Assess the view that the Roman Catholics were a serious threat to Elizabeth I and the church she established.

Despite the fact that some Catholics did pose a threat towards the Elizabethan Church, this was never serious or organised enough to abolish the church and threaten the Queen. Many historians such as Diarmiad MacCulloch, Christopher Haigh, Wallace MacCaffrey and Alan Dures have engaged in debate about this topic, coming to different conclusions. As some historians such as MacCulloch and Haigh argue, the Roman Catholics were never a serious threat to the church because it was merely an upper class movement under the missionaries, and was unable to influence the masses. On the other hand, MacCaffrey and Dures have argued that the Catholics were a real threat to the church as Elizabeth’s attempts to suppress opposition were unsuccessful, and there were many serious plots against her life. As this difference in opinion shows, there are a range of opinions as to whether events such as the arrival of Mary Queen of Scots, the 1570 Papal Bull of Excommunication and the 1583 Throckmorton Plot were serious threats towards the church itself. Furthermore, the threat to the Elizabethan Church differs amongst different groups of Catholics, as the Jesuits arguably posed more of a threat than more mediocre groups such as the Church Papists. Nevertheless, although some Catholics did pose a serious threat to the church, this was not the case for the majority of Elizabeth’s reign.
As historians such as Wallace MacCaffrey and Alan Dures have argued, many Catholics may have been a large threat to the Elizabethan Church due to the fact that Elizabeth was unsuccessful in preventing Catholic opposition, enforcing laws upon them, and preventing plots against her life. The Catholic Threat to Elizabeth was particularly prominent during the 1570s and 1580s. MacCaffrey has argued that Elizabethan government ‘could do no more than hinder the efforts of the priests’ as it was unsuccessful in imposing penalties on Catholic opposition – ‘only 55 appeared as paying fines in the next five years’. As MacCaffrey has argued, this was demonstrated in 1603 as only 98 of the 438 Douay seminaries were put to death, which suggests that Elizabeth had undermined the threat of the Roman Catholics and did not manage to prevent their opposition. Furthermore, this was also demonstrated in Elizabeth’s failure to implement the 1559 legislation for refusal to sign the Oath of Supremacy until 1571, as no Catholics were executed until the 1570s. Although it is certainly true that in these cases, the Roman Catholics were a threat to Elizabeth as she failed to suppress them, there were also many circumstances where Elizabeth did manage to ease the threat from Catholic opposition. For example, in implementing the 1571 Treason Act and the 1585 Act against Jesuits and Seminary Priests, the Queen did manage to weaken the Catholic threat. Therefore, it is not entirely true that Elizabeth was unsuccessful in preventing Catholic opposition. On the other hand, Alan Dures has also argued that the Catholics were a serious threat to Elizabeth as a series of plots ‘were a problem for Elizabeth’. Dures has argued that ‘various ‘enterprises’ against England involving Scotland and the Guises were planned’. This suggests that Catholic plots against Elizabeth were a serious threat, not only because Elizabeth’s life was in danger, but also because they were organised so close to England. Dures also refers to the involvement of Throckmorton, William Allen, Robert Parsons and William Holt. It is certainly true that these individuals posed a threat to the Queen and the Elizabethan Church. The Throckmorton Plot of 1583 attempted to replace Elizabeth with Mary Queen of Scots, which would coincide with an invasion of England financed by the Pope – this was certainly a large threat to the Queen. The 1570 Ridolfi Plot and the 1586 Babington Plot were also similar in that they attempted to replace Elizabeth with Mary. Furthermore, the 1580 arrival of the Jesuit priests in England posed a threat to the Queen as they were the more radical group of the Roman Catholics. Although the Jesuits were certainly more radical, it can be argued that they were not a threat to the Elizabethan Church because there were only ever 16 Jesuits in England at a time. Therefore, Dures is incorrect to argue that the Jesuits posed a large threat towards the Queen. In short, although MacCaffrey and Dures are correct to argue that there was some opposition from the Roman Catholics, which peaked during the 1570s and 1580s due to organisation and foreign support, it is inaccurate to argue that they posed a serious threat to the Elizabethan Church.
Despite this, historians such as MacCulloch and Haigh have argued that Roman Catholics were not a significant threat to the Elizabethan Church due to the fact that it was largely an upper class movement which lacked popular support. As MacCulloch has argued, Catholics failed ‘to recapture the nation or to bring about alteration on the state of the Church of England’ as the movement had become ‘a largely upper-class sect’, which suggests that they were certainly not a serious threat to Elizabeth. As this interpretation suggests, this was demonstrated by the fact that the 1569 Northern Earls revolt ‘had failed so dismally’ due to the fact that Westmorland and Northumberland were unsuccessful in restoring Catholic mass. Furthermore, the Ridolfi Plot, the Throckmorton Plot and the Babington Plots were all uncovered as the Catholics failed to replace Elizabeth with Mary. Therefore, MacCulloch is correct to argue that many Catholics failed to threaten the Elizabethan Church. Although the plots themselves suggest there was some threat to the church, the fact that they were unsuccessful shows that they possessed no real threat. This is further demonstrated by the fact that Elizabeth released the Marian Clergy from prison in 1574, which implies that she thought the threat was relatively mediocre from the Catholics. Christopher Haigh also argues that there was no real threat from the Catholics as the ‘missionaries were unsuccessful’ in gaining supporters against the Queen. Haigh claims that there was a ‘geographical maldistribution of clerical resources’. This is certainly true as many of the Douay priests were situated in the south-east of England, whilst Catholic support was prominent in the north – ‘the north which had 40 per cent of detected recusants (and many more undetected) had only attracted a fifth of the priests’. Haigh also agrees with MacCulloch in his argument that support for Catholics was mostly prominent within the gentry rather than the masses of ordinary people, as he says, ‘priestly resources were devoted disproportionately to the spiritual needs of the gentry’. Haigh is correct to argue this as many revolts, such as the Northern Earls revolt failed due to the lacking of popular support. In short, both MacCulloch and Haigh are accurate in their claims that the Catholic threat was unsuccessful, as it was only prominent within the upper classes. Elizabeth also effectively weakened the threat from the Roman Catholics by introducing several acts such as the 1571 Bill to increase penalties for recusancy, the 1584 Bond of Association and the 1585 Act against Jesuits and seminary priests. This shows that many Catholics were unable to threaten the church due to Elizabeth’s actions against them. On the other hand, although some Catholics such as the Jesuits were more radical, the majority of Catholics in Elizabethan England were Church Papists, as there were only 438 missionary priests, of whom 98 were killed, and there were only 16 Jesuits present at a time in England. Therefore, there was little Catholic threat as the majority did not wish to abolish the church, but rather reform it from within. Furthermore, it can be argued that Elizabeth herself felt that the Catholics possessed no threat to the Elizabethan Church, as in 1574, she released the Marian clergy from prison, suggesting that they were not harmful to the state. In short, MacCulloch and Haigh are correct to argue that the Catholics essentially did not pose a large threat to the Queen as they lacked influence and were strongly repressed by the Queen.
In conclusion, despite the fact that there was some Catholic opposition which threatened the church between 1570 and 1580, this never became a particularly serious threat to the Elizabethan Church, as most Catholics simply wanted to reform the church from the inside. Arguably, Catholics were a disturbance to the Queen, rather than a threat. Although some Roman Catholic groups such as the Jesuits and Seminary Priests were more radical in their ideas, they were not able to threaten the Elizabethan Church due to the fact that they were few in numbers. Furthermore, Elizabeth successfully repressed the Catholic threat during her reign, by introducing laws against them and dissolving radical plots. Therefore, historians such as MacCulloch and Haigh are correct to argue that the Roman Catholics were not a serious threat to Elizabeth I and the church she established.
Words: 1,487