infowarrior1 said:
Paranoia about Catholic influence in England at the time especially of the Jesuit subversion led to the martyrdom of said priests. Who was perceived as papal legates plotting to overthrow Queen Elizabeth the I.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuits,_etc._Act_1584
I might point out that Thomas Houghton's death had nothing to do with paranoia about Jesuit influence or Catholic influence. The Jesuit Act was passed in 1584, under the reign of Elizabeth I. Houghton was martyred in 1535, almost half a century earlier, under Henry VIII, Elizabeth's father.
His 'crime' was the same as that of St. Thomas More, who was martyred the same year, although for some grotesque reason (possibly class; More was a knight of the realm, as well as being Henry's friend earlier in life) Henry simply beheaded More rather than hanging, drawing and quartering as he did with Houghton. Both Houghton and More had refused to acknowledge Henry VIII rendering himself the supreme head of the Church of England via the Supremacy Act of 1534, disposing of the Pope as head of the Church - specifically, refusing to swear an oath before God that would have had them so accept Henry as a substitute Pope.
And lest there be any doubt, it wasn't that Houghton had done anything earlier to earn Henry's ire. Henry's break with the Catholic Church was preceded by his divorcing Catherine of Aragon and taking up with Anne Boleyn. When two royal agents went to Houghton's monastery to ask whether he supported it or not, Houghton said it wasn't the monastery's business who the king divorced or married, and he asked to be excused from the oath of succession which followed on Henry's divorce and which was meant to legitimise Anne Boleyn's child (Elizabeth) as heir to Henry's throne. Houghton wasn't excused; the oath was extracted from them in the presence of a large band of armed men from the king, though they did swear allegiance 'as far as the law of Christ allows'.
But when Henry outright broke with Rome, he placed Thomas More and Houghton in the same position: they could not accept Henry usurping the Pope's authority as head of the church on Earth, and accordingly refused to swear the oath that followed on and was required by the Supremacy Act.
Again, and understand: Houghton and More did not speak against Henry. All they wished to do was maintain their silence. It was Henry and Henry's government that would not allow them to simply serve to the extent of their consciences and no further. They demanded legalistic compliance with every jot of the law, even if it was against the spirit of the law. One might say that sounds a bit (((familiar))).
When Henry did die, most likely of syphilis, his daughter Mary - Catherine's daughter - succeeded to the throne. She repealed the Supremacy Act, since she was a practising Catholic monarch. When Mary died childless, Elizabeth - Anne Boleyn's daughter - came to the throne in 1558.
Most recent Hollywood images like to portray Elizabeth as "tolerant" of Catholic practice and just saddled with her father's heresy and divided country. Not so; she broke with Rome
again almost immediately on succeeding to the throne: her first Parliament passed the Supremacy Act of 1558/9, which was a repeat of the 1534 Act. This was not just Henry's defiance, it was that of Elizabeth as well.
And so the English 'Reformation', or, more accurately, pogrom against Catholic priests and Catholic beliefs, got underway.
And got harsher as the decades went by. That Act of 1584 wasn't just directed against Jesuits. It commanded
every Roman Catholic priest in England to leave or swear allegiance to Elizabeth as head of the church (i.e. same oath as Henry VIII demanded) within 40 days of its passing, the penalty for doing neither being prosecution and punishment for high treason. No actual act of working against the State was required, presence in England alone was high treason, generally punishable by death.
Now, Elizabeth's government regularly tried to adopt a fig leaf by saying that they weren't actually punishing anyone for their beliefs, but the same government knew full well that this
was a punishment for every Roman Catholic in England, because without a Catholic priest, Mass could not be celebrated, and Catholics could not attend Anglican services. If you find the cancellation of church services worldwide disquieting, try and imagine the sorrow and despair of Catholics roughly five hundred years ago who not only couldn't attend Mass, but were suspect of heresy and prosecution if they did manage to find a priest.
Class was also a factor in who got prosecuted and martyred and who didn't. St. Margaret Clitherow, daughter of a chandler, was literally crushed to death under
peine forte et dure while pregnant with her fourth child, for the crime of harbouring Catholic priests. (Although to be fair she was probably a recalcitrant in the eyes of the authorities. She'd converted to Catholicism in her twenties, and regularly was fined for not attending (Anglican) Church, and then flat-out imprisoned for not doing so, in 1577. Because the Anglican Church was just focusing on priests, not actual Catholics.) Anne, Lady Arundell, who harboured John Cornelius, wasn't even charged.