[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR. "]
Sra,—I am not a little surprised at the confusion of thought displayed in the long editorial note attached to my letter in the Spectator of August 9th. You urge that " these excellent men," though they suffered unjustly, were not " martyrs in the true sense " ; they only suffered " because the law was too logical and assumed that they must carry the Pope's policy into action. Their innocence may have been complete, but they suffered from a miscarriage of justice rather than for their faith." May I point out that this " miscarriage of justice" precisely convicted in the "too logical laws" which made the practice of the Catholic religion to be treason P It was treason for a priest to be in England at all after the Act of 1585. It was felony, punishable with death, to harbour a priest, treason to give absolution or to receive it. To obtain pardon for these atrocious crimes it was only necessary to renounce the Catholic religion by abjuring the spiritual authority of the Pope, or even simply by attending the Pro- testant service. Thus the religion of these " poor creatures " was declared to be in itself treason, and the treason for which they were convicted was in almost all cases simply their religion. I am glad to see that you have no other exception to give than the well-known case of John Felton. His act was of course one which the Queen might reasonably punish. But it is a libel on a brave and chivalrous gentleman to insinuate that he was guilty of "constructive murder." The vast majority of the martyrs were accused of no other treason than of being priests or of consorting with priests. To find a Breviary among their belongings, or to prove that a man had given a glass of ale to a priest, was deemed sufficient for con- viction. No doubt they suffered as traitors, not as heretics. Our blessed Lord Himself was crucified as a traitor. The excuse almost invariably made by the civilised nations who put to death the early Christians was that they were a class of men who were turning the world upside down, and dangerous to the State. But the fact that their political views were mis- understood by their contemporaries is not usually held to deprive them of the name of martyrs and confer on them that of " poor creatures " instead. Much may no doubt be urged in defence of Elizabeth's policy, and of that of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius. There may have even been some justifica- tion for that law of the Medea and Persians which forbade any one to pray for thirty days except to the King. No doubt the counsellors of Darius did not represent Daniel as a martyr, but as a traitor.—I am, Sir, &c., Dom BEDE CAMM, O.S.B. Brdington Abbey, Birmingham.
[Our correspondent misses the point. The Elizabethans argued, as we see now, very crudely and very cruelly : " The Roman Catholics declare that they owe implicit obedience to the Pope. But the Pope has dethroned the Queen, and ab- solved those who obey him from the duty of allegiance.
Therefore Roman Catholics—i.e., those who will not abjure the authority of the Pope—are the enemies of the State." That many good and innocent men fell victims to such syllo- gistic reasoning'we do not doubt, though it also caught some real traitors. But, happily, the Elizabethan statesmen made no attempt to enforce their logic rigidly. Thousands of Roman Catholics who committed no overt acts were allowed to live unmolested, and there was no attempt to hunt down men merely because of their private doctrinal views. We cannot continue this controversy, but we will, of course, give Dom Bede Camm space to reply at reasonable length if he thinks we have misstated any fact or have done him any controversial injustice. If he does reply, we should be curious to know (1) whether he thinks the Papal Bull was, as regards good Roman Catholics, effective in dissolving their allegiance; and (2) whether, if so, people could have been expected in the Elizabethan age to regard Roman Catholics as loyal subjects. In other words, did not the Bull place the English Roman Catholics in an intolerable position ? Persecution can never be right, and also it can never be effective ; but persecution with a political excuse, even though odious, is never quite as odious as persecution for which the excuse is purely doctrinal. —ED. ,Spectator.]
Previous page
