Role of the Catholic Church in the subjugation of the Irish

Fenian Army

Right, well most will already know when Henry II came to Ireland with his army in 1171 concerned with Strongbow claiming the ard-rí-ship he brought a Papal Legate with him who whom the clergy submitted to and they in turn convinced local Rí and chiefs to submit to Henry II.

Priests and clergy also encouraged the Irish to pledge loyalty to the English crown during the 1798 rebellion. (John Murphy famously changed his tune when he saw English barbarity first hand) In more recent times you had similar happening, "naming and shaming" from the pulpit.

In the centuries between the first two instances I mentioned did the catholic church always encourage submission to the English or did this change with the rise of protestant kings. Where there any instances of the Catholic Church as a whole, rather than heroic exceptions like Mr Murphy, encouraging rebellion against the horrific treatment suffered at the hands of the English?

robp

Fenian Army wrote: »

Right, well most will already know when Henry II came to Ireland with his army in 1171 concerned with Strongbow claiming the ard-rí-ship he brought a Papal Legate with him who whom the clergy submitted to and they in turn convinced local Rí and chiefs to submit to Henry II.

Priests and clergy also encouraged the Irish to pledge loyalty to the English crown during the 1798 rebellion. (John Murphy famously changed his tune when he saw English barbarity first hand) In more recent times you had similar happening, "naming and shaming" from the pulpit.

In the centuries between the first two instances I mentioned did the catholic church always encourage submission to the English or did this change with the rise of protestant kings. Where there any instances of the Catholic Church as a whole, rather than heroic exceptions like Mr Murphy, encouraging rebellion against the horrific treatment suffered at the hands of the English?

In 1580 the Vatican landed troops in kerry to support the second Desmond rebellion.

I will admit I have limited knowledge on these periods but I believe there is the issue of terminology here. Even now referring to the church as a monolithic entity is incorrect but in 1171 before the reformation it is even a more difficult term. Your dealing with very different clergies raised in different ecclesiastical climates, under utterly different civil governance and with contrasting relationships to the civil authorities. Senior English clerics may have supported Norman activity in Ireland but did their Irish counterparts feel the same way? The Vatican had far less interaction with ordinary people in these periods.

What would interest me would be the perceptions and loyalties amongst grassroots clergy. That kind of detail is not available of course.

There are many different sides to look at this topic. You could quite easily argue that if the religious distinction of Catholicism in Ireland was never created (vs protestantism) Irish nationalism would never have happened. if so Ireland could have stayed attached to the UK without any ambiguity to the present. So it just depends on whether you consider an independent Ireland 'subjugation' or the opposite.

Fenian Army

robp wrote: »

In 1580 the Vatican landed troops in kerry to support the second Desmond rebellion.

I will admit I have limited knowledge on these periods but I believe there is the issue of terminology here. Even now referring to the church as a monolithic entity is incorrect but in 1171 before the reformation it is even a more difficult term. Your dealing with very different clergies raised in different ecclesiastical climates, under utterly different civil governance and with contrasting relationships to the civil authorities. Senior English clerics may have supported Norman activity in Ireland but did their Irish counterparts feel the same way? The Vatican had far less interaction with ordinary people in these periods.

What would interest me would be the perceptions and loyalties amongst grassroots clergy. That kind of detail is not available of course.

There are many different sides to look at this topic. You could quite easily argue that if the religious distinction of Catholicism in Ireland was never created (vs protestantism) Irish nationalism would never have happened. if so Ireland could have stayed attached to the UK without any ambiguity to the present. So it just depends on whether you consider an independent Ireland 'subjugation' or the opposite.

I don't think you could "easily" make that argument at all, to represent Irish nationalism as religious reactionism. When Ireland was dominated by catholic monarchs rebellions/resistance still occurred.

But that is off topic.

Irish clerics did apparently feel the same way(or perhaps reluctantly bowed to papal authority), as they submitted to the papal legate who was a direct representative of the pope (appointed by him) carrying out his instructions. Thus I think it is fair to say that the catholic church directly involved itself in the invasion of the normans and supported the conquest.

Fenian Army

Thanks for the info regarding the vatican landing troops btw.

dubhthach

To be honest you cannot compare the situation in 1798 to earlier. Mainly as in Gaelic Ireland most people were at best "À la carte" Catholics. For example most marriages would have been civil because of the allowance of divorce. I recall one english text from the 16th century that claims that only 5% of marriage among the irish "gentry" of Munster was in a church. (Though it's assume he was exaggerating it still was a fairly low percentage).

Of course most clergy in Gaelic Ireland ended up taking "wives" and having children. There's some good examples in Nicholls "Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle Ages". For example:

Master John O'Grady, Archbishop of Cashel 1332-45, was the father of another John, Archbishop of Tuam 1365-71, who in turn was the father of a third John, Bishop of Elphin (d. 1417).

In general there were hereditary religous families. It was a very different system to what we now know as the Irish catholic church.

The modern Catholic Church that we all know in Ireland at moment in sense only comes into existance from late 18th century onwards. Of course the likes of Maynooth were setup with the permission of the Dublin castle administration, one of the conditions been that the language of instruction was english. There is also the fact that the church at this time was made up of the growing catholic middle/merchant classes, who of course were already (a) anglisced (b) potentially had a lot to loose in event of revolution

By way Strongbow never claimed the high-kingship. His claim was on the Kingdom of Leinster through the marriage of Aoife, however Henry II was never going to allow a subject (esepcially given bad blood between him and Strongbow as it existed) of his to claim a kingship, thence his arrival in Waterford in 1171 with an army so as to ensure Strongbow paid homage.

Fenian Army

Yes, and the previous King of Leinster claimed the high kingship and he would thus inherit that claim and there was concern that strongbow would perhaps act on that claim and not be confined to the territory already controlled.

Fenian Army

What about instances of the Pope getting involved, whether through his agents (i.e the legate) troops (as mentioned) or letters/encyclicals?

I also remember reading that the Pope "granted" Henry II dominion over Ireland?

Manach

Offhand historical speaking, I'd mention during Elizabethian times to support given by the Rome in keeping alive the sense of Catholic tradition and faith in spite of pressure being imposed by an active English presence to stamp out dissent in a conquered people.

robp

Fenian Army wrote: »

I don't think you could "easily" make that argument at all, to represent Irish nationalism as religious reactionism. When Ireland was dominated by catholic monarchs rebellions/resistance still occurred.

But that is off topic.

Prior to the reformation it was Gaelic aristocrats fighting to secure the position of their families. They certainly weren't fighting for Ireland. Its little different to what would have happened in Scotland and a lesser extent in Wales. Personally I don't know of any continuity between this and the Catholic and Nationalist rebellions.

I also remember reading that the Pope "granted" Henry II dominion over Ireland?

You are referring the to the Laudabiliter papal bull. The is alot of debate about the authenticity of this papal bull. The problem is no original copies survive.

To quote Fintan O'Toole

Henry did not refer to Laudabiliter when he landed near Waterford in 1171. It does not appear in the English or Vatican archives. It is not referred to in subsequent papal correspondence with Henry. Giraldus, moreover, was not averse to a spot of forgery: his book also contains a letter from Adrian’s successor as pope, Alexander III, that no one believes to be genuine.

The letter may be partly genuine. Its not clear. Remember though, the Pope who was supposed to have written this was Adrian IV. He was the only English Pope there ever was. Maybe there was a conflict of interests. Here is a good introduction.

Coles

Here's a letter from Pope Leo XIII, sent to the Archbishop of Dublin, 3rd January 1881, urging the Irish People not to upset their 'lawful rulers'. It clearly shows the role of the Catholic Church in subjugating the Irish People.

THE POPE ON THE IRISH LAND AGITATION. ,

Tho following letter, dated January 3, from the Pope,
has been sent by the Archbishop of Dublin, tho recipient, ,
to the Catholic clergy :

" Venerable Brother, health and Apostolic benediction.

We read with pleasure your letter addressed to the people
of tho diocese of Dublin, and presented to us by you when
you were in Rome, for in it we recognize your prudence
and moderation, since while Iroland is now deeply moved,
partly by a desire of better things, partly by fear of an
uncertain future, yon offer counsel admirably suited to the
occasion. The unhappy condition of Catholics in Ireland
disquiets and afflicts us, and we highly esteem their
virtue, sorely tried by adversity, not for a brief period only,
but for many centuries, for, with the greatest fortitude and
constancy, thoy preferred to endure every misfortune rather
than forsake the religion of their fathers or deviate even
in the slightest degree from their ancient fidelity to the
Apostolic See. Moreover, it is their singular glory,
extending down to the prosent time, that proofs
of all the other virtues were never wanting amongst them.

These reasons force us to love them with paternal benevo-
lence, and fervently to wish that the evils by which they
are afflicted may quickly be brought to an end. At the
same timo we unhesitatingly declare that it is their duty to
be caretully on their guard not to allow the fame of their
sterling and hereditary probity to be lessened, and not to
commit any rash act whereby they may seem to have cast
aside the obedience to their lawful rulers; and for this
reason, whenever Ireland was greatly excited in guarding
and defending her own interest, the Roman pontiffs con-
stantly endeavoured, by admonition and exhortation, to
allay the excited feelings, lest by a disregard of moderation
justice might be violated, or the cause, however right in
itself, might be forced by the influence of passion into the
flame of sedition. The counsels were always directed to the
end that the Catholics of Ireland should in all things follow
the Church as a guide and teacher, and thoroughly
conforming themselves to her precepts, they should re-
ject the allurements of pornicious doctrines. Thus the
Supreme Pontiff Gregorv XVI, on 12th March, 1839, on
15th October, 1844, through the Sacred Congregation of the
Propaganda, admonished tho Archbishop of Armagh to do
nothing except with justice and moderation and we, fol-
lowing the example of our predecessors took care on 1st
June last, as you are aware, to give all the bishops of
Ireland the salutary admonitions which the occasion de-
manded-namely, that tho Irish people should obey the
bishops, and in no way deviate from the sacredness of duty.
And a little later, in t'he month of November, we testified
to somo Irish bishops wbo had come to visit the tombs of
the apostles that we ardently desired every good gift for tho
people of Ireland but we also added that order should not
be disturbed. The manner of thinking and acting is
entirely conformable to the ordinances and laws of
the Church, and we have no doubt that it wtll conduce
to the interests of Ireland. If we have confidence in the
justice of the men who are placed at the head ot the State,
and who certainly, for the most part, have great practical
experience, combined with prudence, in civil affairs, Ireland
may obtain what she wants much more safely and readily
if only she adopts a course which the laws allow, and
avoids giving cause of offence.

Therefore, venerable
brother, let you and your colleagues in the episcopate direct
your efforts to the end that the people of Ireland, in this
anxious condition of affairs, do not transgress the bounds
of equity aud justice. We have assuredly received from
the bishops, the clergy, and the people of Ireland many
proofs of reverence and affection. If, now, in a willing
spirit they obey these counsels and our authority, as we are
certain they will, they may feel assured that they have
justified their own duty and completely satisfied us.

Finally, from our heart, we implore God to look down
propitiously on Ireland, and, in tho meantime, as a pledge
of heavenly gifts, we affectionately impart in the Lord the
Apostolic benediction to you, venerable brothor, to the
other bishops of Ireland, and to the entire clergy and
people.

"LEO XIII."

Link to source.

thecommietommy

robp wrote: »

In 1580 the Vatican landed troops in kerry to support the second Desmond rebellion.

Interesting, I done a Google on it but cannot fimd anything. Have you a link/reference ?

theholyghost

thecommietommy wrote: »

Interesting, I done a Google on it but cannot fimd anything. Have you a link/reference ?

Try Googling Dun an Oir or Smerwick, it is the famous massacre incident.

There was a lot of papal moral support for Hugh O'Neill later in the 1590s, he was named as the Catholic Champion and his war had some sort of status as a crusade.

But there was an important point further up that you can't really compare the sort of moral opressiveness of the new Catholicism that came to Ireland in the 19th Century with how things were in Medieval and early modern Ireland.

The Catholic Church tended to go with the status quo and not encourage people to rebel against the civil authorities even if those authorities were not Catholic. I suppose the church did not want to be responsible for too much civil unrest and bloodshed.

dubhthach

thecommietommy wrote: »

Interesting, I done a Google on it but cannot fimd anything. Have you a link/reference ?

google: dún an óir or Siege of Smerwick

The spanish and Italians were massacared after they surrended to the English forces. There is a folk memory of this perserved in that the field where they were beheaded is known as "Gort a Ghearradh" (filed of the cutting), whereas the field where the heads were buried is known as Gort na gCeann (field of the heads)

thecommietommy

Fenian Army wrote: »

Yes, and the previous King of Leinster claimed the high kingship and he would thus inherit that claim and there was concern that strongbow would perhaps act on that claim and not be confined to the territory already controlled.

Dermot McMurrough abdicated his title as King of Leinster when he ran away to Wales and had no authority on the matter.

thecommietommy

The Pope supported William of Orange at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 and also had many Catholic mercenary's in his army, something the orange order likes to ignore when they claim that " King Billy bait' the Pope at the Boyne "

http://goireland.about.com/od/historyculture/qt/boynebattlemyth.htm

Rebelheart

Fenian Army wrote: »

Right, well most will already know when Henry II came to Ireland with his army in 1171 concerned with Strongbow claiming the ard-rí-ship he brought a Papal Legate with him who whom the clergy submitted to and they in turn convinced local Rí and chiefs to submit to Henry II.

Priests and clergy also encouraged the Irish to pledge loyalty to the English crown during the 1798 rebellion. (John Murphy famously changed his tune when he saw English barbarity first hand) In more recent times you had similar happening, "naming and shaming" from the pulpit.

In the centuries between the first two instances I mentioned did the catholic church always encourage submission to the English or did this change with the rise of protestant kings. Where there any instances of the Catholic Church as a whole, rather than heroic exceptions like Mr Murphy, encouraging rebellion against the horrific treatment suffered at the hands of the English?

The Catholic Church is an ultramontane anti-Irish institution from at least the time they supported Britain's Act of Union of 1800 (they had been bought off 5 years previously when Maynooth was established or more accurately since the 1760s when the Vatican recognised the English monarch as legitimate ruler of Ireland - or to be more precise still, they had been bought off in 1155). Let's not beat around the bush about this power hungry institution.

If I were to choose a single person in all Irish history (yes, I include Gilbert, Devereux, Drake, Spenser, Cromwell and Thatcher) to hang upside down from a rat-infested pike it would be one Paul Cullen of Co. Kildare. Manipulating, cult creating, romanising bastard of all bastards. And that is being euphemistic about this individual.


Nobody in Irish history (except, of course, Daniel O'Connell) comes close to Cullen in the pro-British/anti-Irish stakes. While O'Connell was working hard to anglicise Irish politics and promote the English language, state and culture in Ireland from the 1820s on (well, from 1798 if we consider O'Connell's role in the yeomanry who used violence to suppress the native Irish forces of resistance in 1798, ach sin scéal eile because O'Connell apparently opposed violence to achieve his political aims! :rolleyes:), it was this Cullen guy who was overthrowing Irish relgious belief in a way even the Anglicans didn't manage to in the entire 16th century. They merely took the buildings. They did not effect a cultural change in religious practice among the Irish (read Patrick Corish, for instance, on the 18th century Catholic church).

Cullen, in sharp contrast, romanised religious beliefs in Ireland and abolished all remaining vestiges of Celtic Church Christianity within that Church. He used fear of hell and all sorts of superstitious ráiméis (much of which he was party to inventing!) to overthrow an entire religious culture and impose the foreign religious culture of the Vatican Church to which he subscribed. This, above all else, is what he stands indicted for. But how many Roman Catholics today are aware of how foreign their supposedly "Irish" Catholic church is compared to the pre-Cullen church? Without taking the argument too far, the 16th-century anglican "Church of Ireland", the Reformation Church, with its divorce and married ministers was more Irish than what Cullen introduced under the guise of "Irish Catholic" in the 19th century.

The supposedly native "Irish Catholic" religion we have been brought up with is overwhelmingly an invention of Cullen's ultramontane "Rome above all else" philosophy in the 19th century. Oh but try and tell your auld wan or granny that! It is that nonsense - Jesus, don't get me started on Cullen's role in the invention of the incredible doctrine of "papal infallibility" in 1868 - which has been handed down to people like John Charles McQuaid (another anti-Irish bastard, obviously).

And it is that "Rome above all else" ultramontane philosophy that is Cullen's legacy which explains the treason of the Irish-born bishops of the Roman church in Ireland who followed a 1997 letter from the Vatican instructing them not to report child abuse to the democratically-elected government of Ireland unless they were given permission by their foreign masters in the Vatican state. Oh, yeah, source here for those of you who missed that gem.

Their day is long up. It is only the presence of British rule, and a fundamentally misguided Irish notion that the Roman Church is on our side against the British, that has sustained them.

robp

I don’t want to be seen as apologising for that 1997 letter as it was wrong but there has been some exaggeration so I need to mention that never actually forbid Irish clerics from reporting abuse. This is off-topic of course.

In a post-catholic atmosphere, it might be convenient to divert all of Ireland’s historical maladies into two grand pillars: the British Empire and the Catholic Church. What is harder to stomach is that the views of 18-19th church typified a great amount of ordinary people and certainly a majority of educated people. Hindsight is a great thing and its easy to see that they were incorrect today. Yet, the reality is though, even their most British-friendly actions were moderate in the context of their day not extreme. I don't mean this as to condemn Irish independence movements. Extremeness can be at times necessary. Anyway for me history has validated the necessariness of this extremeness of these movements.

There is some drift into discussion of Celtic Christianity and the Pre-reformation Irish church. These are not the same things. I’d love to explore this topics in depth but perhaps it needs its own thread. This is a booming research area. I don’t know if there is a demand on boards.ie though.

robp

Fenian Army wrote: »

Right, well most will already know when Henry II came to Ireland with his army in 1171 concerned with Strongbow claiming the ard-rí-ship he brought a Papal Legate with him who whom the clergy submitted to and they in turn convinced local Rí and chiefs to submit to Henry II.

I am trying to increase my knowledge of this period. Could you give a source on this legate? As far as I can see the legate who met Henry was Christian [Gilla Críst Ua Connairche] bishop of Lismore. Presumably he was Irish. I can't find any information that clergy submitted to him. The important event here is the Synod of Cashel. We have no Irish sources regrettably. The main source is once again that Norman propagandist Giraldus Cambrensis and his book 'The Conquest of Ireland'.

I have heard the Cashel synod was partly a church reform. Apparently it also was about pushing English law on Ireland but it did not make Ireland "more Roman," because Irish brehon law had long absorbed Roman civil law and canon law. However, European driven church reform was already underway well before the synod or Norman activity here by the likes of Malachy bishop of Armagh (the Gregorian reforms).

poeticseraphim

It is a well substantiated fact that the Catholic church subjugated many people all over the world including the Irish.

It still does.