Religious persecution in Ireland

PatsytheNazi

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Ulster Scots were generally Presbytarian, which would have been classed as dissenters.

The penal laws were never designed to be anti Irish and they certainly were not unique to Ireland. They were more to do with assuring where the allegiances of the ruling classes lay.

Yes, but I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive the Irish for having such a poor view of British fairplay since most of the population of Ireland was 80% + Catholic and it drastically affected the Irish more than anyone else and hence felt it particuliarily discriminated against them.

If you were poor they probably didn't affect you a great deal as Catholic, Anglican and methodist peasants had no rights whatsoever.

In a word, emmmm bollox. Anglican and Methodist peasents had vastly more rights than Catholics and likewise enjoyed the socio economic benefits.

A good example would be for instance dockers in Belfast right up to 1969. There were two types of dockers, the unionised, better payed, steadyier employed and the " casual " dockers who basically were lined up like cattle early in the morning and a foreman (usually a Protestant of course) would select those he wanted. Needless to say, the unionised, better payed dockers were Protestants and the casual ones of course Catholics.

If you are going to look at the Penal laws, then the climate in europe also needs to be taken into consideration.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Ulster Scots were generally Presbytarian, which would have been classed as dissenters.

The penal laws were never designed to be anti Irish and they certainly were not unique to Ireland. They were more to do with assuring where the allegiances of the ruling classes lay.

The only way you could safely assert that would be to compare their application in Ireland and Britain .

There was also a doubt as to Englands legal claim to Ireland

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056226312

Academic I know but once the local Chiefs were broken -life was more bearable for the new "colonisers".

So you would need to compare English law & practice to Irish law and practice.

The Duke of Wellington called the Anglo-Irish Ascendency "proprietors" implying that Ireland was not a country or kingdom but a piece of property.

If you were poor they probably didn't affect you a great deal as Catholic, Anglican and methodist peasants had no rights whatsoever.

Maybe.

But antropologists describe the "power of the limited good" .

Take the rules on a horse over £5 and Art O'Leary being criminalised and killed for not handing over his horse.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72468969&postcount=35

Or, the non hiring of Catholics as white collar workers by Guinnesses in Dublin.

So discrimination meant power and also legal protection.

The right to accumulate wealth and even enter a trade or profession. These guys all knew that there was only so much to go around.

If you are going to look at the Penal laws, then the climate in europe also needs to be taken into consideration.

Maybe.

But don't you think that the rules that applied in Ireland and Britain are a good starting point.

Take the Dukes of Norfolk - the premier Catholic Nobility in the UK http://www.thepeerage.com/p1123.htm#i11221 surely that points to differentiation on the treatment of Catholics in Ireland and in Britain.

So what were the differences.

I don't think anyone would say that William of Orange personally was anti-catholic and it is safer to say that the English Parliment were the other party. So he went with it.

It may be easier to look at it antropologically than historically but I would love to see the real deal.

Fratton Fred

I accept that there was discrimination, in Belfast docks and the Guinness brewery, but the penal laws were revoked by then. Most of this would have been personal bigotry rather than legislative discrimination.

There were plenty prominent Catholics in Ireland as well, such as Lord Trimblestown a member of the Catholic committee.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I accept that there was discrimination, in Belfast docks and the Guinness brewery, but the penal laws were revoked by then. Most of this would have been personal bigotry rather than legislative discrimination.

There were plenty prominent Catholics in Ireland as well, such as Lord Trimblestown a member of the Catholic committee.

OK - but they had a legacy. Done to death everywhere.

I think that looking at eastern europe is a cop out.

The post penal laws catholic ascendency and middle class or if you like "gombeenman" .

How did they influence the USA. ???

Dades

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Totally agreed - but I suppose now we will be accused of a " witchhunt " for questioning so.

Or you could just disagree and discuss without reference to recent events that have no bearing on this thread.

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Would we have a better chance of a decent history discussion thread over on the A & H forum ?

Judging on this post I think perhaps the Drama Forum might suit you better?

Fratton Fred

I read once that Highland Presbytarians could farm sheep with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other. The book was saying how these guys were religious fundamentalists and frontiersmen.

They went from colonising the north of Ireland to colonising north America and became the original WASPs.

I am guessing that played a big part in the way the US developed. Plus you had all sorts of other immigrants there seeking religious freedom (as Mr O'Bama put it) and I would hazard a guess a lot of these came from the Netherlands (based on the city of New Amsterdam) and Germany and were probably calvanists or Hugenots who had escaped persecution in France or elsewhere in Europe.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I read once that Highland Presbytarians could farm sheep with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other. The book was saying how these guys were religious fundamentalists and frontiersmen.
.

I think the penal laws were structured so that the Irish had neither sheep or guns.

So structurally in Ireland , the economy developed like a ponzi scheme and each sucessive generation had less.

You may not be comparing like with like.

I imagine we would need to look at the terms of emigration too to see what happened in the 18th century.

PatsytheNazi

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I accept that there was discrimination, in Belfast docks and the Guinness brewery, but the penal laws were revoked by then. Most of this would have been personal bigotry rather than legislative discrimination.

There were plenty prominent Catholics in Ireland as well, such as Lord Trimblestown a member of the Catholic committee.

The thread is about " Religious persecution in Ireland " and not just the Penal laws. And it wasn't personalised bigotry but institutionalised discrimination engineered and maintained by Britain.

PatsytheNazi

Dades wrote: »

Or you could just disagree and discuss without reference to recent events that have no bearing on this thread.

Judging on this post I think perhaps the Drama Forum might suit you better?

Maybe the Personal Issues forum might be the place to suit you ?

Ah well, off to Politics.ie

Fratton Fred

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

The thread is about " Religious persecution in Ireland " and not just the Penal laws. And it wasn't personalised bigotry but institutionalised discrimination engineered and maintained by Britain.

Youu get upset when we don't discuss the penal laws, upset when we do.

I suppose we could sit around and swap various tales of woe about religious persecution, but what purpose does that serve. Personally I'd prefer to better understand how, why and what it meant with regards everyday life and where the persecution came from.

For example, Catholics were forbidden from attending the universities in Cork, Galway and Belfast. Was this a form of persecution? Why was it and why were they forbidden?

How many catholics therefore didn't attend university?

When De Velera stated that if a Catholic doctor and a protestant doctor both applied for the same job, the Catholic should get it. What did this mean to all the protestant's studying medicine? Did they all decide to emigrate?

Or, I suppose we could sit on our barstools and sing songs about the IRA.

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

I think the penal laws were structured so that the Irish had neither sheep or guns.

So structurally in Ireland , the economy developed like a ponzi scheme and each sucessive generation had less.

You may not be comparing like with like.

I imagine we would need to look at the terms of emigration too to see what happened in the 18th century.

I think you misunderstand me. I was referring to what are known here as the Ulster Scots and in the US as the Scots-Irish. I believe they played a big part in. Populating north America.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think you misunderstand me. I was referring to what are known here as the Ulster Scots and in the US as the Scots-Irish. I believe they played a big part in. Populating north America.

I think its only fair to point our that an Ulster Scot with a sheep is an unfair stereotype- shotgun wedding or not


Well how are we going to do the persecution & discrimination thing differently and freshly.

What would be interesting is the emigration experience.Pre US independence, post Independence and pre & post the famine.

For example, James Hoban Architect of the White House was an Irish Catholic friend of George Washington. Anti-popery or anti English in the War of Independence.

How did the emigrants travel to the US/Canada . Indented servitude and on what terms or pay their own way .

The other stuff has all been done & we dont have enough cowboys on the history forum.

Fratton Fred

Somehow people got around the penal laws, as the Catholic Committee kind of demonstrates, so it would be interesting to see how they did. Once upon a time, England was a Catholic Country, so why did the English turn their back on Rome, but not the Irish? Was this because the English had witnessed first hand the power Rome could wield or was it obedience to the King and the Lords?

The Gombeenman thread talks about middlemen and merchants, were they protestants? Where did they come from? Surely not every Protestant in Ireland camw from Britain, so why did they convert and what was the reaction to people that did?

What exactly was the grip that the RC church had/has on the people of Ireland? When you consider the fact that Ireland was not a Catholic country until the Normans came, how did Catholicism get such a strong grip on the people of Ireland so quickly?

Just curious like. :-))

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Somehow people got around the penal laws, as the Catholic Committee kind of demonstrates, so it would be interesting to see how they did.

A few didand were allowed to by the English. But for the majority its leagacy was the famine. Ireland was treated like a piece of property and a money making racket -not a country or a kingdom.

Once upon a time, England was a Catholic Country, so why did the English turn their back on Rome, but not the Irish? Was this because the English had witnessed first hand the power Rome could wield or was it obedience to the King and the Lords?

As it is written in the Annals of the Four Masters (as translated by Mr B Behan)

Don't talk of your Protestant Minister
Or his church, without meaning or faith,
Cos the foundation stone of his temple
Was the bollocks of Henry the VIII

The Gombeenman thread talks about middlemen and merchants, were they protestants? Where did they come from? Surely not every Protestant in Ireland camw from Britain, so why did they convert and what was the reaction to people that did?

The penal laws did not allow the accumulation of money, inheritances or capital for Catholics.

What exactly was the grip that the RC church had/has on the people of Ireland? When you consider the fact that Ireland was not a Catholic country until the Normans came, how did Catholicism get such a strong grip on the people of Ireland so quickly?

Christianity predated the Normans and it was the Normans/English that brought adherence to Rome.

You might as well ask how did Henry the VIII manage to get his otherwise devout nation to convert so quickly. And he pillaged his way thru his kingdom with more zeal and casualties than the Vikings ever did.

sensibleken

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What exactly was the grip that the RC church had/has on the people of Ireland? When you consider the fact that Ireland was not a Catholic country until the Normans came, how did Catholicism get such a strong grip on the people of Ireland so quickly?

Just curious like. :-))

Interesting point you make about Ireland not being catholic before the normans. Granted Adrien IV gave permission to the Anglo-Normans to invade based on the differences in the gaelic church to the Roman one. Geraldus Cambrenus also makes sensationalist claims about the people of ireland never hearing of Jesus.

Roman eclesiastical power was slower to infiltrate the echelons of Irish life than it was in Europe. Really it is not untill the reformation when political power, religious allignment and ethnicity became intertwined that I see a Irish/catholic identity emerge.

Of course with marginilastion comes radicalisation so the catholic church really solidified their stranglehold over irish society in the modern sense at the time of the penal laws. when they had no king, chieftan, earl or leader to look up to the parish priest essentially became the leader.

Open to correction on any of this

CDfm

Interesting.

Back to Pope Adrian - I discussed it here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71504295

Now, pre Norman conquest some areas like the Pale/Dublin affiliated to the English Church.

The Gaelic Catholic Church was seperate from the "state" as such and was monastic .

An English Bishop was a feudal lord.

Tithe collection was an important church funtion and the church was like a civil service of sorts. The Irish church did not have tithes etc or property as such. Put an Irish monk on a rock with a quill and he was as happy as anything.

Lets take the population of Wexford at the time of 1798 ( I think someone has mentioned it).You had the McMurroughs (dispossesed Leinster kings),Catholic Yola/Norman Lords, Henry/Elisabeths planters,Cromwells planters, Charles II mates the Butlers of Ormonde; Descendants all with seperate grievances and claims. And the Anglo Irish Ascendency.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Now, pre Norman conquest some areas like the Pale/Dublin affiliated to the English Church.

Like you say pre-Norman arrival Dublin was already allied to the English church because of its Viking origins. But 'The Pale' only came into being after the Anglo-Norman invasion. It was in fact a symbol that no true 'conquest' had occurred - just an invasion that resulted in only the Pale area, as it became known after about 1300, being under the control of the English. 'Beyond the Pale' lay the free Irish, where Gaelic language, law and customs still flourished.

The Pale area was formally outlined in 1488 when a trench was actually dug around its boundary. But never mind, 'the wild Irish' beyond the Pale took great delight in raiding the Pale area and running off with bounty. Did you ever doubt it?

CDfm wrote: »

The Gaelic Catholic Church was seperate from the "state" as such and was monastic .

Yes, it was monastic in structure with little allegiance to Rome. The Roman church in Europe developed along the structural lines of the Roman Empire and was an urban church with dioceses and Bishoprics. Ireland not being a part of the Empire had no such structure, neither in urban form nor political, and hence the Irish church developed along Gaelic structural lines - in communities allied to families and not one central power. The Ui Neill fro example 'owned' the monastery at Armagh and made Armagh a very important centre of Irish Christianity.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What exactly was the grip that the RC church had/has on the people of Ireland? When you consider the fact that Ireland was not a Catholic country until the Normans came, how did Catholicism get such a strong grip on the people of Ireland so quickly?

Just curious like. :-))

The strong and firmly structured Irish Catholic Church that you are referring to only comes into existence in the mid nineteenth century when what was known as the 'Devotional Revolution" began. It really dates to Cardinal Cullen's time and the Synod of Thurles in 1850 when really for the first time a strong structural presence was established. For one thing, they were trying to stamp out 'irregularities' in Catholic worship. Strict Catholic worship was established along Roman lines with strong ties to Rome.

This is not to discount the prior presence of Catholicism in Ireland. There was a close relationship between tenant and priest, especially after the overthrow of the Gaelic lords in the Elizabethan period and beyond. The Penal laws against Catholicism had a major psychological impact which shouldn't really be overlooked. Catholics were essentially non-citizens in that world - whereas Protestants did have a sense of cultural identify with their overlords. And this is an important factor for the cohesion of any society. The disconnect between Catholic tenant and England landlord - and Parliament- resulted in the impoverished priests being the only allies the Irish Catholic tenants felt they could trust and turn to.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Somehow people got around the penal laws, as the Catholic Committee kind of demonstrates, so it would be interesting to see how they did. Once upon a time, England was a Catholic Country, so why did the English turn their back on Rome, but not the Irish? Was this because the English had witnessed first hand the power Rome could wield or was it obedience to the King and the Lords?d

)

England did not turn Protestant so easily as popular history suggests. There was much bloody suppression by Henry VIII and his army against any English attempt to retain the old religion. And there were many revolts in England against Henry and 'new' religion but they were all met with resistance from Henry's English army and any 'truce' established [pretending to allow some monasteries to remain open] was in fact just a pack of lies as the unfortunate rebels later found out.

There was for example a bloodbath known as the 'Pilgrimage of Grace' where thousands of men women and children in the northern region of England in Yorkshire were massacred in the 1530s for their attempt at an armed rising against Henry's policy to establish the new religion and the dissolution of the monasteries.


Edit: For further info on the Pilgrimage of Grace and the rebellions against Henry VIII in England I suggest Geoffrey Moorhouse's book : The Pilgrimage of Grace: the Rebellion that Shook Henry VIII's Throne.

MarchDub

sensibleken wrote: »

Geraldus Cambrenus also makes sensationalist claims about the people of ireland never hearing of Jesus.



Open to correction on any of this

Giraldus Cambrensis has long been considered by Irish historians as writing propaganda to support Henry II's invasion of Ireland - and for making a case for the continuing English presence in Ireland. Giraldus travelled with Prince John in 1185 as an aid to help secure John's Lordship of Ireland. Giraldus stayed for a year. But his report is interesting in that it also documents Irish resistance - and gloom -to the new Anglo-Norman presence.

jonniebgood1

Giraldus Cambrensis books are free to view/read here:

http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/topography_ireland.pdf

www.yorku.ca/inpar/conquest_ireland.pdf

Monty Burnz

owenc wrote: »

I know loads of protestants who converted to be catholic for land, i would never convert for land!

Odd, I thought that the Protestants were granted land at the expense of dispossessed Catholics?

owenc

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Odd, I thought that the Protestants were granted land at the expense of dispossessed Catholics?

No there were some protestants planted in boggy areas which were inundated with catholics, so to get land they had to convert it was quite common. And i'm not so sure about that we could say the population of this island wasn't very high (compared to scotland which was actually overpopulated....which is actually one of the reasons why some people came here) before the plantation so it wouldn't take long for the planters to outnumber the locals (i think a local census states ten years) i really don't believe the whole displacing nonsense infact the planters actually let some irish people live on their land if they worked for them.

Monty Burnz

owenc wrote: »

No there were some protestants planted in boggy areas which were inundated with catholics, so to get land they had to convert it was quite common. And i'm not so sure about that we could say the population of this island wasn't very high before the plantation so it wouldn't take long for the planters to outnumber the locals (i think a local census states ten years) i really don't believe the whole displacing nonsense infact the planters actually let some irish people live on their land if they worked for them.

Wow - massive revisionism here. You woldn't have a political reason for claiming that Ireland was some sort of abandoned wilderness before the plantations?
Much like the way North America was empty (aside from all the natives) and therefore it was ok for Europeans to take over the place?

owenc

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Wow - massive revisionism here. You woldn't have a political reason for claiming that Ireland was some sort of abandoned wilderness before the plantations?
Much like the way North America was empty (aside from all the natives) and therefore it was ok for Europeans to take over the place?

No i just have sources which state that this island had a very small population then. (don't quote me because this is just estimating with the census data) The population of the county before the population was around 1200 people, just after the plantation around ten years later it was 3200. Thats a very big jump in just ten years. By analysing the data it looks like before the plantation the area was VERY sparsely populated because there was areas in the county that were hundreds of square miles (coleraine borough council as a matter of fact whos population increased to 700 10 years later.) that only had a population of around 100 before the plantation that is a very small population for such an area. So yes i do believe it was very sparsely populated.

MarchDub

owenc wrote: »

No i just have sources which state that this island had a very small population then. (don't quote me because this is just estimating with the census data) The population of the county before the population was around 1200 people, just after the plantation around ten years later it was 3200. Thats a very big jump in just ten years. By analysing the data it looks like before the plantation the area was VERY sparsely populated because there was areas in the county that were hundreds of square miles (coleraine borough council as a matter of fact whos population increased to 700 10 years later.) that only had a population of around 100 before the plantation that is a very small population for such an area. So yes i do believe it was very sparsely populated.

Could you please supply the sources you are quoting - without reference - for your 'census' data for the 1600s?? There was no official census taken until much later centuries.

Also your claim of the conversion of Protestants to Catholicism in the 1600s also needs documents.

MarchDub

OK - let me inject some historical reality into this discussion.

The Printed Book of 1610 outlines the Plantation of Ulster and it states up front categorically that it is to be a “Protestant Settlement”. The “First orders and Conditions of the Undertakers” were published 1609 and revised later. It was an exclusive Protestant settlement. I have copies of all these documents and will gladly quote from the Settlement papers if you want. The native Catholic ‘mere Irish” population were not to be granted land and “not to be granted any position of power or authority in the disposition of land”. The incoming settlers were required to prove their Protestantism by taking an oath of allegiance before a judge and also to vouch for the Protestantism of any family members who were also coming to Ireland with them. The settlers were also told to build strong houses – details of how this was to be done are given in broad outline. Protestants were to build stone homes with stone walls surrounding them while Catholics were only permitted to build wooden structures. And Protestants were required to have arms in the home against any possible Catholic reprisal. This is all stated clearly in the settlement documents.


Much of the land was physically cleared of Catholics by the English army prior to arrival of the new owners – it was a deliberate clearance, it was fully occupied land prior to this. The seized area of Ulster was divided into precincts and then into farms granted at very low rates to the new settlers. Catholics were segregated into particular areas and the small amount of land they were given [some were described as "deserving Irish"] was taxed at twice the Protestant rate - Catholics were warned that any reprisal by them would result in total loss of any land they had been allowed to settle on. But this overburden of tax meant that over the years more land was forfeited by the native Catholics and went to the settlers. The stated policy of the Printed Book was that the Protestant settlers were not to employ Catholics in any way. This proved difficult and eventfully Catholics were granted the lowest jobs of labourers.


Belfast was created by charter by King James I in 1613 specifically to be the economic centre of this new Protestant settlement.

HellsAngel

MarchDub wrote: »

England did not turn Protestant so easily as popular history suggests. There was much bloody suppression by Henry VIII and his army against any English attempt to retain the old religion. And there were many revolts in England against Henry and 'new' religion but they were all met with resistance from Henry's English army and any 'truce' established [pretending to allow some monasteries to remain open] was in fact just a pack of lies as the unfortunate rebels later found out.

There was for example a bloodbath known as the 'Pilgrimage of Grace' where thousands of men women and children in the northern region of England in Yorkshire were massacred in the 1530s for their attempt at an armed rising against Henry's policy to establish the new religion and the dissolution of the monasteries.


Edit: For further info on the Pilgrimage of Grace and the rebellions against Henry VIII in England I suggest Geoffrey Moorhouse's book : The Pilgrimage of Grace: the Rebellion that Shook Henry VIII's Throne.

Interesting. From what I remember I was under the impression that persecution of Catholics only came about as a reaction to the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in Paris but the persecution obviously precides it. Another sacred cow slaughtered along with the Glorious Revoulotion and civil and religious liberty for all.

Fratton Fred

HellsAngel wrote: »

Interesting. From what I remember I was under the impression that persecution of Catholics only came about as a reaction to the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in Paris but the persecution obviously precides it. Another sacred cow slaughtered along with the Glorious Revoulotion and civil and religious liberty for all.

It was politics, loyalty and Rome's interference with state affairs.

Did Catholics have loyalty to Rome or to their country?

A question that appears relevant today.

MarchDub

Edit: Posted twice by mistake.