Hythloday’s account of the state of religion in Utopia reveals numerous points of resemblance to Christianity but also some striking differences from certain religious practices in 1516. His remote islanders believe in one supreme and omnipotent deity, and their belief in immortality is very strong. Other resemblances to Christianity are: their high standard of morality, their priestly caste, their ascetics, their prayers, and their hymns. It is not surprising that, when they were instructed in the teachings of Christ, they found them appealing and were readily converted. The similarities between the two religions are in matters of ethical teachings and metaphysics, not in those practices which were criticized most frequently as church abuses.
The points of difference between the Utopian religion and the Christian are sometimes startling. At the outset, we learn that the Utopians were granted religious freedom and that a variety of sects were extant, each with its particular doctrines and special ceremonies. No such liberality was to be found in the Roman Catholic world, which was firm in its insistence upon the principle of one church and one authoritative doctrine.
The elimination of superstition from the Utopian scene represents an improvement for which the Christian reformers had long been clamoring.
In discussing the priests in Utopia, Hythloday’s first point is that they were men of eminent piety. That remark, under ordinary circumstances, should be taken as a matter of course; but, considering the outcries against laxity and corruption among the clergy in Europe, it sounds suspiciously like an indirect thrust at the Christian priesthood. Then, too, the fact that a relatively few priests serve the Utopian nation adequately, 13 in a large city, marks a contrast to the situation in Christian countries. The fact that Utopian priests could marry represents a departure from the Catholic rule of celibacy. Another surprising contrast to the Christian rule was that in Utopia, women were sometimes appointed to the priesthood. Finally, the service of a priest was not required for making confession in Utopia, as was the absolute requirement in Europe. Hearing confessions was, in Utopia, a family affair.
The ways in which the Utopian religion differs from orthodox Catholicism happen to conform to modifications recommended by reformers for the Catholic church. The question naturally arises as to whether or not More was recommending those modifications along with other reformer-critics, like Erasmus, for example. It is not possible to prove either that More did or did not subscribe to those changes on the basis of textual evidence. One group of readers will be convinced that he subscribed to those “improvements” found in the Utopian system. Other readers, reasoning on the basis of More’s demonstrated loyalty to his Church, will discount the idea of his supporting those practices and argue that this passage, like the rest of Utopia, should be considered a fantasy which More did not take seriously.
