Just a side note - Shakespeare was anti-Catholic; he was Puritan. All his biblical quotes were taken from the Calvinist Puritan bible; all his friends and business associates were Puritan; his daughter married a high ranking Puritan; his father was directly responsible (and actively involved) in the mass destruction of all the beautiful Catholic artwork and architecture in the churches; his work was published by a Puritan (Field) and a Puritan publishing house. And the First Folio is rife with anti-Catholic sediment and filth. History makes it very clear where Shakespeare was coming from.

Liam Ronan: Queen Elizabeth was Protestant. While initially open to the more radical form of Protestantism she began to bulk at how far things were going against the old faith. She thus back-tracked and made it clear that she had no time for Puritism (Purifying all Catholic practices completely). This is why Shakespeare had to be so careful politically. Recusants were not just Catholics. They were also Puritans. With regards to Scholars who promote this novel Catholic theory - to be honest, I have to wonder if they know their history at all. Or are they simply re-hashing old - same again - arguments as the author Joseph Pearce does. Shakespears' work is anti-papal and contains many semi-veiled attacks against Our Lady and the saints. Even in high school we were warned by our teachers that there was a lot of unsavory material. Historically, Shakespeare always favoured the anti-church, anti-faith side to point of re-writing history. He always chose the most anti-Christian sources for his work eg. Bale. A product of his times? Yes. Definitely. Even after Joan of Arc was publically exonerated by the Church, he still wrote of her in the most despicable manner. And if you call 'masterful' someone who was intent on selling his work to a protestant audience - at the expense of a great Catholic hero - then I would agree with you. But Catholic. No.

Ps. Sure, I will take a look at the writer Joseph Sobran. Thanks.