Abstract
Abstract In the Protestant Dutch Republic, Catholic priests were represented as one of the deadliest “enemies” in view of both their confessional doctrines and political inclination. Under pressure from the Reformed Church, numerous anti-Catholic edicts were issued for the prosecution of priests streaming like a swarm of “locusts” to the Utrecht city, the stronghold for Reformed and Catholic Churches alike in the Northern Netherlands. In theory, the policy of the political authorities barred priests from their pastoral duties to Catholics living in the city. In practice, however, the Utrecht magistracy publicly recognised, and non-publicly connived at, the presence of priests. Political practices of pro/persecution and toleration served to manage and regulate the precarious environment of confessional coexistence. In defying persecution and seeking toleration, Catholic priests tactically and discursively mobilised their civic status based on their and/or their families’ close relationship with, and contribution to, the civic community of Utrecht.
Highlights
In the Protestant Dutch Republic, Catholic priests were represented as one of the deadliest “enemies” in view of both their confessional doctrines and political inclination
The Voetian consistory continued to urge the political authorities to prosecute Catholic priests, representing them as the fifth column dispatched by the Pope or the Habsburg monarchy
The public church’s fears were not groundless: Catholic priests always far outnumbered Reformed ministers in Utrecht, and they steadily streamed to the city like a swarm of “locusts.” As the episcopal city turned centre of the Holland Mission, Utrecht attracted many Catholic ecclesiastics
Summary
How did the individual Catholic priests discursively manage to resist persecution and request toleration in their petitions to political authorities? Toleration as connivance was, by its very definition, practised without official documentation. Between 1630 and 1672 the other recognised priests including many sons of prominent families in Utrecht discursively justified their stay or residence in the city by noting the need to divide property, to visit their family or friends, to receive medical care, and the like. These appeals testify that connections between the priests and the Utrecht civic community implicitly—but still certainly—influenced the political authorities’ decision to bestow public recognition on the priests. Gerrit Hermansz van Honthorst’s discourse on behalf of his brother Herman explicitly exploited his family’s elevated civic status as “trustful subjects” and “good patriots” to persuade the Prince of Orange to tolerate Herman’s stay in Utrecht. In defying persecution and seeking toleration, Catholic priests tactically and discursively mobilised their civic status, which entailed public rights including the freedom of conscience, on the basis of their and/or their families’ close relationships with and contribution to the multiconfessional civic community of Utrecht
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
