I’ve just responded to a graduate student at a university in New York who is writing a research paper on the Catholic Shakespeare. As part of her research she put the following questions to me. I thought I’d share her questions, and my responses, with the visitors to this site:

Questions Pertaining to Shakespeare & Catholicism:

1) I have read numerous accounts of William Shakespeare’s family and relations being resolutely Catholic during the height of the Reformation. There are even sources linking Shakespeare to an underground Catholic movement that was meeting in Rome.  It is obvious why a Catholic, during the Reformation in England, would want to hide their faith and practices. However, in an interview I read on a site called ZENIT, you stated that William Shakespeare was considered a “safe “Catholic by Queen Elizabeth and King James. That his Catholicism was not unknown, but was an open secret, that was tolerated.  Can you elaborate on this term “safe Catholic,” especially during a period where according to the texts I read; simply practicing the Mass was considered an act of treason punishable by death?

It was indeed illegal to celebrate or attend Mass in England during the reign of Elizabeth I and James I, i.e. at the time of Shakespeare, but the fact remains that a significant portion of the English population, i.e. not a small minority, were Catholics. Many continued to practice their faith in secret, others merely desired to do so. There were many known Catholics in Elizabeth’s and James’ court, indeed the latter’s wife was a Catholic. The Catholic presence in the royal train led to the Church laying official guidelines for what Catholics in the monarch’s train were and were not allowed to do. The most famous example of a known Catholic in Elizabeth’s court was the court composer, William Byrd, who was persecuted for his faith until the Queen herself instructed her ministers to leave him alone. The foregoing were the “safe” Catholics to whom I refer in my books. I believe that Shakespeare was one of these “safe” Catholics. These Catholics led a double life, outwardly conforming in public (though not necessarily by attending Anglican services) but secretly practicing their faith in private.

2) I read an article that stated that William Shakespeare was censored towards the end of his career and was silenced by political powers because of the Catholic referencing in his writing.  Are you familiar with this theory, and if so, what more can you tell me about this? If William Shakespeare was eventually silenced (censored), does this mean that there are works (plays, literature) that were lost?

There is certainly irrefutable evidence that Shakespeare wrote portions of a play on St. Thomas More, the Catholic saint and martyr, in an effort to help it get approved by the censors. The portions of the play that he wrote signify a great deal of sympathy for Thomas More. Shakespeare’s efforts failed and the play remained banned. It was not finally performed until the late twentieth century, almost four hundred years after it was written.

3) Is there any one piece of evidence that unquestionably (beyond any reason of doubt) proves that Shakespeare was a Catholic? I know many Catholics who are “Catholic,” simply because their parents raised them to receive the sacraments, however, after confirmation, they have nothing more to do with their faith. It simply is an insignificant title in their lives that has very little value or meaning.  Also, the Catholic Church is just a locale, a place to visit on occasion for weddings, baptisms, Christmas and or Easter.  What in your research was the cornerstone that proved to you that it wasn’t just the faith of his father or relations, but was an integral component of who he was not only as a person, but also as a writer?

I will provide one piece of evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Shakespeare was a believing and practicing Catholic but before doing so we need to establish a more important general principle. In a court case, the case might be proven beyond all reasonable doubt as a result of the accumulation of a great deal of evidence, not one piece of which, taken by itself, would prove the case. It is the balance of probability after all the evidence is considered that leads an impartial judge or jury to its verdict. It’s like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. If we only have five pieces of a hundred piece puzzle, we will not be able to see the full picture. If, however, we have fifty pieces, we may be able to see that it’s a portrait of a certain person, or a certain landscape, even though half the pieces are still missing. The evidence for the Catholic Shakespeare rests on the validity of the many pieces of evidence that exist, in spite of the fact that many pieces of the puzzle are still missing. The picture that emerges from the pieces of evidence that we possess about the life and works of Shakespeare points indubitably to his being a believin

As for the one piece of evidence that I believe proves the case on its own merits, it is Shakespeare’s purchase of the Blackfriars Gatehouse at around the time that he retired from London and returned to Stratford. This was a known centre for militant Catholic activity that had been raided on several occasions by the government in the hunt for priests. Shakespeare not only bought this property but seems to have stipulated that its use remained unchanged following the purchase, as can be seen by the fact that Shakespeare kept the same tenant in residence, John Robinson, a known Catholic sympathizer whose brother entered the English College in Rome to study for the priesthood in the very same year that Shakespeare purchased the property. This same John Robinson was the only one of Shakespeare’s London friends who is known to have been with him during his final illness, even signing Shakespeare’s will.