Good Queen Bess?

[thessalonian]

We've all heard of Foxe's book of Martyr's. I read it last spring. It gives the impression that Catholics were the only ones doing any persecuting. Foxe knew Queen Elizabeth well and never mentions anything about her.

I was listening to a series of CD's by a Lutheran pastor of a friend of mine. He's a good chap and we have some good discussions. Well there of course are problems with the CD's and I have his ear on them. One is the claim that Queen Elizabeth did not persecute Catholics. I can't believe the guy actually said this. This after he had elaborated on the persecutions of Mary Tudor (bloody mary, catholic queen). Elizabeth (Protestant) of course succeeded Mary. Well I found a couple of online books. One gives the stories of 200 priests, and layity that she had put to death. This does not mention the countless number who were imprisoned and persecuted in other ways.

[url="http://www.cimmay.us/pdf/r_challoner.pdf"]http://www.cimmay.us/pdf/r_challoner.pdf[/url]

At a quick glance it looks pretty interesting. Of course it is difficult to judge all of this in light of Romans 13 and the right of governments to keep order. Some of it can be attributed to desires to remove elizabeth from the throne. But some of it was quite clearly and simply persecution and prejudice.

Here also is a summation of the English laws against Catholics.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13123a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13123a.htm[/url]


With the accession of Queen Elizabeth (1558) commenced the series of legislative enactments, commonly known as the Penal Laws, under which the profession and practice of the Catholic religion were subjected to severe penalties and disabilities. By laws passed in the reign of Elizabeth herself, any English subject receiving Holy Orders of the Church of Rome and coming to England was guilty of high treason, and any one who aided or sheltered him was guilty of capital felony. It was likewise made treason to be reconciled to the Church of Rome, and to procure others to be reconciled. Papists were totally disabled from giving their children any education in their own religion. Should they educate them at home under a schoolmaster who did not attend the parish church, and was not licenced by the bishop of the diocese, the parents were liable to forfeit ten pounds a month, and the schoolmaster himself forty shillings a day. Should the children be sent to Catholic seminaries beyond the seas, their parents were liable to forfeit one hundred pounds, and the children themselves were disabled from inheriting, purchasing, or enjoying any species of property. Saying Mass was punished by a forfeiture of 200 marks; hearing it by one of 100 marks. The statutes of recusancy punished nonconformity with the Established Church by a fine of twenty pounds per lunar month during which the parish church was not attended, there being thirteen of such months in the year. Such non-attendances constituted recusancy in the proper sense of the term, and originally affected all, whether Catholics, or others, who did not conform. In 1593 by 35 Eliz. c. 2, the consequences of such non-conformity were limited to Popish recusants. A Papist, convicted of absenting himself from church, became a Popish recusant convict, and besides the monthly fine of twenty pounds, was disabled from holding any office or employment, from keeping arms in his house, from maintaining actions or suits at law or in equity, from being an executor or a guardian, from presenting to an advowson, from practising the law or physic, and from holding office civil or military. He was likewise subject to the penalties attaching to excommunication, was not permitted to travel five miles from his house without licence, under pain of forfeiting all his goods, and might not come to Court under a penalty of one hundred pounds. Other provisions extended similar penalties to married women. Popish recusants convict were, within three months of conviction, either to submit and renounce their papistry, or, if required by four justices, to abjure the realm. If they did not depart, or returned without licence, they were guilty of a capital felony. At the outset of Elizabeth's reign, an oath of supremacy containing a denial of the pope's spiritual jurisdiction, which therefore could not be taken by Catholics, was imposed on all officials, civil and ecclesiastical. The "Oath of allegiance and obedience" enacted under James I, in 1605, in consequence of the excitement of the Gunpowder Plot, confirmed the same. By the Corporation Act of 1661, no one could legally be elected to any municipal office unless he had within the year received the Sacrament according to the rite of the Church of England, and likewise, taken the Oath of Supremacy. The first provision excluded all non-conformists; the second Catholics only. The Test Act (1672) imposed on all officers, civil and military, a "Declaration against Transubstantiation", whereby Catholics were debarred from such employment. In 1677 it was enacted that all members of either House of Parliament should, before taking their seats, make a "Declaration against Popery", denouncing Transubstantiation, the Mass and the invocation of saints, as idolatrous.

With the Resolution of 1688 came a new crop of penal laws, less atrocious in character than those of previous times, but on that very account more likely to be enforced, and so to become effective, the sanguinary penalties of the sixteenth century, having in great measure defeated their own end, and being now generally left on the statute book in terrorem. In 1689 (1 William and Mary, i, c. 9) a shorter form of the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy was substituted, the clause aimed against Catholics being carefully retained. It was likewise ordered that all Papists and reputed Papists should be "amoved" ten miles from the cities of London and Westminster. In 1700 (11 and 12 William III, c. 4.) a reward of one hundred pounds was promised to anyone who should give information leading to the conviction of a Popish priest or bishop, who was made punishable by imprisonment for life. Moreover, any Papist who within six months of attaining the age of eighteen failed to take the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy and subscribe to the Declaration against Popery, was disabled in respect to himself (but not of his heirs or posterity) from acquiring or holding land, and until he submitted, his next of kin who was a Protestant might enjoy his lands, without being obliged to account for the profits. The recusant was also incapable of purchasing, and all trusts on his behalf were void. In 1714 (George I, c. 13) a new element was introduced, namely Constructive Recusancy. The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy might be tendered to any suspected person by any two Justices of the Peace, and persons refusing it were to be adjudged Popish recusants convict and to forfeit, and be proceeded against accordingly. Thus the refusal of the Oath was placed on the same footing as a legal conviction, and the person so convicted was rendered liable to all penalties under those statutes. At the same time an obligation was imposed on Catholics requiring them to register their names and estates, and to enroll their deeds and wills.

There is more available online books on Bloody Bess here:

[url="http://www.cimmay.us/elizabeth.htm"]http://www.cimmay.us/elizabeth.htm[/url]

Seems these books don't reach the level of Foxe's books. Perhaps because the Catholic Church does not have to go to great ends to justify it's existance by writing fanciful histories like Foxe's book.

Edited November 29, 2006 by thessalonian

[puellapaschalis]

I was on a school trip to Canterbury earlier this year and my students were looking round a museum which had the most shocking bias in the Tudor section: Queen Mary was all about persecuting Protestants, and Queen Elizabeth I was all about Defending Merry England Against The Nasty (Catholic) Spanish. For various reasons I couldn't point this out to my pupils, but it was quite annoying.

However, it's not as though the truth of how Catholics also suffered is hidden in anyway - more likely it's simply not presented in the default way as how Protestants suffered is. Of course there are the lives of the English Martyrs, the witness of the Tyburn Shrine, books like "Tyborne and who went thither" and so on (incidentally, I've never heard of this Foxe chap, but consider: if he was such a great pal of Elizabeth I, he's not likely going to go around pointing this out. Chances are, if he was really aware of it, he might not have seen it as a bad thing).

I don't think it helps to refer to Elizabeth I as "Bloody Bess", any more than it's a particularly nice idea to refer to Mary as "Bloody Mary". The fact that educational materials and public museums do the latter but not the former isn't a good reason to use either nickname. People are rarely [i]all[/i] bad, and it could be said that Elizabeth I did a lot of positive stuff for England (+Wales +Ireland).

There's a whole bunch of thoughts in my head about the complex identity of a Catholic in Britain/England, even now. They're not really well-formed so that's as far as that goes here.

Love and prayers,

PP

[thessalonian]

Thx much for the comments. Your home perspective is much appreciated. I will recant my "bloody bess" comment. There is a mixture of religion and politics in all of this that makes it difficult to judge. As I said Romans 13 gives government some leeway with the sword.

Foxe wrote "Foxe's Book of Martyrs". It is basically an anti-catholic historical blaming of all the religous persecutions from Constantine on on the Catholic Church. All the heretics were good and the Church was bad. It gives considerable time to the Protestant persecutions in England. The book is very popular at least over here in the states. There are online versions if you do a search for the title.

Blessings

[puellapaschalis]

Ah, I learn something every day. I went to a Church of England secondary school and Foxe was never mentioned.

You're right that history is a mix of politics, religion, and likely a bunch of other stuff. I remember being somewhat disappointed when I learnt how Elizabeth I treated Catholics, as prior to that I saw her as something of a heroine, seeing off the Pesky Spanish. The Armada wasn't portrayed as a Catholic vs. Protestant thing per se, but more of an England vs. ... I'm not sure. Annoying Continentals, I think.

A similar situation comes up when one looks at Northern Ireland; not that my opinion matters much but I'm not a big fan of those six counties unifying with the Republic. Of course this pov would place me squarely in the "Protestant British" camp. My Catholicism runs deeper, of course, than my Britishness; but having said that, it's nigh on impossible to separate the two in many cases. Now when I hear about events in other parts of the world and where "Catholics", "Protestants", "Muslims" or whoever are said to be taking stands, I can be a bit more discriminating in my reactions. A Catholic's standpoint on matter x in South America may well be vastly different from a Catholic's standpoint on the same matter in Europe - the difference might be partly legitimate, partly not so.

I still haven't got this sorted out properly in my head, as is probably evident

Love and prayers,

PP

[goldbug16]

I also read something recently on "Good Queen Bess". The quote went something like "Queen Elizabeth was a good queen and hated bloodshed." Of course they didnt add in that she had her previous best friend,Edmund Campion, killed horribly because he was a Catholic. Not to metion the other hundreds that died at her command. It makes me laugh how Protestants and other anti Catholic people are so quick to defend Muslims and other smaller denominations when there is a bit of "insensitivity" to their particular faith, but when it comes to condemming Catholics and their faith then it is not a big deal.
Sorry If that does not make much sense. I am rather tired.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1131664' date='Nov 30 2006, 03:01 AM']
People are rarely [i]all[/i] bad, and it could be said that Elizabeth I did a lot of positive stuff for England (+Wales +Ireland).
[/quote]

It's funny how one's upbringing colo(u)rs one's thinking. Elizabeth and the English in general did "a lot of positive stuff" for Wales, Ireland and, eventually, Scotland, only in the most "White Man's Burden"-ish sense. Let's face it, English hegemony in Britain and Ireland was based on land grabs and force. In the case of the Irish, the Penal Laws were particularly brutal, and Irish culture was all but eliminated during the 19th century. Even today the Catholic cathedral in Dublin is called the "Pro" (provisional) Cathedral because Christ Church, which is the official Catholic cathedral, was seized by the Church of Ireland in (I believe) the 17th century.

It is what it is, and your point that people aren't all good or bad is a fair one. However, while we may not want to judge Elizabeth too harshly, let's not gloss over the bad stuff, either.

[puellapaschalis]

As I read it, nowhere in my post did I gloss over the bad stuff either. The thread began with an emphasis on the bad stuff that Elizabeth I did; I saw my contribution as trying to give a somewhat more rounded picture. Chasing one's tail isn't going to help.

Love and prayers,

PP

[catholicinsd]

Leave the past in the past people. Elizabeth I died 403 years ago. Focus on reconcilaation with the See of Caterbury

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='goldbug16' post='1135212' date='Dec 4 2006, 08:51 PM']
Of course they didnt add in that she had her previous best friend,Edmund Campion, killed horribly because he was a Catholic. Not to metion the other hundreds that died at her command.
[/quote]

As far as I know, Campion and Queen Elizabeth were never "friends". I believe the Queen meet him one time at Oxford where he gave some kind of oration in her honor. Furthermore, the Queen did not personally command his death. This is what I remember at least from reading Waugh's biography of Campion.

[quote]Leave the past in the past people. Elizabeth I died 403 years ago. Focus on reconcilaation with the See of Caterbury[/quote]

Ignoring history will only constantly defer any such reconciliation.