Encyclical Of Pope Leo XIII on Boycotting in Ireland

Keaton

No it's not a joke. I thought this was hilarious - check it out:

SAEPE NOS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON BOYCOTTING IN IRELAND

To Our Venerable Brethren,
the Bishops of Ireland Venerable Brethren,
Health and Apostolic Benediction.

From this supreme dignity of the Apostolic office, We have frequently directed Our solicitude and Our thoughts to your Catholic people; and Our feelings have been more than once recorded in published documents, from which all may clearly learn what are Our dispositions towards Ireland. They are sufficiently attested by the provisions which, under Our direction, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda made in former years respecting Ireland, and also by the letters which on more than one occasion We addressed to Our Venerable Brother, Cardinal M'Cabe, Archbishop of Dublin. Once again, they have been attested by the address which We recently delivered to a not inconsiderable number of Catholics belonging to your nation, from whom we received, not only congratulations and heartfelt wishes for Our preservation, but also expressions of gratitude on account of Our benevolent dispositions, clearly discerned by them, towards the Irish people. Furthermore, within these past few months, when it was resolved to build a church in this city in honour of St. Patrick, the great Apostle of the Irish, We most warmly encouraged the undertaking, and We shall substantially aid it within the limits of Our resources.

2. Now this, Our paternal affection, remaining, as it does, unaltered, We cannot disguise that tidings which have recently come to Us from Ireland have deeply pained and grieved Us. We have learned that an untoward excitement has suddenly arisen because the Sacred Congregation, whose office it is to vindicate the authority of the Church against those who resist it, has decreed that those methods of warfare known as Boycotting and the Plan of Campaign, which had begun to be employed by many, may not lawfully be used...

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_24061888_saepe-nos_en.html

wolfsbane

Keaton wrote: »

No it's not a joke. I thought this was hilarious - check it out:



http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_24061888_saepe-nos_en.html

Why hilarious?

***********************************************************************
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Keaton

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why hilarious?

***********************************************************************
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

I dunno, I just thought it was funny that small-time events in rural Ireland back in the day warranted a Papal Encyclical.

The Quadratic Equation

Keaton wrote: »

I dunno, I just thought it was funny that small-time events in rural Ireland back in the day warranted a Papal Encyclical.

They were far from small time.
Irish tenants invented "the Boycott" (named after Captain Boycott). It is a very effective protest when used en masse, and it has since spread all over the world. It's a great pity the Irish people forgot about it when dealing with the current crop of corrupt Golden Circle cronies that took over from the English landlords. Nothing learned from history yet again.

Doc Farrell

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Keaton wrote: »

I dunno, I just thought it was funny that small-time events in rural Ireland back in the day warranted a Papal Encyclical.

They were far from small time.
Irish tenants invented "the Boycott" (named after Captain Boycott). It is a very effective protest when used en masse, and it has since spread all over the world. It's a great pity the Irish people forgot about it when dealing with the current crop of corrupt Golden Circle cronies that took over from the English landlords. Nothing learned from history yet again.

Many Carholic priests would have been highly nationalistic so the encyclical would have had 2 major effects, to enforce moderation and to prove to the ruling elite that the catholic powers didnt wish to cause anti-English sentiment, though of course many did!
An interesting historical document to be sure.

PatricaMcKay2

Keaton wrote: »

I dunno, I just thought it was funny that small-time events in rural Ireland back in the day warranted a Papal Encyclical.

Ireland was actually incredibly important at the time to the British Empire as a source of cheap grain which allowed for the pushing of people on the mainland into factories from the land, it was only when the USA began exporting cheaper grain later in the century (along with the Russian Empire) that it ceased to be; Ireland was also seen as the backbone of the British landed gentry which is why the Fenians were such cause celebres through out Republican Europe. The Vatican was fighting a desperate battlle at this time to maintain as much of the pre-1789 world as possible. Supporting landlordism in Ireland was seen as vital in this battle- and the core reason why Maynooth was built.

PatricaMcKay2

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Many Carholic priests would have been highly nationalistic so the encyclical would have had 2 major effects, to enforce moderation and to prove to the ruling elite that the catholic powers didnt wish to cause anti-English sentiment, though of course many did!
An interesting historical document to be sure.

No they would not have been. At all.

They only became highly nationalistic after the threat posed by radical Republicanism and Socialism which had been major forces driving the national liberation were crushed by the Treatyite counter-revolution. It was the likes of O'Connell and Cardinal Cullen who drove the destruction of the Irish language, much more so than the Brits.

Doc Farrell

I don't mind agreeing to disagree with ye, but for anyone interested in the role that local priests played or did not play in the formation of the Land League, google is thy friend. The suggestion that Irish priests weren't nationalistic before the 1920's, if I understand your reference to the treaty and socialism to mean that, is, well, unusual.
Best wishes.

wolfsbane

Keaton wrote: »

I dunno, I just thought it was funny that small-time events in rural Ireland back in the day warranted a Papal Encyclical.

As the other posters said, this back-water was producing 'solutions' that had universal applicability. The Papacy had been through a great crisis with republicans in Europe, so 'people-power' would not have been welcome. And it had hopes of wooing itself back into the British establishment, recovering Britain for Rome one day. So it made political sense to support the State.

That said, it used arguments that were in themselves worthy of Christian consideration. Rebellion against proper authority is forbidden in the Bible. And rebellion against improper authority must be conducted properly, not savagely.

How many of these factors moved the Vatican to write this document? I don't know. It certainly was politically advantageous. But maybe the Irish had a non-rebellion method of redress available? Voting strength?

Or maybe the nature of the Boycott left much to be desired morally?

Would we be happy to apply the same tactics to present circumstances? If not, had the papacy not a point? Is political evolution not much better than political revolution?

*******************************************************************
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

georgieporgy

wolfsbane wrote: »

As the other posters said, this back-water was producing 'solutions' that had universal applicability. The Papacy had been through a great crisis with republicans in Europe, so 'people-power' would not have been welcome. And it had hopes of wooing itself back into the British establishment, recovering Britain for Rome one day. So it made political sense to support the State.

That said, it used arguments that were in themselves worthy of Christian consideration. Rebellion against proper authority is forbidden in the Bible. And rebellion against improper authority must be conducted properly, not savagely.

How many of these factors moved the Vatican to write this document? I don't know. It certainly was politically advantageous. But maybe the Irish had a non-rebellion method of redress available? Voting strength?

Or maybe the nature of the Boycott left much to be desired morally?

Would we be happy to apply the same tactics to present circumstances? If not, had the papacy not a point? Is political evolution not much better than political revolution?

I agree entirely Wolfsbane, esp the highlighted bits. I would say that the political side effects of improving relations with protestant England were just that... side effects. And good ones at that.
I've read the encyclical and wish it had been adhered to by the people in Ireland at the time. Maybe both countries (Britain and Ireland) could have been spared the savagery that ensued over the following century.

What the encyclical said is if you are suffering an injustice, it does not give you the right to instigate or engage in public disorder against the lawful government of the day. Such action was condemned outright and was not left as a matter of opinion.

Peregrinus

Ireland was important to the Catholic Church internationally because official British attitudes to Catholicism were heavily influenced by its relationship with, and experience of, Irish Catholicism. Britain was a world power, and if Britain experienced Catholicism (in Ireland) as socially disruptive, radical, subversive of law and property rights, etc, then this was going to have international repurcussions - e.g. the treatment of Catholicism in Australia, Canada, etc, the opening up of British possessions in India and Africa to Catholic missionary efforts, etc.

Plus, the papacy was naturally politically conservative throughout the nineteenth century, largely in reaction to the horrors of the French Revolution.

tommy2bad

What the encyclical said is if you are suffering an injustice, it does not give you the right to instigate or engage in public disorder against the lawful government of the day. Such action was condemned outright and was not left as a matter of opinion.

Makes you wonder how we ended up such a Rome ruled country in the end, when the bastards were on the wrong side to begin with.