even have to mean it when he says the words), or follow the laws of his God (and refuse to recognize any but the holder of the papacy in Rome). Even though he chooses the path which dooms him in life, he prepares for his death by proclaiming in Parliament that he is the King’s loyal servant… but God’s first.

Thomas More exhibits a kind of grim and absolute integrity that is fascinating in its sheer level of fidelity. He holds to his principles, and no threats, inducements, or blandishments will sway him to sacrifice the only thing that truly matters: his honor.

We all have many potential sovereigns which make claims upon us. The real question that I, and every person, needs to seriously ask themselves is who they are willing to follow.