No concept better characterises society of sixteenth century Europe better than ‘religious intolerance’. The people of Europe’s faith was under threat, between the growing schism between Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists, and the threat of Islam from the Ottoman Empire, the people of Europe fostered a strong hostility towards those who did not share their faith. The people of Europe failed to accept and integrate with other religions and fostered great hostility towards all those who held different beliefs. This hostility was not simply directed at individuals for the beliefs they held but was, instead, outright intolerance towards any religious differences. Violence, discrimination, and espionage erupted in society. Pluralism was a foreign concept to the people of Europe, therefore they struggled to accept the development of different faiths and denominations. This failure to integrate with new faiths caused a great divide in European culture. People formed exclusive, intolerant groups who completely rejected the idea of accepting other religions. These groups believed that being intolerant towards other religions they were legitimising their beliefs and solidifying their religion as the superior choice. Religious intolerance was an intrinsic part of life for Europeans during the sixteenth century. The severe lack of religious tolerance in Europe can be attributed to the strong desire to prove the superiority of one’s faith, the need to defend one’s religious views against the threat of different religions and denominations, and people’s intense apathy towards accepting criticism and change.
However, Europe’s religious intolerance was not solely between two opposing faiths. The divides which cultivated in society were both inter-faith and intra-faith. Each rift between faiths had different reasoning behind it however, overall, it is clear that people’s need to prove the superiority of their religion, the threat other faiths posed towards their belief systems, the apparent benefit of intolerance, and an unwillingness to change created severe lack of religious tolerance in Europe. However, religious intolerance also developed as a façade wherein nobility would start conflicts under the guise of fighting for their religion.
Many historians focus on divides between Christian denominations in the sixteenth century when examining the causes of religious intolerance in Europe. Religious tolerance was slow to develop between Catholics and Protestants as denouncing the contrasting beliefs of other denominations showed the strength of one’s belief in their own. Catholics were incredibly enthusiastic to brand protestants and ‘heretics’ and ‘non-believers’ even though essentially they shared the same views. Similarly, Protestants accused Catholics of blindly following the word of the pope, who they saw as the antichrist, rather than the word of God. Both denominations saw the intolerance of the other as an effective way to demonstrate the intensity of their faith. In order to prove yourself as a true pious believer you had to show intolerance towards those of other faiths. By this means religious intolerance was seen as a “virtue”. Being seen as sympathetic or accepting of the beliefs of other denominations was equal to accepting that their differing beliefs had credibility. As John Calvin argued, “Those who would spare heretics and blasphemers are themselves blasphemers.” In order to present your faith as superior to others it was necessary to show intolerance towards the members of other faiths.
This intolerance was prevalent among Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed churches alike as Christianity had become a very polarised religion. The teachings of ‘good versus evil’ in Christianity led its followers to view the world in a binary fashion. Hence, when beliefs emerged which contradicted your own, you automatically saw them as ‘wrong’ and ‘evil’. This contrast focused world view greatly hindered the establishment of tolerance in European society in the sixteenth century. Although Catholics and Protestants believed in the same God and held many of the same views in regards to religion, they saw their opinions as opposing. As a result of this apparent divide in their beliefs, many people believed that in order to present yourself as a true believer in God you had to completely reject the evil teachings of other churches. Religious tolerance would only prove to show your disloyalty towards your faith and acceptance of the evil which was spread by other denominations.
Not only was religious intolerance a method of professing your faith but it was also a way for people to protect their beliefs from the threat other religious creeds posed against them. The Catholic church viewed the teachings of reformers as a direct threat. They saw reformed beliefs as heresy and feared the conversion of their people. The promotion of religious intolerance among Catholics was skilfully used as a weapon to tackle this threat. Many people believed that it was their duty as Catholics to attack and punish Protestants. The Reformed church rejected the role of the papacy in society. Their stance on the sale of indulgences and the promotion of reading sacred texts was a danger to the livelihoods of the clergy and encouraged Christians to take their religious learning into their own hands rather than relying on the church. Catholic priests and bishops began to preach intolerance as Protestantism was a threat to their income and status. Religious tolerance would have been seen as an acceptance of these criticisms of the Catholic church.
For Catholic European leaders, especially in France and Spain, it was politically practical to take a stance against Protestants. Leaders were able to further their political agenda under the guise of defending Catholicism. In countries with strong Catholic majorities, Protestants were often used as scapegoats and were often treated as sub-human members of society. By employing intolerance as a weapon, leaders could use the existing conflicts between the laypeople at the time to launch offenses against protestant countries and assist their political regime. Catholic monarchs deemed it their religious duty to tackle the threat of Protestantism while in fact, they were simply using their faith as a justification of their actions and blamed Protestants as the culprits for any failings in their rule. Henry II of France, for example, saw the spread of Protestantism among the nobility in France as a threat to their loyalty. He made his distrust of Protestants known to the public and used religious intolerance to excuse his disputes with the United Kingdom. For example, he supported the legitimacy of Mary Stuart’s claim to the English crown in place of Elizabeth I after Elizabeth rejected his hand in marriage, putting an end to “the old Burgundian alliance” which allied France and England. Henry used religious differences as an excuse to retaliate for personal grievances. He masked his true intents behind the guise of his duty as a Catholic.
Similarly, the Catholic monarchs in Spain brought religion to the forefront of their policies. Many of their political movements at the time were seemingly brought about for the sake of protecting Catholicism, even though religion realistically only played a small part in their decision making. However, due to the abundance of propaganda surrounding the actions of European leaders at this time it is difficult to distinguish what were the true driving forces behind the actions taken by leaders. As Sutherland highlights, “there were separate personal, political and religious elements involved in this struggle, although it rapidly becomes difficult to distinguish one from the other.” It is clear that many monarchs and religious leaders used the divide between Christian denominations as a rationalisation of their political actions, ‘religious’ wars were declared as an attempt to gain more territory or greater control, and alliances were formed behind the façade of religious unity when it was in fact, a bid to gain greater political power. In this way, religious intolerance helped the leaders of Europe to form stronger alliances and excuse political actions which would otherwise appear pointless.
Just as Catholics saw Protestantism as a threat to their beliefs and vice versa, Islam was deemed one of the greatest threats to Christianity during the sixteenth century. The swift growth of the Ottoman empire and its geographical proximity to Europe meant that the spread of Islam was imminent. The lands bordering the empire were seen as weak as existing conflicts within these countries made the people more impressionable and a less unified front against the Turks. “Christians were reluctant to co-operate with one another. Political fragmentation and self-destructive local rivalries in the Balkans and south-eastern Europe made Ottoman expansion all the easier.” The Ottomans had already proved themselves to be an incredibly powerful empire and Christian leaders understood that they would not be able to prevent them from taking over Europe were they not intolerant towards all aspects of the Ottoman empire. Religious barriers were built to discredit Islam and to unite the people of Europe against the Ottoman empire. Religious intolerance was the first step in tackling the threat Islam faced to Christianity
Religious tolerance also remained in short supply in Europe during this era as it was seen as beneficial to people of other religions. Each religion saw their creed as the one and only true belief system, hence, they believed that being intolerant towards other faiths and promoting their own ideas would help others see the correct pathway to salvation. They did not want to be separate from parts of society with different beliefs, but wanted to educate them and integrate them into their religion.
“Protestants never sought to establish alternate churches but to restore Christianity everywhere to its pristine form. For generations they retained supreme confidence in the power of the gospel – of God’s Word unleashed on earth by its preaching – to effect such a reformation.”
People genuinely saw their intolerance as a method of altering the point of view of those who they discriminated against. At the time, intolerance was seen as a more effective attempt for peace than tolerance was.
Intolerance was also seen as beneficial between different religions. Although Christians and Jewish people were not tolerant of each other, their separation helped each community to survive independently. Although Christians generally destroyed their religious competitors, they allowed Jews to continue practicing their religion as they were seen as useful in society. Christians viewed Jews as a necessary evil. Christians were intolerant towards Jewish people but this intolerance led them to limit interaction with people of this faith which ultimately protected the Jews from the violence and anger people of other religions faced. Although Jews were discriminated against, they continued to practice their religion, speak their language, and specialise in money lending, an activity forbidden to Christians. This segregation was ultimately superior to the eradication of Judaism, which would have been likely was intolerance not so beneficial. Tolerance was not acceptable in society, so excuses were made to show the people the benefits of intolerance. Christians needed the Jews to handle their finances so, instead of admitting their usefulness, they discriminated against the religion and exploited them.
It is clear that religious intolerance was an intrinsic part of life in European society during the sixteenth century. Being tolerant of other religions or denominations was seen as weakness. In order to demonstrate the strength of your faith you had to denounce the faith of others. Religious intolerance helped protect your faith against the threat other religions posed against it. Religious prejudice gave European leaders justification for their actions. In summary, being religiously intolerant was simply practical for and seemingly beneficial to society. By rejecting religious tolerance you were supporting your faith, your country, and your people. It is quite clear that during the sixteenth century religious tolerance was not seen as a realistic or rational way of life, which is why religious intolerance was so dominant in Europe during the sixteenth century.