Although used as a derogatory term, Church papists constituted the majority of the Catholic population. These papists outwardly conformed to Elizabeth’s changes as the Supreme Governor. They were only nominal Protestants and were loyal because they did not want to be conspicuous, as they feared fines and subsequent punishment. Both laity and clergy obeyed, 8 000 lesser clergy took the oath of supremacy. Despite recent investigations by Alexandria Walsingham, it is particularly difficult to find evidence for the exact number of papists as they complied passively. As they were not a subversive group, papists were not a threat per se but they did generate much debate within Catholicism. Initially, writers such as Thomas Hide urged the common man and woman to “hasten to the cross of Christ” as their souls were in mortal peril. Yet it became apparent that they needed leadership from the gentry otherwise they would be left to “bow their knees to Baal…(in) schismatic services” (Robert Persons). William Allen and other thinkers were more sympathetic to the papist’s plight; however their “necessity” to conform put the onus on the nobles to openly oppose the Queen. Continental theologians adopted this more pragmatic stance in 1588, as their appeals to the majority’s conscience were not coming to any fruition. Any plots or uprisings were counterproductive because the more visible papists felt, the greater their desire to hide their true religion.
Of the remaining vocal minority, recusants protested by refusing to attend the new church services. They were not as willing to compromise their religious beliefs however their true number can only be estimated. At first, the laws against them were loosely imposed as Elizabeth told bishops not to crush insubordination zealously. Recusants only wished to be tolerated and allowed to worship according to their conscience. They were essentially passive and included one third of the peerage. Yet after the Northern Plot and Elizabeth’s excommunication, those who wanted more radical Protestant reform and the execution of the newly arrived Mary Stuart used these events and the recusants to their advantage. The number of prosecuted recusants and the perceived “danger” (Earl of Leicester 1582) of papists reached alarming new heights. In 1582, the Privy Council claimed that there were 1 939 English recusants, an increasing number of which were trying to convert others and incite further insurrections. This figure, and that of the 8 590 recusants supposedly found in 1603, could be viewed ambivalently. The actual figure may have been inflated to dissuade Elizabeth from further reducing penalties against them as she had in 1581. Conversely, the Council’s figures may have underestimated the true number to assure the Queen of her safety in a perilous time. The imprisonment of leading Catholics such as Lady Cary and Lady Hobblethorne during critical moments indicates that recusants’ defiance was not merely seen as religious disobedience. Although they either celebrated Mass in underground churches or privately at home, their reluctance to conform was to amount to treason which was considered the most heinous of felonies. Parliament increased the penalty on recusant priests and their protectors in 1585. The Commons also ratified legislation which confined all Catholics to within a five mile radius of their homes and banned them from congregating after Mary’s execution and the (albeit thwarted) invasion by the Spanish Amarda.
As the Marian generation of bishops and priests were slowly dying out and the ordination of new English Catholic priests was becoming impossible, foreign intervention was needed. In order to stimulate and convert papists, the Douai seminary was founded to train priests for England. This, and the arrival of Jesuits in England, was the “hardening” of Catholicism according to Haigh. This “resistance” had little actual influence as the Douai priests were suspicious of the Jesuits. The desperate want of all English Catholics centred on the priests’ sacerdotal role. They were not only needed for celebrating Mass and confession, but many of the laity felt their souls were at risk if they did not have a priest to baptise and confirm their children, marry them or anoint their dying. This absolute fear resulted in a huge demand for supplementary priests, especially as authorities were toughening up on areas such as Lancaster. William Allen, the founder of the Douai seminary, encouraged 438 newly ordained priests to try to save the gentry, and in turn the lower classes, or become martyrs in the process. They returned to England and had no option other than to hide with noblemen who they hoped would rally other Catholics who were slipping further into Elizabeth’s church. This was, according to Bossy and Haigh, to their detriment as they became private priests and chaplains in geographically concentrated areas in the South East. After the initial excitement of their arrival in 1574, 98 of the priests were executed and conversion became a treasonable offence in 1581 in response to this influx. The second, albeit smaller, wave of priests were Jesuits who would not tolerate compromise or the lower classes acquiescing to save their lives. They called for a more vigorous opposition and renewed dedication to the Papacy, who considered Elizabeth anathema. The Jesuits began to incur the anger of missionary priests and this infighting contributed to Protestant attempts to undermine any vestiges of Catholicism. They may have been partially successful in increasing the number of recusants; however propaganda only reflected the animosity between the Jesuits and missionaries and featured esoteric debates. The infamous “Wisbeck Stirs” in 1590 and the Archpriest Controversy of 1594 served to ridicule and further estrange English Catholics from leading members of the clergy. Ultimately, outspoken English Catholic priests merely wanted their faith to be tolerated as the recusants had rather than a change of regime. Their futile petition to Elizabeth in 1600, in which they vowed their allegiance and the end of Jesuits in England in return for leniency, was considered farcical by the government and people alike.
Perhaps the greatest threat came from influential Catholic figures who were plotting a violent and bloody coup d’etat. Whilst European Protestants were reeling in fear from the St. Bartholomew Massacre in 1572, however, no insurrections on that ferocious scale took place in England. The Rebellion of the Northern Dukes in 1569 had the greatest potential to succeed because Elizabeth and the government were ill prepared for her excommunication and any resultant Catholic rebellion. Both the Dukes of Northumberland and Westmoreland refused to pledge their loyalty to the Queen for fear of being arrested. The Dukes’ motivation was equally political and religious, as the arrival of Mary Stuart from Scotland offered them a legitimate Catholic alternative to Elizabeth. Yet government forces were able to put down the rebellion because it was unorganised and lacked the initial support of Spain, the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Leicester and Sir Throckmorton. The other three plots against Elizabeth were less threatening as they were foiled quickly and planned by marginal Catholics who were eventually killed. Their significance lies in Parliament’s and the Council’s reaction to them as it enabled them to petition Elizabeth either to execute Mary or pass legislation to suppress Catholicism. Mary was more pitied than feared by her cousin before the 1570s as she was a fellow Queen who had sought her protection from a defiant nation. The Ridolfi Plot of 1571 led to the redefinition of the treason laws; anyone who smuggled Papal Bulls into England or denied Elizabeth as Queen was considered treacherous and to be executed. This was to be extended to those training to be priests, aiding priests or causing plots (namely Mary) after the failed Throckmorton Plot in 1583. After fifteen years of numerous appeals, it was the Babington Plot in 1586 which finally persuaded Elizabeth to have Mary executed. Nevertheless, these plots were chimerical and impractical as the English Catholics were as xenophobic as English Protestant; none would have accept a French Queen of Scotland who was indebted to Spanish and Papal powers as their sovereign. Moreover, the groups of conspirators were infiltrated with government spies. This has led to recent scepticism, with some historians believing that later plots were fabricated to dissuade any remaining groups of ardent Catholics.
The notion that Catholicism was a formidable “cruel and dissolute and vain” (Mildmay) domestic force which menaced the very foundation of Elizabeth England is hyperbolic. The vast majority of Catholics were either loyal to Elizabeth and yielded to Protestantism or wanted to practise without being harassed. Rather, councillors such as Walsingham embellished any tenuous threats to further the Protestant political cause. What was unique about Elizabeth’s religious policy was that it was defiance not heresy which was heavily penalised. A cogent Catholic force could not have been formed against the government because there was a vacuum which was never filled by a direct Papal or united clerical/lay leadership. Haigh may argue that the persistent survival of Catholicism proved its determination, yet popular support dissipated until the victory over Spain irreparably weakened it as a political force. Doran asserts that Catholics were simply “weaned” off their original faith, Protestantism became ingrained and many “drifted into conformity”.
