John Gordon
Can religion be a powerful force of dissent?
2886 words
There is a history for religious organisations or groups to become involved in periods of
dissent. This involvement can include the execution of powerful forces deployed either in
support of dissent or its suppression. In such periods of dissent there may be a range of forces
other than religion; political, cultural, economic and others. It is within the mix of forces that
religious force shows its power. Religious force can be deployed as a force for dissent by
defining the moral basis for dissent; it can help to bind communities of dissenters together; it
can provide rituals for the focus for dissent; it can justify/encourage the martyrdom of
dissenters; it can provide a vision for the future and potentially point to a non-violent route for
dissent. However, when religion is institutionalised, it can be an extremely strong counterforce
to dissent by naming and punishing dissenters as apostates/heretics; providing moral authority
for the suppression of dissent; and using its reach to identify, isolate and destroy dissenters.
This flux of powers can be seen in two European theatres of dissent; the suppression of the
Anabaptist movement and trial of Michael Sattler in 1572 and the Irish Easter Rising of 1916. It
can be shown that in both cases there was a complex mix within which religious force was
played out, in both cases to a backdrop of war and in both cases the martyrs to each cause have
left a significant legacy.
In the early years of the Reformation, the Zwinglian Reformed church was established in
Zurich and other cities, this church and its debates generated a schism over the idea of whether
infant baptism was scripturally based, the nay-sayers to infant baptism became known as
Anabaptist. This movement suffered “violent persecution…at the hands of both Protestants and
Catholics” (Maiden & Price, 2020a, p. 17), one particularly gory piece of persecution was
handed out to one of its early leaders – Michael Sattler (1490 – 20 May 1527).
Michael Sattler is venerated by Anabaptists as an important figure in the foundation of their
religious practice, and as a martyr who went to his gory death at the hands of the Catholic
Church. There have been fictionalised accounts of his life (Ausberger, 2005), portraying Sattler
almost as a saint, living the life of a monk, a Prior in a monastery, seeking truth in the opening
years of the Reformation. Similarly, the legend of the sixteen martyrs (Wolffe, 2020a, p. 241)
of the Easter Rising are celebrated in fiction and in film, and are venerated as founding fathers
of the Republic. Taking these two cases in turn it is possible to see the use of religion as a
powerful force within the context of dissent.
Michael Sattler was probably the Prior in the Monastery of St. Peter of the Black Forest around
1522 or so (Snyder, 1981). It was a very tumultuous time, the Peasants War was kicking off,
the Roman Church was raising taxes, and the Reformed Church was taking over cities and
cantons of Switzerland and surrounding countries. It is clear that Sattler held his position in a
traditional monastery as a dutiful monk, led by a conservative Abbot who allowed no access to
reformation ideas (Snyder, 1981, p. 280). This closed existence would change over the coming
years. St. Peters was to be invaded twice, the first time (1522) by troops of the Margrave of
Hochberg who came to force the monastery to cease collecting taxes from their tenants, the
second (1525) by the Black Forest troop of peasants fighting in the Peasants War. The first
invasion was by forces sympathetic to the Reformation, the second was by troops fully
committed to the Reformation (Snyder, 1981, p. 282). This was probably where Sattler gained
his insight to Reformation ideas. Sattler felt the full force of new religious ideas in these
invasions, forcing him to consider religious practice and its scriptural authority. Accepting
some of the ideas of the Reformation forced Sattler to resile his vows and leave his monastery,
seeking a new future for himself. Sattler travelled to Zurich, seeing the new religion in action,
seeing it as a force which could improve the lives (and souls) of the wider populace. Synder
1
John Gordon
(Snyder, 1981) tells how Sattler travelled and gained knowledge of the Reformed Church, and
as his study of scripture progressed, began to engage in dissent against it and by June 1526,
became a leader in the Anabaptist dissent (Snyder, 1981, p. 286). The Anabaptist movement
was growing, gaining some elements of power, and were being persecuted by both the Catholic
and the various state Reformed churches. (Maiden & Price, 2020a). The force of this
persecution was to separate groups of Anabaptists, with the result that there were “some false
brothers”, with the result that there was a danger of groups of Anabaptists becoming “given
over to the lasciviousness and licence of the flesh” (ElizabethMiller, 2016, p. para 5). It was in
order to bring the Anabaptist church together, to ensure that all members should “observe and
understand” an agreed common set of principles (ElizabethMiller, 2016, p. para 4), that the
leaders of Anabaptism met in the town of Schleitheim. Here they agreed their common set of
principles and standard congregational order (the Schleitheim Confession), in this way to
institutionalise the new church. This was a formal challenge to both the Reformed Church and
the Catholic Church, and with this Sattler restarted his life as a missionary leaving for the
Catholic town of Horb to lead the congregation there. Sattler and his congregants were faced
with the physical power of both established churches, but they faced this with their own power.
The Confession pointed a way forward for the Anabaptists – separateness and non-violence, by
not being a threat, they could not be persecuted. This strategy did not work. Sattler was arrested
shortly after his arrival, and faced a number of charges, including heresy and treason, thus
showing the power of the Catholic church to suppress dissent, However, he could not brought
to trial in Horb, because the authorities feared the power of the Anabaptists, therefore Sattler
and his co-accused were shipped to Rottenburg (Snyder, 1981, p. 210), showing the force of
Anabaptism. Rottenburg was to become a show trial, an exhibition of Catholic force. Later
accounts of the trial became a rallying cry for Anabaptists to continue their dissent. Sattler was
given no chance to confront the charges facing him (Wagner, 2015), he did try to defend
himself using scripture, and asked for the opportunity to make his case by debate. The town
clerk was said to have made the famous statement: “.shall we dispute with you? The Hangman
will dispute with you…” (Wagner, 2015, p. 117). The force of religion sent Sattler to his grisly
fate. This was not the end of the matter, Sattler, his wife, and all his followers bar one, did not
recant and faced execution with courage, with the absolute belief in their own and their
followers’ salvation. They knew from the bible that they would rest along with the mother of
Christ until they ascended on Judgement Day to spend eternity in heaven. This group of martyrs
left behind two documents – the Confession and the account of the trial and martyrdom of
Sattler- to become the foundation documents which focussed the power, the force to enable
communities such as the Amish and Mennonites to exist separate from other societies,
maintaining their dissent from both the Catholic and Reformed Churches.
This mixture of war, politics, religion and martyrdom was also evident in the Easter Rising and
its aftermath, the force of religion was deployed both to support and frustrate Republican
dissenters seeking to build an independent Ireland. In the North, there was the counter dissent
to both Home Rule and Independence, supported with the full force of the congregational
churches. Both dissenting communities had their martyrs, the North claimed their blood
sacrifice from the trenches of the First World War (WW1), and the Republicans had their 16
martyrs executed by the British. At that time, the communities of Ireland were defined by their
religion, either Catholic or Protestant, similar to that earlier situation in Middle Europe where
communities declared for the Reformation, or stayed with the Roman church. In the runup to
WW1, the idea of Home Rule for Ireland within the Empire was in the ascendency. This was
supported by the Catholic Church, and it exercised its power to promote this goal. In the North,
the Protestant churches threw their weight against Home Rule, fearing Catholic majority rule,
with the mass signing of the Ulster Covenant aligning Protestant religion to the political cause
of Unionism, and forming a militia, the Ulster Volunteers (Wolffe, 2020a, p. 234). WW1
provide a respite, both sides agreeing to delay any implementation of Home Rule until after the
war. At this time, the Catholic Church exercised its power in support of Home Rule, but against
any dissent leading to republican independence or armed rebellion. Indeed, the Catholic Church
2
John Gordon
condemned the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) several times; Archbishop Cullen “forbade
confessors to give absolution to members of the Fenian organisation” (Rafferty, 2016, p. 47).
This did not stop the development of the republican dissent. Within Republicanism there were
two strands, the IRB and the trade union based Irish Citizen Army (ICA). The IRB formed its
own militia – the Irish Volunteers. Since these two groups had no loyalty to the UK, they
continued their dissent and saw opportunities to obtain arms from Germany. Both the
Volunteers and the ICA took advantage of this, and together planned an uprising.
But how were the forces of religion to be played out? The ICA was nominally socialist, not
really involved in religion, and subject to the condemnation of the Catholic Church, whereas
the IRB and its volunteers came out of the Irish cultural dissent of the 19th century, only gaining
the church’s disapproval as it formed the secretive Fenian organisation.
The behaviour of the Catholic Church towards the IRB and its rebellion is probably not an
example where the force of religion was deployed with significant effect either in support or
opposition to the Rising itself. Initially, the position of the church was defined by Rome in that
any rebellion against properly constituted authority was wrong and that Catholics should
“denounce treason and rebellion wherever they may spring up” (Archbishop Cullen quoted in
(Rafferty, 2016, p. 47)). However, there was some confusion in the ranks of the church, and so
for a while the church seemed to follow public opinion, rather than to lead it. As the Rebellion
played out in those terrible six days in the streets of Dublin, individual priests attended the
rebels, helping them as they could, providing their pastoral needs. Publicly, the comment from
the pulpit on the Rising was “a shocking and idiotic tragedy … engendered by socialists and ...
silly patriots” (Rafferty, 2016, p. 47).
Even the reported statements from the Pope were confused. As the IRB were preparing for the
Rising, Joseph Plunkett, who would be Commandant-General in the Rising, sent his father
Count Plunkett to Rome to seek the blessing of the Pope. Plunket reported that this had been
done successfully and as a result some of the volunteers took part in the Rising believing that
they had been blessed by the Pope. (Rafferty, 2016, p. 52). However, this belief was not
exploited by the IRB, perhaps because it was not verifiable. After the Rising was over, there
was strong forces within the Church to denounce the rebels, Bishop Foley stated that “all who
aided and abetted them … come under the excommunication…” (quoted in (Rafferty, 2016, p.
50).
Although there was initial confusion in the attitude to the Rising, it was clear that at its
conclusion it was detested by the general public, and the Church approved of its failure,
condemning its participants. Both these factors changed in the days following the Rising. The
British had imposed martial law, and prosecuted the participants in a similar manner to that
dealt out to Sattler and his Anabaptists. The main leaders of the Rising were prosecuted by
secret courts martial, with no defence counsel, in a very abrupt manner. Sentences were either
commuted or carried out with a few days. The brusqueness of the courts martial was one of the
first acts of an extremely oppressive period of military rule in Ireland, moving the population in
the South to a position of dissent. The Church followed this movement and accepted the 16 as
true Catholics rather than as potential excommunicants, allowing for public memorial masses
for the now-become martyrs. This shows the Church using its power to legitimise dissent, even
as the protestant churches of the North called out these masses as “rebellious and disorderly
conduct … in memory of the rebels” (Rafferty, 2016, p. 52).
As military rule continued and tales of the rebellion spread, the opinion of the population in the
South aligned more with the rebels. This empathy was increased by reports of how the martyrs
prepared for death, by “fervent and devout reception of the sacraments” (Rafferty, 2016, p. 51).
In this way, the martyrs of the Easter Rising were following the martyrs of the Anabaptists,
their religion giving them courage and certainty to face death. During the summer of 1916, the
dissent of Republicanism became aligned with Catholicism, with religious rites in the Church
becoming a focus for the growing dissent against military rule. As the Church aligned with
3
John Gordon
dissent, its force became evident in the campaign against conscription, which was successfully
led by the church (Wolffe, 2020a, p. 242).
The power of this alignment of the church and republicanism became clear in the General
Election of December 1918, Sinn Fein swept the board, and instead of sitting in London, their
MPs set up the first Dail in Dublin, and unilaterally declared Independence. During the
following years there was the War of Independence and the Civil War, enabling the Catholic
Church to embed itself in the structures of the new country. In the North, the protestant
Unionists had also swept the board at the election, and set up their own mini- state within the
UK, with the church also embedded in the new structures of government.
There is a similarity in the cases of Anabaptism in the 16th century and Irish Republicanism in
the 20th century, in that the forces of religion both bolstered and separated communities,
developing a kind of apartheid. They both arose in a period of change where a dynamic of
religion, war, politics and martyrdom provided forces for the resolution of dissent. However, in
both cases, the force of religion was such that the dissent was resolved by creating barriers, in
the case of Ireland, this has been borders and walls, in the Anabaptist case, the barrier is the
Atlantic Ocean, as the Anabaptists emigrated to create their own communities in the USA.
In each case, religion, as a force, was deployed on both sides of the dissent. In the Anabaptist
case, the force was applied by two religions, in the South of Ireland, the Catholic Church,
through its confusion, initially suppressed the dissent, then moved to support it. The martyrdom
of the 16 and that of Sattler and friends provided the focus for the expression of religious force
leading to the success of their dissent.
In both cases there were opposing religious identities. The Anabaptists in some areas were
opposed by the Catholic Church, on others by the Reformed Church. After the realignment in
1916, the Catholic Republican Irish were opposed by the state religions (Anglicanism in
London, Presbyterianism in Belfast). Religion on all sides provided the force to allow
communities to bind together.
In both cases, religion provided the courage and justification for martyrdom, also provided the
focus for dissent.
In the Anabaptist case, the institutional churches declared the Anabaptist as heretics, in Ireland,
the Catholic Church (initially) condemned the Republicans and threatened excommunication.
In the Anabaptist case, the institutional church provided the moral authority for the suppression
of the dissent. The Irish case is one instance where the power of the church switched sides,
initially giving the moral authority to suppress the dissent, then following changes in public
opinion providing the moral authority for the dissent in the War of Independence. In the year up
to full independence, the Catholic Church provided the force to support dissent to its successful
conclusion, to “ensure that institutional Catholicism maintained its place in Irish society”
(Rafferty, 2016, p. 55)
4
John Gordon
References
Ausberger, M., 2005. Pilgrim Aflame. Scottdale, PA.: Herald Press.
ElizabethMiller, 2016. Schleitheim Confession (source) - Anabaptistwiki. [Online]
Available at:
https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Schleitheim_Confession_(source)&oldid
=16204
[Accessed 15 May 2023].
Maiden, J. & Price, C., 2020a. 'The reformation religious revolutionaries. A113 Revolutions.
[Online]
Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1677355
[Accessed 24 10 2022].
Rafferty, O., 2016. The Church and the Easter Rising. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review,
105(417), pp. 47-57.
Snyder, C. A., 1981. Revolution and the Swiss Brethren: The Case of Michael Sattler. Church
History, 50(3), pp. 276-287.
Wagner, J., 2015. The Hangman will dispute with you. In: Voices of the Reformation:
Contemporary Accounts of Daily Life. Santa Barbara: Greenwood, ABC-CLIO, LLC, pp. 115120.
Wolffe, J., 2020a. Religious division and political polarisation in Ireland. [Online]
Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1746218
[Accessed 4 4 2023].
5