Analysis Of How Successfully Mary I Reintroduced Catholicism During The Protestant Reformation Period
Mary I was a Tudor Queen who came to reign after Edward VI who was a Protestant Monarch, she ruled from 1516 to 1558 and in that time, she attempted to reintroduce Catholicism as the prominent religion. Traditionalist historians like that of David Loades believed the reformation could not be reversed and her policies were backwards. However, revisionist historians are more positive noting the use of careful thought and pursuance widely although this does not mean they all worked. Christopher Haigh did think she was successful in reintroducing Catholicism as the country was Catholic when she died. Throughout her reign Mary had multiple ways in which she planned to bring back Catholicism, of which some were successful, and some were not. Even so, if she did manage to bring it back but then it went away again, would this be considered successful ultimately?
It was no easy task to bring back Catholicism, but that did not stop Mary. Compared to Protestantism it was very materialistic, the church had fanciful items (which had been removed during Edward’s Protestant reign) , furthermore Rome was at the head of the church and it was the educated upper class that made decisions about doctrine thus being hard for the lay folk to understand. Churches that had been destroyed needed to be rebuilt both in terms of texts which was more easy and actual rebuilding which cost a lot. There seemed to be a common obedience for the repair that was needed with many elites paying for Catholic restoration. Despite this, just over 10 abbeys were re-founded on the minimal spend and what work was left to do outweighed that of what was done massively to fully return to the finery of Catholicism. She needed to restore the faith in the Catholic church also of which it is thought she used the printing press; getting out 10,000 copies of ‘A Profitable and Necessary Doctrine: Catholic orthodoxy’. Although it is hard to tell if this helped that much as Historians think it did not really have a lot of impact on personal beliefs as many Protestant books were still around thus not really swaying people either way.
A way Mary tried to strengthen Catholicism was through marriage, to Phillip II of Spain which formed an alliance between countries and Spain was a catholic one at that. However, this was less successful than Mary had anticipated, the House of Commons wished for her to marry someone of English descent, she did not and in turn led to a group including Thomas Wyatt to rebel to get Elizabeth, Mary’s Protestant sister onto the throne. At this time the Spanish were not really disliked by the rest of the English so Wyatt’s reason for Mary’s removal did not gain a lot of following, Mary managed to amalgamate an army which stopped the rebellion. So, the marriage did not seem disliked because there was not a lot of opposition gathering in Wyatt’s uprising, but it also did not really contribute to helping Mary keep Catholicism, as the main reason for marriage was not completed. This being to give have a child to be the next successor, a catholic one, as if Mary did not in accordance to the 1543 succession act, Elizabeth would become Queen who was a Protestant and would make sure for the English church not to be reunited with Rome again. Another good thing about having a child with Phillip would be that the child would inherit not only England but also the Netherlands and Belgium contributing to a large Catholic realm. This did not happen as Mary was unable to conceive a child thus leaving the country without security of staying Catholic, in fact quite the opposite. So, it would seem from this perspective Mary was not very successful at all, as ultimately what she wanted to do even if somewhat would have been wiped away in the end anyway.
Coming into power Mary seemed rather popular, with little disapproval to her, Protestants who disagreed originally either left the country or conformed seeing it as God’s choice for putting Mary where she was. People were unsure what Mary was going to do in terms of religion; she would of course retract Edward’s reformation but how far back would she go? Thus, people were joyous of her ascension however this did not mean devotion to Catholicism. Mary originally worked with Catholics and Protestants having experienced ministers on her council however there was resistance as expected for example the House of Commons declined bringing back heresy laws and returning land to the church, furthermore four bishops (Hooper of Gloucester, Latimer of Worcester, Ridley of London and Cranmer the Archbishop of Canterbury) rejected Catholicism so were arrested before congressional law making started in hopes to remove opposition from government. In turn, the Act of Uniformity was repealed in Parliament, causing for services and ceremonies to go back to how they were when Henry VIII was king. Despite the opposition and persecution of some it was destroyed for the most part and Mary knew she could not wipe out Protestantism completely as many could partake in practice privately. In addition to this there were no punishments for people that did not attend Church services and in the beginning, there were not laws against heresy. So, was she and her return to Catholicism successful if people were not practicing Catholicism?
Something that Mary did do successfully was returning to Papal headship, as the pope backed her right to the throne her loyalty was known. Mary’s cousin, who was Cardinal Reginald Pole was asked by Pope Julius III to reunite England and Rome. Pole and Mary became close and he helped to bring England back to papal authority as when he arrived in England, he gave a pardon rather than punishing thus creating obedience. Later in 1556 he also became the Archbishop of Canterbury furthering his influence. On the other hand, papal authority was not absolute, Pope Paul IV was opposed to the Spanish and since Mary was married to Phillip II of Spain was opposed to Mary. Paul attempted to eliminate Pole being the representative of the pope, accusing him of heresy and to go back to Rome to answer for the crime and sent someone new to England to take Pole’s place. Even so, the new representative was not allowed in the country to do so and Pole just did not take Paul’s demands up and ignored him.
Originally, Mary was not extreme with her punishments, considering what she is most commonly known for, it is surprising. She denied Jesuits whom offered her help to restore Catholicism as she was against severe methods used by groups of people in other countries. By 1555 there was a list of Protestant books that were illegal, and it was apparent that anyone found with such would face death, but few who received the penalty were treated less so harshly and not many were accused in the first place. There were twenty-six Protestant bishops with only a few punished most of which was not down to them being Protestant but because they were married, of which many resolved by disposing of their wives. In 1555 Heresy laws came back as Protestantism was still rather prominent which Mary could not ignore for the sake of the Catholic church. Arrests were made of those of important Protestants who were not willing to conform from the offset, however. Mary used these laws in order to go after the Protestants that were openly preaching their own religious beliefs and doctrines thus not abiding by that of the Catholic regime she was implementing. The four bishops previously mentioned whom openly rejected Catholicism were the only ones who received ‘harsh’ punishment out of the bishops. There was around 250 people who were burned alive for heresy and although many, most were lower class men from certain regions of England like London, and they had usually been convicted more than once; thus, were technically being burned for more than just what they believed in. Mary may have pushed the agenda, but others backed her such as Edmund Bonner the Bishop of London, whom thought an evil group had pushed England to become Protestant and they needed to burn to save the church.
Historians for the most part saw burning at the stake as failing as a ruler but why did Mary use such a tactic and did it help, hinder or make no difference in the end? Ryrie proposed that Mary did not really have a choice in how she persecuted as in terms of arrest Tudor prisons were known to be corrupt, exile did not really have much effect in dealing with the problem at hand. Even so Mary used to burn opposition , fire was used as a symbol in burning as it represented Hell, the heretic was being eaten up by the flames dehumanising them continuously. They were also public; which was to act as a deterrent as maybe Mary planned to use burning all along because in the past heretics were known to crack under pressure as those under Henry VIII who opposed him were not very brave with most recanting. Mary may have been hoping many would recant which she could utilise as propaganda, but this did not turn out the same in Mary’s reign. It did the opposite and acted as Protestant propaganda in a sense as those burnt at the stake showed they were ready to die staying true to their Protestant religion of which this was documented in John Foxe’s compilation of stories in his Book of Martyrs. For example, the execution of the reader and vicar of St. Paul’s ‘...one of the sheriffs asked him [John Rogers] if he would revoke his abominable doctrine. Mr Rogers answered, “That which I have preached I will seal with my blood.” Then the sheriff said, “Thou art a heretic”. “That shall be known”, said Mr Rogers “at the Day of Judgement”. “Well”, said the sheriff, “I will never pray for thee”. “But I will pray for you”, said Mr Rogers’. It even comes across as unfair as the martyrs spoke in such a pure a holy staying true to their beliefs until the very end even going as far to come across as saintly. Although the burnings were controversial, they did have some success, obviously they eliminated many of those who opposed firstly clergy and theologians then moving to secret Protestant gatherings. Thus, keeping the minority under control as by end of Mary’s time in power burnings decreased which could be evidence that the deterrent was working, and people were compliant with Catholicism.
For the most part there was little challenge to Mary I’s attempt in returning England to a Catholic state, with most of the country either having an acceptance, moving away or privately practicing thus being the minority if there were still Protestants. Overall; the papacy, services, ceremonies and the general fanciful look associated with the Catholic church had returned so Mary did seem rather successful in restoring Catholicism even if surprising. It did help that she had support from the government and help from her cousin Cardinal Pole who believed in pardoning over war and people seemed to admire the government agreeing with what they proposed. Although ruthless in her religious regime it did prove to have its effect in the decrease of protestants, at least outwardly at the end of her time in power. The opposition that was around was not very tough to deal with and when it was dealt with it was done so indefinitely. Largely it seems successful, although ultimately in the long run somewhat pointless as the most important aspect of keeping England as a Catholic country she failed at. Meaning she did not birth a successor and in turn Elizabeth a Protestant woman indefinitely became the next monarch which Mary knew would happen if she was unable.
