It was taken as given for a long time that the French Wars of Religion couldn't *really* be about religion. After all, who would die for the idea of transubstantiation? Such was the view of the historians for a long period, partially because, it was so clear that the actors were largely motivated by politics. A man would at one time fervently defend the divine right of kings, and then when tides turned, take up the resistance theory of his enemy. How could this possibly be about religion?
In this case, "religion" largely acted as a social marker. When a Calvinist took communion at Mass, he desecrated the host. He was a social contagion. It was this belief that the very existence of Calvinists in the laity desecrated God that gave the impetus for St. Bartholomew's Day.
It would however be disingenuous to say that these people (mostly) did not sincerely hold these beliefs. There was a certain character to each group that led them to subscribe to one doctrine or another. Even the Marxist historians could recognize this.
What's notable is that while the "political theology" was easily revised or completely revolutionized, the confessional identities were preserved. Who a Catholic was and what it meant to be Catholic hardly changed, they knew exactly who they were. They changed only what needed to be believed to keep their friends in power and their enemies at bay.
English
